Montgomery County Maryland I-270 Integrated Corridor Management Project

1. Montgomery County MarylandI-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