Forge a partnership among the local public sector agencies managing transportation operations along a multi-jurisdictional corridor and the private sector for deployment and integration of ITS.

Experiences from the Integrated Corridor Traffic Management project in Minnesota.

April 2000
Twin Cities,Minnesota,United States

Background (Show)

Lesson Learned

The Integrated Corridor Traffic Management (ICTM) project in Minnesota was technologically complex and institutionally challenging. The project's aim was to integrate traffic operations on a corridor along an 8-mile section of Interstate-494 with four parallel arterials and seven perpendicular arterial streets. The corridor spanned several jurisdictions. Prior to ICTM, each jurisdiction managed traffic operations within its boundaries on the corridor independently from the others, a practice that resulted in discontinuous traffic operations from one section to the next. To achieve the goals of the ICTM, the jurisdictions, the Mn/DOT and the FHWA formed a new partnership for the purpose of designing, deploying and managing an integrated suite of traffic control systems for coordinating traffic signals, ramp metering and incident response, as well as private sector partners. The members of the partnership are listed in the table below.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Hennepin County
City of Bloomington
City of Richfield
City of Edina
Skyline Products, Inc.
AWA Traffic System
Rennix Corporation
Traffic Control Corporation

The success of the ICTM is largely attributable to the effectiveness of the partnership. Key lessons learned from the ICTM experience on partnering include the following.
  • Develop an organizational structure for the partnership that establishes the decision-making process and clarifies agency roles and responsibilities. The ICTM partnership was led by a management committee and three working committees that addressed operations, evaluation and public relations (as shown below). A project manager designated by Mn/DOT chaired the managing committee, which was comprised of representatives from the public sector partners. The managing committee was responsible for the overall project and controlled the budget. The operations committee included traffic engineers and front-line operators who controlled signal timing, system configuration and maintenance. The evaluation committee was responsible for the design and implementation of the evaluation plan, and the public relations committee developed and implemented a motorist information and public relations plan. Members from each agency were represented in the working committees.
ICTM Management
Public Relations
  • Increase the effectiveness of the partnership by motivating the partners to contribute resources. The partnership encouraged the different jurisdictions to view transportation improvements in terms of the whole corridor, not just the sections within their boundaries. The shared vision of improving the entire corridor acted as an incentive for partners to contribute their resources to the ICTM project. The public partners shared financial and staff resources to collectively procure, deploy and manage ITS technology along the corridor and support maintenance and operation of the system.
  • Use the partnership to engage local residents and businesses. The public relations committee engaged the public by distributing information to the public, elected officials and community organizations on ICTM's purpose, expected outcomes and schedule. In addition, the members of the ICTM management committee had responsibility for mustering community support in their jurisdiction, due to their familiarity and involvement in local city councils.
  • Develop partnering agreements that allow flexibility in funding so that local agencies can make in-kind contributions. The partnership provided a strong funding base, which was a key element to the success of the project. Early on the management committee had established the goal of keeping the project within the allotted budget by reducing scope in the case of cost overruns. To support this goal, the partnership allowed partners could make in-kind contributions in lieu of cash through staffing and materials resources. When funding demands outpaced original expectations and resources of the local agencies, the agencies continued contributing to the project with other resources.

A groundbreaking concept in Minnesota, forging the partnership was the most significant benefit achieved in the ICTM project. The partnership continued its collaboration on improvement projects beyond the ICTM. Hallmarks of the partnership included trust, respect, good relationships and communications, ground rules, a common mission and shared vision, clearly delineated roles and responsibilities and a defined decision-making process, active participation, shared risks and responsibilities, and the active participation of key person from each agency in the project management process. Similar efforts to develop partnerships across jurisdictions for integration of ITS in other areas will gain from the experience of the ICTM, ultimately promote transportation goals of productivity, efficiency and customer satisfaction.

Lesson Comments

No comments posted to date

Comment on this Lesson

To comment on this lesson, fill in the information below and click on submit. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field. Your name and email address, if provided, will not be posted, but are to contact you, if needed to clarify your comments.


Integrated Corridor Traffic Management Final Evaluation Report


Published By: Minnesota Department of Transportation

Source Date: April 2000

EDL Number: 12863

URL: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/2892

Other Lessons From this Source

Lesson Contacts

Lesson Analyst:

Kathryn Wochinger
(202) 554-8107


Average User Rating

0 ( ratings)

Rate this Lesson

(click stars to rate)


Lesson of the Month for July, 2010 !




United States


CCTV, closed circuit television cameras, road monitoring, sensors, vehicle detector, traffic detection, traffic monitoring, congestion monitoring

Lesson ID: 2010-00532