Transcript Document

ITS Sketch Planning Tool Webinar
2:00 – 4:00 PM
January 8, 2009
Value and Impacts of ITS





Important element of the
decision making process
ITS planning and
programming
Choice between ITS and
other alternatives
Understanding the
impacts/quantifying the
benefits
Optimizing existing system
operation and design
Evaluation Tool Purpose




Provides long-range assessment of the benefits
and costs associated with implementing ITS in a
region
Allows the users to assess deployment options
within the framework of the MPO adopted
FSUTMS models
Accumulates the benefits and costs over the lifecycle duration of each of the improvement types
selected by the user
Allows ranking of alternative improvements
Evaluation Approaches

“Goal-based” approach
• Does not compare expected benefit to the
expected cost dollar values

“Economic approach”
• Does not account for non-quantifiable
measures

Combination of approaches
IDAS



Powerful tool and used as a basis and a starting
point for this development
Evaluate a large number of ITS deployments
Limitations





Not consistent with the Florida calibrated models
Requires manipulation of FSUTMS output files for use
as inputs to the tool
Software design and GUI needs improvements
Methods and some parameters need to be updated
Not flexible to allow evaluating new ITS elements and
components, performance measures, etc.
FDOT Project

Develop a tool and methods to perform ITS
sketch planning evaluations as part of the
FSUTMS/Cube environment






No need for file conversion
Use calibrated regional models
Flexible and extendable evaluation environment
Up to date methods and parameters
Powerful data handling and modeling capabilities.
State-of-the-art user interface
A joint FDOT System Planning Office and FDOT
ITS Section effort.
Evaluated ITS Deployment














Ramp Metering
Incident Management Systems
Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) and Dynamic Message Signs
(DMS)
Advanced Travel Information Systems
HOT Lanes
Signal Control
Transit Vehicle Signal Priority
Emergency Vehicle Signal Priority
Monitoring and Management of Fixed Route Transit
Transit Information Systems
Transit Security systems
Transit electronic payment systems
Smart work zones
Road Weather Information Systems
Evaluation Tool
Benefit Dollar
Values
FS
U
TM
S
Mo
du
les
mo
ad
jus
lu
e va
r
U se
e va
ted
S
IT
de
pa
ld
ra m
natio
ion
luat
ata
-
be
ete
r e su
da
D
se
ta
rs
lts
p a ra
ne
fit
Be
fit
ne
a
ab
t
a
e rs
me t
Evaluate
ITS
Benefits and
Costs
co
st
-d
ata
ITS
C
os
td
ata
ba
se
Example

Combined Incident Management and
DMS/HAR Evaluation
IM Evaluation

Queuing analysis is used to calculate incident delays;
taking incident frequency, duration, lane blockage, and
traffic demand variations into consideration

Queuing theory equations implemented for different
periods of the day

Shift of fatalities to injuries as well as secondary incident
savings

Evaluation of emission and fuel consumption benefits
based on saving in vehicle-miles traveled in queues rather
than on default reduction factors
Evaluation Methodology
 Total delay for all the vehicles during one given type of
incident is determined by queuing analysis
 Multiplying the total delay per incident with number of
incidents yields the total annual incident delay
 The deployment of incident management reduces the
incident duration. The default value is based on I-95, I595, and I-75 in FDOT District 4.
Incident Type
Incident Rate
(No. of Incidents per MVMT)
Incident Duration
(Minutes)
Shoulder Blockage
1.2358
40.1
1-Lane Blockage
0.3555
33.2
2-Lane Blockage
0.1453
43.5
3-Lane Blockage
0.0768
65.7
4 or More-Lane Blockage
0.0384
80.6
4-11
Evaluation Methodology

Safety
 21% of fatalities is assumed to be shifted to injuries
with incident management, which is similar to IDAS
 2.8% reduction in total crash rate due to the reduction
in secondary incidents based on the study by Mitertek
Systems in San Antonio, Texas
4-12
Evaluation Methodology

Fuel Consumption and Emissions
 The calculation for scenarios with and without incident
management is based on the speeds of queued and
non-queued vehicles and the vehicle-miles in queue
 The average queue length is obtained by using the
queuing equation, which in turn is used to determine
vehicle-miles in queue
4-13
DMS/HAR Evaluation
 The evaluation of DMS and HAR is combined with
incident management instead of evaluating them
separately
 The activation of DMS and HAR causes route
diversions, which reduces the traffic volume on
mainline
 The increase in travel time for diverted vehicles is
determined by the difference in average travel time
along the mainline and that on alternative route(s)
taking into consideration the average v/c ratio on
alternative route and type of alternative route
Diversion Rate
Diversion Rate Studies

Stated preference up to 60
percent of the freeway traffic
to exit the freeway ahead of
the bottleneck

Lower values for revealed
preference

Function of a number of
factors


Diversion Rate Used in
Evaluation

“Boundedly Rational” switching
behavior
Relationship used by
Huchingson and Dudek
0.5
0.4
Diversion Rate

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Delay Savings (Minutes)
4-15
Evaluation Methodology

Road Ranger Service Patrol
 The savings are total annual costs of the services
provided by road ranger service patrol
Index
Service
COST per Activity
Activity Number
per Vehicle Mile per Year
1
Abandoned
$98.43
1.23
2
Assist FHP
$854.12
0.06
3
Debris
$35.00
0.56
4
Diesel
$38.00
0.01
5
Directions
$0.00
0.02
6
Dispatch Not Found
$0.00
0.66
7
Flat Tire
$35.00
2.79
8
Gas
$38.00
1.07
9
Jump
$35.00
0.27
10
Lock Out
$35.00
0.002
11
Minor Repair
$35.00
0.27
…
…
…
…
Example - Incident Management
Cost (1)

CCTV cameras
• 18,000 per assembly and 10,000 per pole
installed.
• One per mile. Covers both direction.
• 6 year life-time for assembly and 20 year
for pole
• Maintenance $3,500 per camera per year
Example - Incident Management
Cost (2)

Traffic Detectors
• $11,000 per location (assuming true-presence
microwave). $7,000 for the device (including
installation and fine-tuning) and $4,000 for the
pole.
• loop detector capital cost default value of about
5,000 per detection station location per two-lane
• O&M cost per microwave detector is $400 per year
and that of loop detectors is $600 per two lane per
location
• One every half mile – cover one direction only.
• Detector life is 5 years. Pole life is 10 years.
• User can specify other detectors but should provide
initial and O&M costs and life-time.
Example - Incident Management
Cost (3)

Service Patrol
• The number of service patrol vehicles per
beat, the area of coverage for each beat,
and the number of vehicles in different
shifts vary per location in an urban area.
• Based on data obtained from District 4, the
service patrol program in Broward County
costs about $2,500,000 per year and cover
57.8 miles of freeways (contracted).
• Thus, it is estimated that the cost of the
service patrol program is about $43,250
per mile per year.
Model Input

ITS Component
4-20
Model Input

Alternative Information
 Alternative letter
 Modeling year
 Working directory
4-21
Model Input

Parameters from Demand Model
 Auto occupancy
 Percentage of truck
trips in Truck_Taxi
trips
4-22
Model Input

Input for ITS Applications
 Analysis periods, days, and
volume factor for each period
 Type of incident management
(Six combinations for incident
management with or without
DMS and HAR)
4-23
Model Input
 Information type provided by DMS and HAR
4-24
Model Input

Deployment Location
 Indicate the links within the
coverage of incident
management by adding one
new attribute “IM” and assign
the value of 1 to this attribute
4-25
Model Input

Analysis parameters
 Incident information:
frequency, duration,
capacity reduction
 Accident rate
 Truck type and fuel
consumption rate
 Vehicle class percentage
and emission rate for CO,
HC, and NOx
Notes: Default values are provided, however, user can
modify it based on local conditions.
4-26
Model Input

Impact factors
 Diversion rate due to DMS
and HAR
 Fatality reduction rate and
crash reduction rate
4-27
Model Input

Impact factors (Con’t)
 Average trip length on the
mainline and on the
alternative route
 Percentage of diverted
vehicles using freeway
 Road ranger service patrol
activities and costs
4-28