5. ICM IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

• Executive Summary
• References
• Existing Corridor Scope and Operational Characteristics
• ICM System Concept of Operation
• ICM Implementation Issues
•  Appendixes 
• Notice/Quality Assurance Statement
• Technical Report Documentation Page
•  Full Table of Contents 

The I-880 ICM Team conducted a series of analysis to assess the technical and institutional feasibility of the candidate ICM strategies and to identify assets that will be needed implement and support these strategies. The technical feasibility and assets analyses were conducted through a functional analysis of the ICM system in the framework of the ITS architecture. The institutional framework has been established through consultation with the local stakeholders.

5.1 Functional Analysis

ICM strategies will be implemented through a series of existing and new functions. In order to evaluate the technical feasibility of the candidate ICM strategies, the I-880 ICM team's systems approach included a functional decomposition and functional analysis. The functional analysis provides a breakdown of the relevant transportation networks into individual functional elements, which gives a systematic view of how the existing ITS systems for the transportation networks along the I-880 corridor are configured functionally. It also helps to determine the functional capabilities that are needed to implement each of the ICM candidate strategies and whether these already exist or still need to be implemented. It further suggests how an ICM that implements the proposed strategies for the I-880 corridor should be architected and how the functions should be allocated.

The functional analysis establishes the foundation for asset assessment that maps functions to physical components, thereby ensuring that each function has an acknowledged owner and determining what new subsystems, devices or software integration are needed in order to implement the proposed ICM strategies. Because most of the functions are needed by more than one ICM strategy, the functional analysis helps determine how resources must be allocated for implementing the ICM strategies, considering stakeholders' priorities and budget constraints.

The detailed functional analysis is documented in Appendix F. Based on the functional analysis, new functions that are needed for ICM are identified, as shown in Table 5.1. It is important to note that most of the new functions are required by more than one candidate strategy. The fact that there are significant synergies among the candidate 880 ICM strategies indicates that the assessment of asset requirements and needs must be made across strategies rather than simply done for each individual strategy. The asset assessment based on functional analysis will provide higher fidelity cost estimates and better support for decisions on strategy selection.

TABLE 5.1 New Functions Required for ICM

F # *	New ICM Functions/Allocation	Strategies that the new ICM functions support	Status	Asset Requirements and Needs
A12	Arterial FasTrak readers (511)	1,2,3,5,8,11,12	Currently, there are no FasTrak readers along arterials. ICM team suggests to install FasTrak readers along major arterials along 880	Fastrak readers at every 5 miles along arterial
C21	Arterial Data Archiving (Caltrans/511)	1,2,3,5,6,8,11,12	Currently traffic data are not archived at Caltrans. However, communication link is available. ICM Team suggest to archive the arterial data.	Data may needs to be archived at both Caltrans and MTC. New data storage devices may be needed Data base software needs to be developed/modified to include arterial traffic data
D18	Incident detection (Caltrans/511)	1,2,3,5,10,11,12	Incident detection currently is done mainly by phone calls. ICM Team suggests to develop incident detection algorithms for real-time detection of incidents.	Primitive incident detection has been available at 511 (using speed threshold). Updated incident detection software is needed
D19	Collaborative Ramp Metering/Arterial Control (Caltrans)	5,6,11	This is a new function. It needs to be developed for ICM application.	Communication from arterial traffic masters to center and from ramp meter control box needs to be completed. New ramp metering/arterial coordination strategy and control software needs to be developed
D23	Arterial PeMs (Caltrans)	1,2,3,5,6,7,8,11	PATH has developed arterial PeMs. It needs to be improved and implemented for arterials along I-880 corridor.	Arterial PeMs software needs to be implemented.
D24	Travel Time Estimation (511)	1,2,3,5,10	Arterial travel time estimation is not available at this time. It is suggested that the travel time estimation is developed either using FasTrak readers or through Arterial PeMs.	Travel time estimation software for arterials needs to be developed and implemented on 511.
D25	Arterial Incident detection (Caltrans/511)	1,2,3,6,11,12,14	Arterial incident detection is also not available. It is desirable that such function can be developed.	Arterial incident detection software is not available and needs to be developed. This is being considered as a new development item.
D31	Transit Management (AC Transit)	2,3,8	AC Transit currently Transit Management System (ACS) needs to update its software in order to achieve functionalities required by ICM strategies.	AC Transit ACS software upgrade is needed.
D35	Bus travel time estimation (511)	1,2,4,9	Currently, AC Transit bus travel time estimation is available for bus stops through NextBus. It is desirable that bus travel time estimation is available for all buses at all stops.	Bus travel time estimation is for limited stops. Extension of this service to key bus stops along major arterials is needed.
D36	Connection protection (AC Transit)	3,4,9	Connection protection is done manually for special case only. It is desirable that a decision support tool is available to assist the transit operations.	AC Transit ACS system may have the rerouting function. AC Transit needs to investigate if such function is available.
D41	Travel info for trucks (Oakland Port)	10	Currently, no information is available.	A software synthesizes the estimated waiting time by Port of Oakland's ID system and travel time prediction along 880 needs to be developed.
E14	511 Web-based Multimodal trip planner (511)	1	Currently, automobile travel and Transit travel can be obtained separately. My 511 will be able to compare auto travel with transit travel. ICM Team recommends to develop a true multi-modal trip planner.	The following developments are needed: Real-time data feed from AC Transit, BART and Arterials Multimodal trip planner Friendly user-interface
E24	Arterial CMS (Caltrans/511)	2,3,7	Currently, there is no arterial CMS available. Arterial CMS will be needed for a number of strategies.	Arterial CMS needs to be installed in advanced at major diverging points
E31	Display @Bus Stops (AC Transit)	3,6,4,9,14	Currently, AC Transit has limited number of displays at bus stops.	AC needs to install next bus signs at major bus stops.
E42	CMS (Oakland Port)	10	Currently, there are no CMS signs for truck drivers. CMS signs will be needed before entering 880 corridor and at the exits of the Port.	Port of Oakland needs to install CMS signs at the Central Valley Freight center

*Note: Key for the Function Numbers:

A = Data Gathering   D = Processing   B = Receiving Data   C = Data Archiving   E = Interface with Users

In addition to the new ICM functions listed in Table 5.1, communication links among the different ITS systems are essential for implementing the ICM strategies. Both new ICM functions and the new communication links, mostly in the nature of integration, will be developed as part of the ICM program.

The I-880 ICM Team has done a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of these new ICM functions and believes that they are technically feasible. However, 'the devil is in the details'. The implementation of many of these functions requires multi-agency collaboration and involves changes to current operational approaches and protocols. There is a need for collaborative work on further detailed analysis and design to determine how each of the strategies can be implemented.

Note that, in addition to contributing to the ConOps development process, the functional analysis also serves a number of important roles in the remaining ICM program:

• In the requirements definition phase, functional analysis will serve as a basis for mapping functions to system requirements.
• The functional analysis provides the basis for the requirements allocation that guides the system implementation and testing.
• The functional analysis serves as a tool for traceability of the ICM strategies.

5.2 ICM New Asset Requirements and Needs

Following the functional analysis, and working with the stakeholders, the I-880 ICM Team conducted an assessment of ICM requirements and needs. Both the existing and new functions required to implement ICM strategies are mapped into assets (The detailed function to asset mapping table is too big to be included in the report). The right column of Table 5.1 identifies asset requirements and needs for the new ICM functions.

In addition to the new functions, communication links among ITS systems will be needed. Integration of functions and systems will be the major efforts. Again, this integration effort will be shared among multiple strategies.

Note that these new ICM functions will be mapped into the Bay Area ITS architecture at the implementation stage and will be implemented in accordance with the Bay Area Regional ITS Architecture, as discussed in Section 5.3.

The I-880 ICM stakeholders were anxious to understand the capital resource needs at each corresponding agency for implementation of the ICM strategies, so as to determine the financial feasibility of each strategy. Given the fact that the final performance and functional requirements will be developed in later stages of the ICM program, there are significant uncertainties regarding the costs for the development of each function and the integration work. However, the I-880 ICM Team made an estimate based on engineering judgment. Table 5.2 is the cost estimate per function/integration work.

TABLE 5.2 Preliminary Cost Estimate for New ICM Functions and Integration Work

F #	New ICM Functions/Allocation	Estimated Cost	Notes
A12	Arterial FasTrak readers (511)	$200 K	For a total 20 readers @ $10 K per location
C21	Arterial Data Archiving (Caltrans/511)	$100 K	For data storage and software development
D18	Incident detection (Caltrans/511) $200 K Software development D19 Collaborative Ramp Metering/Arterial Control (Caltrans)	$500 K	Development of strategies, control software and system
D23	Arterial PeMs (Caltrans)	$100 K	Software development
D24	Travel Time Estimation (511)	$100 K	Software development
D25	Arterial Incident detection (Caltrans/511)	$200 K	Software development
D31	Transit Management (AC Transit)	$2000 K	Software upgrade for ACS. Will be partially cost shared by other sources
D35	Bus travel time estimation (511)	$100k	Extension of the existing Next Bus or development of new estimation software
D36	Connection protection (AC Transit)	$0	Assume ACS already has this function
D41	Travel info for trucks (Oakland Port)	$100 K	Including hardware and software for performing this function
E14	511 Web-based Multimodal trip planner (511)	$350 K	Development of multimodal trip planner and user interface
E24	Arterial CMS (Caltrans/511)	$1250 K	5 CMS @ 250 K each, potentially cost- share item
E31	Display @Bus Stops (AC Transit)	$400k	Installation of new dynamic signs at major bus stops
E42	CMS (Oakland Port)	$250 K	One @$250 K
	Wireless comm. between signals and traffic control	$50 K	Comm. from traffic masters and central
	Communication among different centers	$200 K	Software drivers and data sharing capabilities
	Integration of various strategies	$1000 K	Software development, interface, etc.

Note that the capital costs are associated directly with the functions and the assets needed to implement the functions, not with the strategies. As Table 5.1 showed, each function supports multiple strategies and the function only needs to be implemented (and paid for) once. For example, Function A12, at an estimated cost of $200 K (Table 5.2), supports Strategies 1,2,3,5,8,11 and 12 (Table 5.1). That cost cannot be allocated intelligently to the individual strategies because it is required regardless of whether all seven of those strategies are implemented or only one is implemented. These significant synergies among the strategies are not recognized if the costing is estimated at the strategy level rather than the functional level.

5.3 Alignment with Regional ITS Architecture

The Bay Area ITS Architecture is a regional ITS planning document updated approximately every three years to match the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update cycle. The existing Architecture was completed in October 2004 and is currently being updated, with a scheduled completion date of November 2007.

The first approach to show consistency with the regional ITS Architecture is to find the project on the project inventory, which is maintained on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) website http://misc.mtc.ca.gov/ITS-inventory/stakeholders.html. The latest available inventory was completed in 2002.

If the project is not listed by name in the project inventory, it may still be consistent with the Architecture. The Architecture includes a list of "Potential Regional Bay Area ITS Projects" developed to represent the long-term needs of the region as identified by the stakeholders during the Architecture development, which can be found in Table 8 of the existing Architecture (See Appendix G). These are regional projects with a general description to represent many future ITS projects.

An ITS project is consistent with the Architecture if it matches one of the above project descriptions. The I-880 ICM project is not listed by name in the Architecture. The general project descriptions match some components of the I-880 ICM, but not all. The general project descriptions that best match the I-880 ICM include the following:

1. REG1 – Integrate the Caltrans Transportation Management System with other traffic management systems around the Bay Area region, as appropriate, to allow for coordinated operations and information sharing.
2. REG4 – Integrate transit operations/management system of the various transit operators in the Bay Area region with other transit and traffic management systems and centers.
3. TM2 – Expand and modify the functionality of the Caltrans Traffic Operations System (TOS).
4. TM7 – Deploy projects for interoperation and coordination at agency boundaries.
5. TI1 – Conduct projects to incorporate and integrate real-time transit information, roadway construction information, road weather information, arterial data, and other data sources in to 511.
6. EM3 – Conduct a project to develop system interconnect from the Bay Area Incident Response System to other Bay Area region systems/stakeholders.
7. EM4 – Implement emergency vehicle preemption in selected locations and along key corridors, as appropriate, throughout the Bay Area.

The ICM strategies that are not currently expressed in the Architecture are the ones that will integrate operations of different networks, for instance, integration of freeway and arterial operations. These integration strategies require new information flows and communication systems not currently found in the Architecture. Thus, the I-880 ICM project requires an update to the regional architecture. This can be done through the normal maintenance process by answering the following questions (see Appendix H for more details):

What stakeholders are involved? Are they all stakeholders listed in the Architecture?

For the I-880 ICM project, all stakeholders are included in the Architecture.

Which market packages does the project serve?

The I-880 ICM project may include the following market packages in the existing Architecture, depending on the ICM strategies implemented:

1. ATMS 1 – Network Surveillance
2. ATMS 2 – Probe Surveillance
3. ATMS 3 – Surface Street Control
4. ATMS 4 – Freeway Control
5. ATMS 6 – Traffic Information Dissemination
6. ATMS 7 – Regional Traffic Control
7. ATMS 8 – Incident Management Systems
8. APTS 1 – Transit Vehicle Tracking
9. APTS 5 – Transit Security
10. APTS 7 – Multi-modal Coordination
11. APTS 8 – Transit Traveler Information
12. EM 2 – Emergency Routing
13. EM 4 – Roadway Service Patrols
14. ATIS 1 – Broadcast Traveler Information
15. ATIS 4 – Dynamic Route Guidance
16. ATIS 6 – Integrated Transportation Management/Route Guidance
17. MC 01 – Maintenance and Construction Vehicle Tracking
18. MC 08 – Work Zone Management

What ITS Standards will be used?

This will be decided for the I-880 ICM project as planning and design progress.

What are the impacts on planned ITS projects?

This will be addressed as the project progresses.

The ICM project will coordinate with other planned ITS projects. The I-880 ICM project will need to be submitted for inclusion into the Regional ITS Architecture. Because the Architecture is currently being updated, it should be submitted as a "planned" ITS project (a project that is being planned in the next 10 years). If the I-880 ICM project is not submitted for inclusion into the Architecture during the appropriate period in the updating process, it can be submitted for inclusion during the maintenance of the Architecture.

5.4 Implementation Issues

To be a success, the management and operations within the I-880 ICM corridor should adopt a corridor perspective rather than a collection of individual stakeholders or agencies. In the existing situation, there is information sharing among various stakeholders, but the decision-making authority lies within the individual agencies. A well-defined dedicated institutional structure with defined processes, policies, and roles and responsibilities is needed to successfully operate the corridor as an integrated system. This section identifies I-880 ICM corridor technical and institutional issues related to the ICM system implementation.

5.4.1Technical Issues

Because ICM is built on the basis of the existing ITS systems with minimum new systems or components, the technical challenge will focus on cost effective communication among the existing ITS systems and the integration of the different systems. As part of the integration, as the existing ITS systems were not initially designed to serve ICM purposes, modifications and upgrading to the existing ITS systems may be needed. The stakeholders provided significant inputs regarding the technical challenges for the I-880 ICM, as captured below in the context of the strategies.

 

5.4.2 Institutional and Operational Issues

ICM has been welcomed by stakeholders along the I-880 corridor. However, there have been various institutional issues brought up by the stakeholders during the series of ICM workshops and meetings. The issues, concerns and recommendations from the stakeholders are summarized below by Strategy.

 

5.5 I-880 ICM Concept 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 along I-880 include multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The management and operations of the corridor and the ICMS 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 representatives 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 approval of operation plans and protocols. The ICMOC will be the consensus body to make decisions on coordination among different stakeholders and to help resolve issues encountered across agencies.

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 policy.

The I-880 ICM will be a distributed system. While all stakeholders along the I-880 corridor 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 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 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 agencies in order to facilitate the timely implementation of the protocols. When issues occur, 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 I-880 ICM corridor.

TABLE 5.3 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 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

I-880 Corridor ICM Operational Description

When the I-880 ICM is implemented, the enhanced information sharing and integrated network operations will allow each individual network to improve its own efficiency and effectiveness, while enabling the corridor as a whole to better adapt to changing conditions by managing its overall transportation supply and demand. To the users, ICM will provide efficient and reliable travel throughout the I-880 Corridor and the constituent networks, resulting in improved and more consistent trip travel times. Below is a conceptual operational description of the I-880 ICM. Note that this conceptual operation description is still under development.

It is envisioned by the I-880 ICM stakeholders that ICM will improve their operational efficiency and the proposed ICM strategies are intended to facilitate information sharing and support existing operations. Based on the existing condition and operation of the transportation systems, the I-880 corridor stakeholders decided that a physically centralized ICM control center would be very costly and not practical within the scope of the current ICM program. Instead, the proposed I-880 ICM 'control center' will be a virtual one. A key element of the virtual ICM control center is a centrally managed data repository allowing real-time data exchange among agencies. Communications, systems, and system networks will be integrated to support the virtual corridor information center. Voice, data, video, information, and control will be provided to all agencies based on the adopted protocols and standards for the sharing of information and the distribution of responsibilities. MTC's 511 system will support the virtual nature of the integrated information sharing and control functions.

New ICM functions, to be implemented based on the needs of the selected strategies, will be integrated into existing transportation systems. The operation of the ICM operational functions will be led by the operating agencies that have primary responsibility in today's operations. The control and related functions for specific strategies will be shared among the corridor agencies, coordinated by the lead agency. Table 5.4 defines the roles and responsibilities of I-880 stakeholders for each proposed strategy.

TABLE 5.4 Roles and Responsibilities Per Strategy

Strategies	Responsibilities
#1 A corridor-based pre-trip ATIS database Lead agency: MTC	Supporting agencies: Caltrans, Alameda CMA, AC Transit, BART, Port of Oakland, Water Transit Authority
#2 Promote route shifts between roadways via en-route traveler information device	Lead agency: Caltrans Supporting agencies: AC Transit for buses; BART for rail
#3 Promote modal shifts from roadways to transit via en-route traveler information devices	Lead agency: Caltrans Supporting agencies: AC Transit for buses; BART for rail
#4 Promote shifts between transit facilities via en-route traveler information devices	Lead agency: AC Transit Supporting agencies: BART
#5 Coordinated operation between freeway and arterial traffic signals	Lead agency: Caltrans (for state routes) Alameda CMA (for local streets) Supporting agencies: Cities
#6 Enhance arterial signal timing with advance information about special events at Coliseum	Lead agency: Caltrans (for state routes) Alameda CMA (for local streets) Supporting agencies: Cities and Oakland Coliseum
#7 Transit signal priority	Lead agency: Caltrans (for state routes) Alameda CMA (for local streets) Supporting agencies: AC Transit and Cities
#8 AC Transit adjusts operations based on real-time about incidents and special events	Lead agency: AC Transit Supporting agencies: MTC
#9 Transit hub connection protection for special events or major incidents	Lead agency: AC Transit Supporting agencies: BART, MTC #10 Port of Oakland advise trucks travel time based on real-time traffic information Lead agency: Port of Oakland Supporting agencies: Caltrans, MTC
#11 Signal pre-emption or "best route" for emergency vehicles	Lead agency: Caltrans (for state routes) Alameda CMA (for local streets) Supporting agencies: CHP, cities, paramedics
#12 Multi-agency or multi-network incident response teams and service patrols and training exercises	Lead agency: CHP for freeways Local Policy Agencies Supporting agencies: Caltrans, MTC, AC Transit, BART and Cities
#13 Coordinate scheduled maintenance and construction activities among corridor networks	Lead agency: Caltrans (for state routes) Alameda CMA (for local streets) Supporting agencies: All stakeholders
#14 Guidelines for construction work hours during emergencies or special events	Lead agency: Caltrans (for state routes) Alameda CMA (for local streets) Supporting agencies: All stakeholders

Performance measurement and monitoring will be performed using PeMs for freeways and arterials and by AC Transit and BART for their services. The lead operation officer identified by each agency will make reports to and be accountable to the ICMOC.

Traveler information (on 511, websites, CMS, and through the media and ISPs) will be corridor-based, providing information on corridor trip alternatives complete with current and predicted conditions. Travelers will access or be given real-time corridor information so they can plan or alter their trips in response to current or predicted conditions on any of the networks in the corridor.

Each traveler will be able to make route and modal shifts between networks easily due to integrated and real-time corridor information and coordinated operations between networks. Using one network or another will be dependent on the preferences of the traveler, and not the nuances of each network. Travelers will be able to educate themselves about the corridor so they can identify their optimal travel alternatives and obtain the necessary tools (e.g., smart card, available parking) to facilitate their use of corridor alternatives when conditions warrant.

5.7 Availability of Detailed Real-Time Data for Evaluation

Since 2004, the Robert E. Parsons Traffic and Transit Laboratory (PT2L) has started collecting detailed, high resolution, real-time traffic and transit data from a number of arterials, urban areas and transit systems for the Arterial and Highway Performance Measurement System (APeMS). Within the boundaries of the I-880 ICM corridor, the PT2L will soon start to collect second by second traffic and transit data from the East 14th Street corridor, covering 16 intersections in Oakland, 27 intersections in San Leandro, and 10 intersections in Hayward. These traffic data are signal status and loop detector data through frame relay communication, while the transit data are continuous vehicle location data from selected in-service buses through GPRS wireless communication. Caltrans has agreed to instrument additional intersections along International and Mission Blvd. in the next a few months. The completed data collection corridor will cover one entire major arterial in parallel to I-880. With PeMs data collected every 30 seconds, PT2L will be able collect high resolution freeway, major arterial and transit data, which establishes the foundation for detailed quantitative before-and –after evaluation of the I-880 ICM.

In addition to the detailed data, data management and analysis tools have been and are being developed for easy access to the data, data preprocessing and analysis. As shown in FIGURE 5.0 1, field data are managed and stored in a MySQL based traffic system database. The database structure design is shown in FIGURE 5.0 2. Around the central database, the data pre-processing tools, data mining tools, administration tools, and simulation interface tools are being developed.

FIGURE 5.0 1 Data Management and Analysis Tools Larger View - use back button to return.

(Source: PT²L APeMS)

FIGURE 5.0 2 Database Structure Transit Data Collection Larger View - use back button to return.

(Source: PT²L APeMS)

PT2L is collaborating with AC Transit to collect its transit system data. PT2L has installed its self-designed Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems on the whole fleet of buses on AC Transit's Rapid bus line. The second-by-second Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, vehicle speeds, and Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) for each bus are now continuously transmitted to the central database at PT2L.

Applying the Data for I-880 ICM System Evaluation

In order to quantify the improvements associated with the ICM implementation, before-and-after scenario comparisons for all the sub-systems, including the arterial and highway system, the freeway system, and the transit system, need to be performed. PT2L, with the detailed and ever-growing data source and the data processing and analysis tools, can support the comprehensive system evaluation.

For a fair and objective evaluation, a set of well defined Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) has been developed for each network, as discussed in Section 3.3.1. MOEs should be independent of the impact of local characteristics, should be quantifiable in the before-and-after condition, and should accommodate monitoring of the subject system. The MOEs that have been developed for APeMS arterial applications are shown in Table 5.5, and the transit MOEs are shown in Table 5.6. Methods have been developed for calculating these MOEs from the available raw data.

TABLE 5.5 MOEs for APeMS

Category / Stakeholders	Transit Vehicles	Transit Passengers
Reliability	(1) Percentage of on-time runs at timepoiny; (2) average arrival deviation at timepoint; (3)variance of arrival deviation at timepoint;(4) largest arrival deviation at timepoint; (5) variance of segment travel time; (6) Number of missed connections at transfer point; (7) Variance of total route travel time (results in reduced layover schedule)	(1) Number of missed connections (transfers) (2) average waiting time at bus stop
Travel Time/Speed	(1) Average travel time on segment and breakdown (dwelling time, intersection dealay and running time, etc); (3) average delay at prioritized intersection (signal delay and other delay) (4) number of stops at red	(1) Average person delay at intersections
Operating Cost	(1) Average fuel consumption; fleet size requirement; (3) number of operators	N.A.
Pollutant Emission	(1) Average Vehicle Emission (CO and NOx)	N.A.
Ridership	(1) Average passenger occupancy per bus; (2) number of passengers per mile	N.A.
Safety	(1) Number of accidents involving transit vehicles
TSP System Performance and Signal System	1) Frequency of TSP calls (cycle-based); 2) Frequency of TSP executions (cycle-based, early green, green extension and other operations respectively); 3) TSP successful rate (early green, green extension and other operations respectively; 4) Missed coordintaion steps; 5)Effects on bandwidth

TABLE 5.6 MOEs for Transit System

Category / Stakeholders	Transit Vehicles	Transit Passengers
Reliability	(1) Percentage of on-time runs at timepoiny; (2) average arrival deviation at timepoint; (3)variance of arrival deviation at timepoint;(4) largest arrival deviation at timepoint; (5) variance of segment travel time; (6) Number of missed connections at transfer point; (7) Variance of total route travel time (results in reduced layover schedule)	(1) Number of missed connections (transfers) (2) average waiting time at bus stop
Travel Time/Speed	(1) Average travel time on segment and breakdown (dwelling time, intersection dealay and running time, etc); (3) average delay at prioritized intersection (signal delay and other delay) (4) number of stops at red	(1) Average person delay at intersections
Operating Cost	(1) Average fuel consumption; fleet size requirement; (3) number of operators	N.A.
Pollutant Emission	(1) Average Vehicle Emission (CO and NOx)	N.A.
Ridership	(1) Average passenger occupancy per bus; (2) number of passengers per mile (3) occupancy vs. capacity	N.A.
Safety	(1) Number of accidents (involving transit vehicles)

5.8 Transferability of Lessons Learned from 880 ICM Implementation to Other Metropolitan Regions

The eight Pioneer Sites are not intended to be the only locations in the country to explore the opportunities for multimodal corridor integration, but are rather intended to lead the way for many other regions. In order to be useful as examples for others to follow, the Pioneer corridors should share best practices with other transportation professionals, so that the others can learn how to solve their own comparable problems.

In some ways, the I-880 corridor is already a national leader and could be considered to be so far ahead that it would be difficult for others to follow it effectively. One could look at its 5-1-1 traveler information service and its diversity of existing transportation services and conclude that very few other locations are comparable. However, this would be overlooking the serious challenges that confront the I-880 corridor and that make it an effective Pioneer from which others can learn.

The dominant challenge to corridor integration along I-880 is the fragmented institutional structure, which is probably one of the most difficult in the country, combined with a very politically active and engaged electorate. The rail and bus transit services are operated by independent agencies, each with its own elected Board of Directors. AC Transit serves two counties, while BART serves four counties, and their Boards therefore represent these different portions of the Bay Area. Caltrans is responsible for the operation of the I-880 freeway and a few parallel arterials, while the other arterials are under the responsibility of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and the cities in the corridor, which are very diverse in size, economic strength and political character. The regional MPO, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission provides capital funding for major projects and also has operational responsibility for the 5-1-1 system, bridge toll collection, the Freeway Service Patrol, and TransLink. If these highly diverse agencies can collaborate on integrated corridor management here, it should be possible to achieve such collaboration almost anywhere in the country, and even the regions with the most complicated institutional structures should be able to learn lessons from the experience along I-880.

The operational complexity of the I-880 corridor also means that it should be possible for many other regions to learn useful lessons from our experience. The range of operational challenges is so broad that most regions will have to address at least some of them, even if few will have to address all of them:

1. local bus transit, regional express bus, commuter rail and intercity rail services all operating in parallel and feeding passengers to each other;
2. large special-events venues (Oakland Coliseum and Arena) located adjacent to a major freeway and rail transit station;
3. regional airport (Oakland International) with a high volume of freight as well as passenger traffic, adjacent to the freeway and special-events venues;
4. major seaport (Port of Oakland), with very high volume of container traffic, adjacent to freeway and central business district;
5. location vulnerable to major natural disaster (earthquake on Hayward Fault) and therefore requiring serious emergency operations planning;
6. high level of traffic congestion, with essentially no excess capacity available on any modes in the corridor during peak periods;
7. major employment centers located just beyond both ends of the corridor (downtown Oakland to the north and San Jose/Silicon Valley to the south), attracting very high volumes of commuter traffic;
8. major transportation infrastructure development and refurbishment projects likely to introduce serious traffic disruptions in the near future;
9. electronic toll collection used on bridges adjoining the corridor;
10. geographic barriers (San Francisco Bay and East Bay Hills) seriously restricting transportation access across the corridor, to destinations to both the east and west sides.

The experiences of the I-880 corridor in integrating its multitude of transportation operations should be useful to regions that even have only one or two of the listed operational complexities.