Montgomery County Maryland I-270 Integrated Corridor Management Project

Tom Jacobs, University of Maryland

Center for Advanced Transportation Technology

2

Operational – Why our Site needs ICM

• Overview of Corridor Transportation Network Infrastructure– I-270 Interstate & Arterial Network– WMATA Metrorail Network– WMATA Metrobus Network

– Montgomery County DPWT Ride On Bus Network

– MTA Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC) Network

– MTA Commuter Bus (Hagerstown to Shady Grove)

3

Operational – Why our Site needs ICM

4

Operational – Why our Site needs ICM

• Summary of Operational Conditions– Primary commuting corridor for travelers within and outside of

Montgomery County.

• Existing systems are already operating at or near capacity.

• Operational Needs Identified in the areas of:– Multi-modal Incident Management– Traffic Signal Operations– Transit and Commuter Management– Traveler Information– Infrastructure

5

Operational – How ICM will help our Site

• Some key goals & objectives:– Optimize Mobility, Reliability, and Safety

• Improve travel predictability and reliability– Strengthen Corridor Level Decision Support

• Better data/info and tools for traveler and operations oriented decision making

– Enhance Delivery of Reliable Real-time Information to Travelers

• Expand types of information, improve timeliness and delivery

– Promote multi-modal system operations & use

6

Institutional – Who are our ICM Stakeholders

• Core Maryland I-270 ICM Stakeholders:– Maryland Department of Transportation

• Maryland State Highway Administration• Maryland Transit Administration

– Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation

– Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

7

Institutional – How our Site defined Roles and achieved Buy-in among ICM Stakeholders

• Created Maryland I-270 ICM Steering Committee Representing Core ICM Stakeholder Agencies– Deliberately kept to smaller (more manageable) number

• Used Existing Regional Institutional Infrastructure for Project Coordination & Outreach– Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Management,

Operations, and ITS Subcommittee– Regional Operations Coordination Committee

• Institutionalizing Through Existing Infrastructure– Recently Created Metropolitan Area Transportation Operations

(MATOC) Partnership

8

Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like

• Major Incident Scenario– Multi-vehicle crash

including commercial veh’s SB I-270 @ Shady Grove

• I-270 ICMS Role– Notification– Verification &

Information Updates– Decision Support

• Operations• Travelers

– Traveler Info – Post Incident Analysis

9

Technical – How our ICMS will facilitate ICM

• Maryland I-270 Overview / Highlights– Built on Existing Regional Integrated Transportation Information

System (RITIS) – New Systems / Subsystems & Interfaces Highlighted in Orange– Decision Support / Parking Management Subsystem / Systems

Critical to Ultimate Success of ICM– Real-time Freeway & Arterial Data Critical

• Looking at Third Party Data Thru INRIX– I-95CC Contract requires delivery of mean travel time and speed every 5

minutes for freeways and arterials

– Importance of getting real-time info to traveler via personal navigation devices cannot be underestimated

10

Lessons Learned

• Institutional– Incorporate / include existing institutional infrastructure as much as

possible– Embracing “multi-modal” approaches: desire is genuine, but easier said

than done

• Operational– Improved operational efficiencies can be limited by capacity constraints– Multi-modal operational approaches will impact existing SOPs

• Technical– Requirements development: balance between requirements specification

and design– External agency access to I-270 ICM data: different system development

schedules for incorporating auto-mated data exchange is a challenge