Build Smart, Build Steady: Winning Strategies for Building Integrated Corridor Management Over Time

Chapter 6. Overcoming ICM Challenges and Conclusions

This chapter provides conclusions and some cross-cutting observations related to responding to typical points of friction as capabilities mature from early-state concepts into late-state operational ICM deployments.

The over-arching goal of this primer is to help ICM stakeholders, regardless of ICM maturity, be successful in meeting their ICM goals. A successful use of this document is to follow the suggested, regular cadence of periodic engagement, data-driven performance management, to keep the ICM vision alive and active in the corridors where it can be of high value. Incorporating these relatively simple exercises with periodic interactions provides the ICM deployment with the flexibility to change tactics but stay true to shared vision, growing collective trust and engagement over time. Further, clear-eyed realism about revenue generation and willingness to consider the role of non-traditional ICM organizational models can be critical in ensuring the long-term sustainability of ICM deployments.

Top 10 ICM Challenges When Deploying ICM Over Time

This section covers a set of key ICM challenges observed when considering the set of ICM deployments (in various states of maturity) across the country. We have called out 10 specific challenges of note observed in one or more deployments. These issues are often difficult ones to solve with no easy solutions. Failure to address these challenges, however, can result in a loss of ICM momentum. For each of these challenges, we offer a suggested action to limit, mitigate, or overcome the challenge:

1. Getting an early ICM win. It may be hard to generate momentum/interest for ICM deployment if it is not clear (to the public or to key stakeholders) of where ICM can make a difference. Some stakeholders and the public may assume (incorrectly) that ICM is (in some form) already happening on a day-to-day basis.

   Suggested Action: Focus on the conditions that make it obvious that ICM has value — major incidents, special events, severe weather. Build the case where ICM is strongest. Be prepared to organize the coalition of the willing around one or more predictable corridor events and then implement limited forms of coordination that can be directly observable to have positive impact. Document these and ensure that other stakeholders and the public can see the proof of the value of coordinated corridor management activity. Building a portfolio of mostly qualitative examples can be a critical early boost for ICM.

2. Key stakeholder(s) will not participate. ICM Stakeholders are independent entities that are not responsible for corridor performance — only the performance of their aspect of the corridor. They understandably may not have overall corridor performance in mind and may be reluctant to engage. For example, there might be a jurisdiction that has a very different idea about what good looks like — e.g., slow down roadway traffic rather than speed it up along arterials even when there is a major incident.

   Suggested Action: Appeal to the notion that the corridor must be managed as whole under all conditions — sometimes it may indeed be appropriate that traffic is slowed, but in others we may need to focus on throughput. Note that everyone is in the same economic boat — and must work together to keep the region/corridor competitive.

3. Zero-sum mentality among stakeholders. This is a special case of #2 but writ broadly to include participation that is, in fact, obstructive or counter-productive. In some cases, there may be history among ICM stakeholders that does not support greater cooperation.

   Suggested Action: Good corridor management is win-win, not win-lose. ICM concepts should be built based on this adage, and the spirit of this goal must be realized in the financial and operational arrangements made among stakeholders. To the extent possible, utilize the set of operational conditions to focus on cases where good management clearly benefits everyone. Start ICM engagement with reluctant stakeholders in these scenarios and build forward after some initial trust has been gained.

4. No ICM owner results in no ICM momentum. There is no clear owner of an ICM system in traditional transportation systems operations. One result is that ICM is needed — otherwise there would be a clear entity responsible for corridor performance. The by-product of this situation is that ICM is often a side-element of each stakeholder's primary job description. Sometimes competing responsibilities can sideline or distract key ICM champions, making it hard to generate forward momentum towards a cohesive ICM goal.

   Suggested Action: Build a broader (number of organizations) and deeper (stakeholders within individual key organizations) ICM coalition of the willing. ICM deployment becomes risky if it is dependent on a small number of champions and their availability. In the end, a deep ICM bench reliant on deep engagement with ICM stakeholder agencies is preferred. There is still no system owner, however. That role is taken by collective ownership model (early and intermediate models) until advanced third-party models are considered for implementation. Even in these advanced models, the role of the management (collective or otherwise) may not conform to traditional notions of ownership — instead it is more like to take on a form closer to the concept of stewardship.

5. ICM benefits not clear on day-to-day basis. Operational conditions that are most unremarkable -- in that they conform to predictable patterns of demand, congestion development with limited disruptions — may be the most frequent routine conditions in a corridor. ICM deployments are likely to have limited impact in these conditions. ICM is most valuable when corridor conditions are remarkable — that is they deviate from expected norms. Most frequently remarkable conditions are related to surges (or drops) in travel demand, changes in travel demand patterns (e.g., start of school year in September), major incidents, and weather.

   Suggested Action: First, be clear with stakeholders, the public, and decision makers that ICM delivers highest value when corridor conditions are the most challenging. Second, show how these conditions may be infrequent but taken collectively may constitute as much as a third of all travel peak periods in a year. Seek to expand the conditions under which ICM strategies can be usefully triggered.

6. ICM value proposition may be difficult to demonstrate. System impacts are hard to show but costs pile up consistently. This may be the most significant barrier going from early lightweight models of ICM deployment to more complex (and costly) models. Related to #5 (above) but more specifically about the monetization of ICM value.

   Suggested Action: Improvements in travel time reliability and travel time predictability is often the most significant ICM impact. When travel time is more reliable and predictable, businesses can count on more frequent deliveries in locations along the corridor. More predictable congestion patterns are also highly valued for the quality of life for commuters and other frequent corridor travelers. Reliability impacts can be monetized — and should be at the heart of any discussion of the value of ICM.

7. Champion attrition. Distracted ICM champions (#4) is one concern. A more serious concern is considering what happens when key ICM champions depart — for new jobs, new challenges, or just to retire. If no succession planning is in place, the loss of one or more ICM champions may severely impact the viability of an early-stage ICM deployment.

   Suggested Action: A deep bench of ICM stakeholders is helpful in this situation, as described in #4, above. However, even more critical is to advance the ICM deployment maturity from person-to-person trust relationships to written agreements among stakeholder agencies. Organizations are more lasting than the careers of individuals. If there is a risk of becoming too dependent on a small number of champions, ensure that current organizational, technical, and operational agreements are in place and have the backing of the ICM stakeholder organizations (not just the individuals from these organizations).

8. Traditional revenue models are in decline. The ongoing cost of maintaining corridor management systems tend to rise over time, while the revenues accorded under current mechanisms (e.g., gas tax revenues) are often flat or in decline. Any shortfall (operational or capital) must be covered by general revenues, which is dependent on a broader political system weighing myriad competing priorities.

   Suggested Action: As discussed in Chapter 5, financial sustainability may be a strong motivator to consider a more transformative third-party model. These arrangements are far from a perfect solution; however, they are one option for consideration. This challenge is specific to the technical mechanisms that fund the system and its stakeholders --- not perception (see #9).

9. Public indifference. Related to #6, the story of why ICM matters and how it helps may not be clear to critical public audiences. Indifference to ICM (or lack of awareness) makes it difficult to justify enhancement or even maintenance of ICM deployments.

   Suggested Action: Ensure that resources are set aside to tell the story of why ICM matters, how it helps everyone who uses the corridor, and is linked to maintaining economic competitiveness in an increasingly demanding national economy. Combat indifference by being clear about performance goals, tell the truth when things go wrong, and show how enhanced ICM capabilities lead directly to tangible improvements (e.g., reduced delays).

10. Perception of ICM as paid-for capability. Related to traditional revenue models, this is related to decision-maker/public misunderstanding of what it takes to create and maintain transportation systems. Since there is often no direct link between revenue generation (gas purchases) and corridor performance, the uninformed notion that ICM infrastructure is a permanent capability requiring little or no maintenance may pervade public perception.

    Suggested Action: Try to focus attention on corridor performance and relate to the press and the public what ICM does to improve that performance. Further, when impacts are demonstrated do not shy away from pointing out ICM-related investments and the complexity of the implementation. This will both educate the public about the nature of ICM deployments and their benefits simultaneously.