ITS - Intelligent Transportation Systems Report ITS Home Page
Table of Contents

1.     Introduction and Document Overview

The stakeholder agencies that operate transportation systems along the I-394 Corridor on the west side of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (TCMA)have decided to implement and operate an Integrated Corridor Management approach throughout the corridor. Together, the stakeholder agencies have defined a set of User Needs that must be met within the corridor.

A number of existing legacy Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)already exist and work to manage traffic and inform travelers of the I-394 Corridor. Because of the existing systems, some portions of the User Needs are already met; however none of the User Needs are completely satisfied by the existing systems.

In order to fully meet the User Needs and operate a truly integrated corridor management approach, the stakeholders of the I-394 Corridor have agreed to develop and operate an Integrated Corridor Management System (ICMS). The ICMS will function as a system of systems that incorporates a new system referred to as the ICMS Data Hub as well as enhancements to eleven (11) existing systems currently operated by a collection of State, County, and Local agencies.

This System Requirement Specification (SRS)defines the requirements for the I-394 Corridor ICMS. These requirements describe ‘what’ the ICMS will do to fulfill its role as part of the overall I-394 Integrated Corridor Management approach.

In some cases, the actions of the ICMS will require actions of other systems that are currently performed by the existing systems. In these circumstances, detailed functional requirements are not defined because the systems already exist and need not be built by this project. However, high level ‘External Requirements’ are identified describing these actions that the ICMS needs in order to function properly.

Key Terms Used in the SRS

Section 8 defines acronyms, abbreviations, and local definitions. However there are a few key terms used throughout the requirement definitions that are defined here in order to clarify any potential confusion:

Send Data – Send data is used to describe a data exchange where one system (System A) connects to a second system (System B) and (after handshaking) sends a message or data set. System B responds to verify if the message was received properly or not.

Receive Data – Receive data is the term used by a system that is waiting for other systems to send data. Using the example above, System B receives data. In order to receive data, a system must operate in a mode that is waiting all the time for other systems to connect and send data.

Post Data – A system posting data ‘publishes’ the data or message set in a location where other systems can come and collect the data. An XML post is a common form of data post. The data post can either be in a public location, such as the Internet; or in a secure location where only authorized systems may access it. For purposes of this ICMS, all data posts will be public posts.

Acquire Data – A system that acquires data follows a timed cycle to visit a location where data is posted and acquires the data. Unlike receiving data, the system must actively visit the post site and gather the data.

1.1    System Purpose

The transportation, transit and emergency services agencies that support the I-394 corridor have collectively decided to pursue an Integrated Corridor Management approach. Consequently, relationships, agreements and cooperation have already increased along the corridor. This was made obvious when a tanker truck recently overturned on the I-394 highway closing I-394 and I-94 for several hours on January 9, 2008. As a result of the procedures discussed and relationships developed, the response to the event was executed in a collaborative and efficient manner.

Nonetheless, the benefits realized by cooperation and relationships are limited. The tanker truck overturning in January confirmed what the I-394 stakeholders have been discussing for over 12 months, that there is a need to physically integrate their systems together such that the full spectrum of ICM benefits can be achieved.

This integration of systems and agencies will be accomplished by the design, development and implementation of the ICMS. The purpose of this system is to support the I-394 stakeholders at executing the Incident Corridor Management (ICM) strategies they have identified and prioritized for this corridor.

1.2    System Scope

Section 3 of this document presents the detailed requirements for the System of Systems for the I-394 ICMS. Section 4 presents the detailed system requirements for the individual systems of I-394 ICMS. Section 5 defines the Hardware Requirements, Section 6 describes the Interface Requirements, and Section 7 defines the Documentation and Training Requirements. Once a system is developed that meets these requirements, the I-394 ICM stakeholders will have the tools they need to effectively manage traffic on the I-394 corridor.

In order to put context to the requirements described in Section 4, the intent of this section is to describe the problems and needs that face the travelers and transportation professionals along the I-394 corridor.

Each requirement in Section 4 is derived from one or more corridor user needs. In the event that any discussion, debate, or clarification is needed on the requirements, the project team shall refer to the needs presented in this section and to the operational scenarios described in Section 2.

Table 1 presents the problems described for the I-394 corridor and the extracted needs of the ICMS.

Table 1: Summary of Corridor Problems and Needs
I-394 Corridor Problem Need of the ICMS
1. ICMS agencies performing traveler information dissemination are not alerted to every incident or unplanned transit service problems along the corridor. 1. Need for corridor wide status monitoring.

The delivery of comprehensive traveler information dissemination and the performance of traffic management relies upon the operators and automated systems having real-time status information about the corridor. This need therefore relies upon:

  • Notification of events;
  • Sharing of information among the various agencies

This need is for all agencies involved in ICM operations and information dissemination to have access to the descriptions of events (planned or unplanned), transit service delivery availability, and any other operational issues that will assist in management or be of value in disseminating to the traveling public.

2. Information exchange about incidents and service problems alone will not describe the impacts of the incidents across all routes and modes 2. Need for verification of incidents and impacts.

Reports of incidents and their impacts on the network need to be verified in order to allow information dissemination systems to properly describe current conditions. The verification may take the form of either verifying that an event or incident exists, or may involve the verification that the situation is impacting traffic in a way that merits dissemination to the public (and to determine what messages should be relayed).

3. There is currently no travel information available that describes an overall view of conditions (e.g. travel times, closures, delays) along all routes and modes 3. Need for overall view of conditions along all routes and modes.

Travelers need to be provided with an overall view and description of the conditions along all routes and modes of travel.

  • The information needs to be assembled from public and privates agencies.
  • The information needs to be provided to information dissemination systems operated by public and private agencies.
  • Some of the information may need to be generated automatically by systems (e.g. travel times) and some of the information may need to be entered by system operators.
4. Travelers are not able to access information about park-and-ride space availability at lots, and the lots are known to fill regularly. The travelers can not tell if transit is a viable option because they don’t know if they can park in a nearby lot. 4. The need to assemble and disseminate park-and-ride availability.

The ICMS needs to assemble and disseminate information to travelers about parking availability at various park-and-ride facilities. Travelers need this information to decide if transit is a viable option. This assembly of information will support traveler information systems dissemination of the information and ultimately will allow travelers to not only understand if transit is a viable option, but if they can park their car at a nearby lot and join the transit network.

5. Transportation operators throughout the corridor are not able to understand in real-time the demand placed on the corridor and which networks have excess capacity and which have limited capacity. 5. Need for a comprehensive view of available capacity and demand throughout the corridor.

In order to manage the corridor, the operators in the various agencies need a comprehensive view of the available capacity and demand along each route and mode of travel. This view of capacity and demand will allow transportation managers to manage traffic and provide travel information to spread demand across available capacity.

6. Many travelers do not consider transit as a viable option in their daily travel along the corridor because they lack information about transit options 6. The need to present modal and route options to travelers.

In order to promote as much inter-modal trips as appropriate for the corridor, the ICMS must present modal options as well as route options to travelers. This need reflects the fact that many travelers are unfamiliar with the bus routes, schedules, options for bike/bus trip combinations, and there is a need to include transit information whenever possible in traveler information reports. As a result of satisfying this need, it is hoped that the travelers will understand their options for transit, the benefits and drawbacks in selecting transit and be able to reach appropriate decisions.

7. Travelers are not fully utilizing transit because of perceptions or unfamiliarity. The lack of wider use of transit continues to place single occupant vehicle (SOV) demand on the corridor. 7. Need for Transit advantages.

In order that transit remains a viable option for travelers, the ICMS needs to provide advantages to transit vehicles and incentives to transit riders to encourage transit rides whenever possible.

8. Need for Transit incentives.

In order that demand for single occupant vehicle trips on the corridor may be reduced, the ICMS needs to provide incentives to travelers to consider transit whenever possible.

8. Travelers do not understand which routes and modes have excess capacity, at any given time. 9. Need for Dissemination of corridor-wide traveler information.

In order to allow travelers to self adjust their trips and smooth demand across available capacity, the ICMS needs to present travelers with information to inform them of travel times, incidents and other alerts along all routes and modes.

9. En-route travelers tend to stick to their original planned route, because of the lack of en-route information dissemination. 10. Need for access to information dissemination en-route.

In order that travelers may adjust their trips en-route or as they embark on their trips, the travelers need access at key locations to information directing them to the best routes or advising them to avoid problem areas. By providing access to en-route information, the ICMS will enable travelers to select their best alternatives, and the result will be a spreading of demand across capacity as appropriate for current conditions.

10. The city, county, state, and transit agencies do not have information about what the other organizations are doing to respond to incidents or recurring delays and congestion. This information would help the agencies respond in a manner that supports the entire corridor. 11. Need for inter-agency information exchange.

In order to support the most effective and efficient corridor-wide travel conditions, the ICMS traffic operations teams need to be informed of the activities that other agencies are performing to manage traffic and interact with the other agencies in formulating their responses. This need involves a sharing of knowledge about events as well as a sharing of strategies and activities being executed to actively manage events.

11. Reports of activities of other agencies alone will not describe the situation with enough detail to allow each respective agency to optimally manage travel. 12. Need for improved information about how other agencies are responding.

Operators need improved information about the current and planned response activities of the other agencies throughout the corridor.

  • Operators need a way verify the information and assess the impacts.
  • The relevant information about the incidents and events needs to be provided to traveler information dissemination systems.
12. Fire and police dispatchers and responders do not have information about incidents and events that other agencies are responding to and these other incidents often cause secondary incidents or impact the incident response they deliver on their respective roads. 13. Need for information exchange among emergency responders.

There is a need for information exchange among the fire and police dispatchers at the state, city, and county levels. This exchange of information will help manage incident sites more effectively and help prevent diversions from multiple incidents (on different streets) from overlapping each other.

13. The transportation agencies in the corridor lack information about incidents along arterials or the transit network.
14. Power or communication outages that impact one or more intersections can seriously impact the traffic flow along an entire corridor. Often, the agency responsible for the one intersection is different from the agencies operating (and relying on) the signals throughout the remainder of the corridor. 14. Need for infrastructure reliability and redundancy.

In order to not allow periodic power or communication outages at one isolated intersection to impact the flow along an entire route of travel, the ICMS must include infrastructure redundancy measures to increase reliability and prevent these impacts.

15. Special events often overlap the commute time and result in increased demand for transit or highway travel. 15. Need to provide temporary transit capacity increases and inform travelers of options.

In order to support special event traffic to maintain limited impact on the corridor, the ICMS needs to accommodate planned peaks in demand by offering temporary capacity expansions and informing travelers of options for travel.

16. Special event attendees are often not familiar with options for routes, modes of travel, and parking to reach their destinations. As a result, the optimal choices are not selected. 16. Need for special event transportation options.

Special event attendees need to be presented with information about options for routes, modes of travel, and parking.

17. The progression of travel along the corridor is not optimized. During incident conditions, the existing signal timing plans do not maximize the critical flow directions. 17. Need for efficient throughput of vehicles throughout the corridor.

The ICMS needs to promote efficient and consistent throughput of transit and single occupant vehicles throughout the corridor. Travelers rely on consistent commute times and experience wasted times when they must either leave early to accommodate large variations in travel time, or when they arrive late. There is a need to maintain a consistent situation of travel times throughout the corridor such that travelers can expect consistent conditions.

18. Transit vehicles accessing park-n-ride locations experience extensive delays, frustrating riders and impacting the on-time performance of vehicles.
19. The freeway systems operates at or near capacity during peak periods and therefore any slight peak in demand or restriction in capacity can cause operational breakdowns throughout the corridor.
20. If any portion of the ICMS malfunctions, incidents or operational problems will go undetected. 18. The need to monitor status of devices and systems.

Operators and automated systems will rely upon the data collected, exchanged and presented by the ICMS systems and devices. Therefore, in order to ensure reliable delivery of services, the ICMS needs to monitor the status of systems and devices, and report any malfunctions to appropriate agencies.

21. There is no agreed measure to determine how well the corridor is performing as a whole. 19. The need for corridor performance measures.

The transportation operators and managers need performance measures that can be used to determine how well the corridor is performing. All operators and agencies need to agree to these performance measures, and can be used to monitor the effectiveness of the control strategies.

1.3    I-394 Integrated Corridor Management Components

The I-394 ICM concept is described by four primary components:

Figure 1 illustrates the four components to the Minnesota I-394 ICM initiative.

Illustration of the four components of the Minnesota Interstate 394 Integrated Corridor Management Initiative

Figure 1: Four Primary Components of the I-394 ICM Initiative

Existing systems and field devices along the I-394 corridor are recognized as external requirements to the ICMS because ICMS requirements were created with the understanding that these external entities exist and will continue to exist. If the existing entities are removed or change in function or feature, this may cause impacts to the ICMS. Section 2.7 describes these external requirements. Detailed requirements for existing systems are not defined in Section 4 because they need not be built by this project.

Planned systems and devices funded by non-ICMS funds represent those devices or enhancements to existing devices that are planned and committed for deployment by state, city, or county agencies. These are also represented as external requirements because the ICMS requirements are being developed with the understanding that these entities will be deployed without the use of ICM funds. Section 2.7 describes these external requirements. Detailed requirements for existing systems are not defined in Section 4.

The ICMS includes new systems and enhancements to existing systems that are described by the detailed requirements defined in Section 4 of this document. The intention is to use ICM funds to develop and deploy the ICMS software and related field devices.

Partnerships, agreements and actions to support ICM have been defined to ensure that each agency understands their roles and commitments, as well as the roles and commitments of other agencies. Section 6 contains descriptions of these partnerships and procedures.

1.3.1 The Relationship between the ICMS and Other Systems

The business model of the I-394 ICM Project is to make use of existing or planned system and field devices to the extent possible. This approach will seek to benefit from any external systems that are already operational and have funded budgets for ongoing operations and maintenance.

The role of the ICMS will be to augment, enhance, and support these existing systems such that the vision of ICM can be accomplished. For example, the ICMS will not deploy a new 511 phone system, but rather enhance the existing Traffic Operations Center that operates the 511 phone system in order that it may disseminate additional ‘corridor-centric’ information using the existing phone system.

Figure 2 on the following page illustrates conceptually how the ICMS (depicted in yellow in the center) will augment, enhance and support nine existing systems (represented as blue boxes around the ICMS) to interface to a variety of field devices (both existing and planned for deployment). Collectively, all components shown in Figure 2 will comprise the ICM. The ICMS (depicted in yellow) will be described in detail throughout the remainder of this document.

Block Diagram of Integrated Corridor Management Components

Figure 2: Block Diagram of ICM Components

1.3.2 Existing Systems and Field Devices

There are currently a number of existing field devices and control systems that are in place on the corridor and will be key components to the overall ICM strategies. Table 2 describes these existing systems and indicates the agency committed to maintain these systems.

Table 2: Existing Field Devices and Control Systems within the ICM Corridor and Ownership/Maintenance of the Systems
Existing Field Devices and Control Systems within the ICM Corridor Ownership / Maintenance Provided by
A Traffic Operations Center (Traffic Operations) system including:
  • Complete I-394 surveillance coverage through Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras
  • Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) located at limited locations along Hwy 55
  • Full ramp meter coverage of all ramps in the corridor
  • A 511 phone and Internet information dissemination system
  • A condition reporting system; and
  • Traffic management center software
  • HOT Lane operating congestion pricing
 Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
A Metro Transit Control Center (MTCC) system including:
  • Bus monitoring with AVL and real-time reporting
  • Internet accessible transit trip planning system
  • Transit traveler information website and phone system
  • Bus performance monitoring and reporting system
  • Park-and-ride facilities along the corridor
 Metro Transit
Operational Commuter Transit Agencies operating:
  • Regular routes along the I-394 Corridor with no stops on the corridor (open option for routing around the corridor)
 SouthWest Transit & Plymouth Metrolink
The A,B,C Parking (ABC) Garage system at the termination of the corridor:
  • Ability to monitor ingress and egress of vehicles
  • Access directly to I-394
 Mn/DOT & City of Minneapolis (COM)
The Mn/DOT Arterial Signal Group (Mn/DOT-ASG) System, including:
  • Actuated signal controllers on State operated signals within the corridor
  • Communication to signals and ability to download signal timing plans remotely
 Mn/DOT
The City of Minneapolis Arterial Signal Group (COM-ASG) System, including:
  • Actuated signal controllers on City operated signals within the corridor
  • Communication to signals and ability to download signal timing plans remotely
  • DMS devices along arterials in the downtown with control from within the ASG
  • CCTV cameras located in the downtown with control from within the ASG
 City of Minneapolis
The Hennepin County Arterial Signal Group (HENN-ASG) System, including:
  • Actuated signal controllers on County operated signals within the corridor
  • Communication to signals and ability to download signal timing plans remotely
  • DMS devices along arterials and control from within the ASG
  • CCTV cameras with control from within the ASG
 Hennepin County (HENN)
The Minnesota State Patrol Emergency Management System (MSP-EMS) including:
  • A Computer Aided Dispatch system to log incidents and responses
  • Shared radio talk groups available to all responders along the corridor
  • Access to Mn/DOT live video feed in RTMC
  • Operators are collocated in the Mn/DOT RTMC
 Minnesota State Patrol (MSP)
The City of Minneapolis Emergency Management System (COM-EMS) including:
  • A Computer Aided Dispatch system to log incidents and responses
  • Shared radio talk groups available to all responders along the corridor
 City of Minneapolis
The Hennepin County Emergency Management System (HENN-EMS) including:
  • A Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system to log incidents and responses
  • Shared radio talk groups available to all responders along the corridor
 Hennepin County

1.3.3 Planned Systems and Field Devices

In addition to the existing systems and field devices along the I-394 Corridor, there have been a number of recent commitments to deploy and operate additional systems and field devices. Table 3 summarizes those deployments that are planned and committed by ICM member agencies, and identifies the agency committed to fund the initiative (additional details of these requirements, including planned deployment timeframes, are included in Section 5.

Table 3: Future Enhancements to Existing Systems and Ownership
Future Enhancements to Field Devices and Control Systems within the ICM Corridor Ownership / Maintenance Provided by
Funded enhancements to the Traffic Operations Center system include:
  • Deployment of freeway travel times on existing DMS on I-394 (scheduled in 2008);
  • Deployment of automated State Patrol CAD to Mn/DOT Regional Transportation Management Center (RTMC) exchange of incident reports (scheduled in 2008);
 Mn/DOT
Funded enhancements to the MTCC system include:
  • Deployment of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) at key intersections as prioritized by Metro Transit (scheduled in 2008);
  • Integration of transit arrival times and telephone interactive voice response system (scheduled in 2008); and
  • Predicted bus arrival and departure information displayed on the Internet (scheduled in 2008).
 Metro Transit
Funded enhancements to the SouthWest Transit Dispatch and Operations Center include:
  • Deployment of a computer aided dispatch (CAD) automated vehicle location (AVL) system
 SouthWest Transit
Funded enhancements to the ABC Garage system at the termination of the corridor include:
  • Deployment of DMS along I-394 specifically to display messages about parking availability in the A, B, or C garages (scheduled in 2009).
 City of Minneapolis
Funded enhancements to the Mn/DOT ASG System, include:
  • Advanced signal coordination and retiming of the 30 signals along TH 55 (scheduled in 2011);
  • Advanced signal coordination and retiming of the 23 signals along TH 7 (scheduled in 2011);
  • Advanced signal coordination and retiming of the 28 signalized intersections at junctions with I-394 (signals exist on North-South cross streets) (scheduled in 2011);
  • Deployment of approximately 44 CCTV cameras along Hwy 55 and Hwy 7 (scheduled in 2011); and
  • Deployment of 4 DMS along Hwy 55 and Hwy 7 (scheduled in 2011).
 Mn/DOT
Funded enhancements to the City of Minneapolis Arterial ASG System, include:
  • Next generation master signal controller for the City of Minneapolis (scheduled in 2009).
 City of Minneapolis

1.3.4 The ICMS

The ICMS is a system of systems to be deployed to accomplish those portions of the ICM vision not accomplished by existing or planned deployments. This section presents a high level summary of the ICMS, with detailed requirements presented in Section 4.

The majority of the ICMS deployments have been identified as Near-term ICMS deployments, to be developed and deployed in the initial 2 years. However, several ICMS components are identified as Medium-term deployments, to be deployed in 2-5 years from project onset. For purposes of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) initiative, the Near-term ICMS deployments would be included in the initial funding request; or funded by local matches. Figure 3 (on the following page) includes a block diagram of the ICMS subsystems and shows the connections between:

Block Diagram of the Integrated Corridor Management System subsystems and the connections between existing and planned systems and or devices.

Figure 3: Block Diagram of the ICMS Subsystems and Interconnects

1.3.4.1         ICMS High Level Summary – Near Term Components

The near term ICMS components will consist of the ICMS Data Hub (a new system), and enhancements to nine existing systems, summarized briefly as follows:

1.3.4.2         ICMS High Level Summary – Medium Term Components

The medium term ICMS components will consist of deployments planned to occur between two and five years from project onset. These are summarized briefly as follows:

1.3.5 Partnerships, agreements and procedures

The success of the I-394 Corridor ICM initiative relies on more than the hardware and software to be deployed and operated. A number of partnerships, agreements and procedures have been identified that will ensure that the systems and equipment are used properly and that the agencies work together to make best use of these systems.

In addition, two of the User Needs are not directly addressed by requirements in this SRS, these requirements (#14 and #19) relate to field equipment continuing to run without power supply and establishing common performance measures. Therefore, the first two agreements and procedures in this section specifically address User Needs #14 and #19.

The Need for Infrastructure Reliability and Redundancy
Several key intersections along the ICM corridor are prone to losing power to the signal controllers several times per year. In isolation, one signal without power is not a tremendous cause for alarm, however when the intersection is downstream of many other intersections along a primary commuter corridor, it is of great concern. The ICM initiative will cooperate together to deploy power backup systems at key corridor intersections in order to maintain as high a level of service as possible.

The Need for Common Accepted Performance Measures
User Need #19 relates to the need for common and accepted performance measures for how the corridor is performing. The ICMS will record, process and calculate data against formulas and equations, however there needs to be agreement on how ‘good performance’ is measured. Therefore, the ICM project partners will meet to reach consensus on performance measures that accurately reflect the performance of the corridor and can be measured adequately.

Coordinated Signal Timing Plans
During special events, major incidents, or other special circumstances, signal control operators may select to download signal timing plans to controllers on the I-394 Corridor. The ICMS-Data Hub will share information about what timing plans are implemented, however there is a need for each agency to have a set of pre-defined timing plans that are coordinated. This will help maintain coordination along routes that include both State and city signals. This will require cooperation as all agencies develop their special timing plans to synchronize cycle lengths and maintain coordination.

Debriefing of Major Events
The ICM strategies and use of the ICMS will be new to each agency. In order to develop the most effective use of the systems and devices, the agencies have agreed to conduct debriefings of major incidents with an emphasis on ICM. These debriefings will help each agency review how they used the ICMS, what impediments they had, and identify opportunities for improvement.

Regular Meetings of Emergency Management Groups
The ICM project development has increased dialog among the State, County, City emergency management providers and Mn/DOT. After the ICMS is implemented, this group intends to continue regular meetings (perhaps 2 per year) to maintain relationships and communication.

Regular Meetings of Arterial Signal Management
Mn/DOT, City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County traffic management groups meet regularly, however the groups have recognized a value in meeting specifically to discuss coordination and the use of the ICMS. Therefore, regular meetings are planned.

1.4    System (ICMS) Overview – Return on Investment

The block diagrams in Figures 2 and 3 represent the systems, field equipment, and communications to support ICM strategies along the I-394 Corridor. If these components were constructed from the ground up, with no existing systems, the costs for the I-394 Corridor alone would easily exceed $50 Million. However, the foundation of the ICM initiative is to leverage existing systems, and only build those technologies that are needed to integrate the systems together.

In addition, because of committed investments from Metro Transit, the City of Minneapolis Parking Garages, and Mn/DOT, many of the field devices needed to realize the vision of ICM are already planned for deployment using non-ICM funds.

Because of these existing systems and systems planned for deployment in the near-term, the I-394 Corridor ICMS need not perform all actions required by the ICM strategies, but rather will augment the existing systems and integrate existing systems together.

The I-394 Corridor ICMS will perform automated functions and enable operators to perform manual functions in order to execute the Integrated Corridor Management strategies identified for the corridor.

The following section introduces the one new system proposed to be created for the I-394 ICM initiative, and the eleven existing systems proposed to be enhanced by this initiative. The exact approach for enhancing the existing systems (e.g. whether new software systems are created or whether existing systems are modified) will be determined during the design phase. For the remainder of this SRS document, these enhancements to existing systems will be referred to as ‘systems’. For example, the enhancements to the ICMS Traffic Operations System is referred to as ‘ICMS-Traffic Operations System’.

The approach of modifying existing systems to the extent possible was a strategic decision by members of the corridor. Because each of these existing systems exists today and has a budget for ongoing operations and maintenance, this was determined to be the best opportunity to maintain operation of the overall ICMS (all 12 systems) indefinitely.

Previous | Next