Transcript No Slide Title

Columbus Metropolitan Signal
System Assessment & Strategic
Plan Development
ITS Mid-America/ITE Annual Meeting
September 8, 2003
Outline
History of Columbus Signal Systems
 Project Impetus/Opportunity
 Scope Development



Project Details



Information gathering
Technical / Operational Assessment
Institutional Assessment
Timeline
Importance of Coordinated Traffic
Signal Systems

Reduce congestion

Reduce accidents

Reduce aggressive driver behavior

Improve air quality/reduce fuel consumption

Postpone or eliminate the need for construction
of additional capacity
History: Columbus Metropolitan
Computerized Traffic Signal System

Original System




Dates back to the 1950’s
Captured federal dollars – civil defense funding
Utilized electromechanical controllers
Modifications to Original System







Improvements to CBD operations
TOPICS funds
Central control system
Coaxial cable interconnect and conduit
Closed circuit camera – funding
Set model for future deployment
System that the city can maintain on it’s own
History: Columbus Metro Signal
System (cont’d)


Continued system expansion as Columbus expanded
Innovative ideas – federal money for demonstration
project


Northland area monitored from downtown office
CMAQ funding to upgrade to a new central system
(Phases 1 - 6)




Monitor up to 1,000 signals
Update 1950’s electromechanical system
Update CBD
Began working with other jurisdictions
History: Columbus Metro Signal
System (cont’d)

Closed Loop Systems



Started in 1981
Put in with construction projects as surrounding areas
developed
Currently, limited coordination between closed loop
systems
History: Columbus Metro Signal
System (cont’d)
History: Columbus Metro Signal
System (cont’d)

Relationships built with other jurisdictions for design,
monitoring, maintenance and incident management










Bexley,
Franklin County,
Grandview Heights,
Marble Cliff,
ODOT,
OSU,
Reynoldsburg,
Upper Arlington,
Valleyview, and
Whitehall
What does the future hold for the
Columbus Metro Traffic Signal System?
Communications Infrastructure?
 Central Control System?
 Inter-jurisdictional collaboration?

National ITS Architecture
Final Rule / Policy
On January 8, 2001, FHWA issued an ITS
Architecture and Standards regulation and FTA
issued a parallel Policy. These two “policies” are
virtually identical in content.
 They both became effective April 8, 2001.
 The intent is to foster integration (and proper
consideration of integration) of ITS systems
being deployed in a region.

Regional ITS Architecture

Regional Architectures must be
maintained by the responsible
agencies (e.g. MORPC).

Areas with existing architectures
need to evaluate that architecture
and revise as necessary to be in
conformance with the Final
Rule/Policy.
MORPC Investment in the System
CM/AQ funds
 City design = local match


Spent


Phases 1 – 10 = $16.5 M
Programmed

Phases 11 – 14 = $11.3 M
MORPC/City Seizing an
Opportunity
Review compliance with the Regional ITS
Architecture
 Aim to contain cost overruns
 Aim to minimize constructions delays

Project Partners
Suburban Communities
Safety Forces
Information Gathering: How did we
get to where we are today?
Part 1: Awareness Assessment
 Part 2: Technical Oversight Committee
 Part 3: ITS Peer to Peer Exchange

Part 1:
Awareness Assessment Questions
Do you know what the Regional ITS Architecture
is?
 Do you know what the Columbus Computerized
Traffic Signal System is?
 Does your agency have a relationship with the
Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System?



Maintenance, monitoring, design, other?
Would you like to have a relationship with the
Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System?
Part 1:
Awareness Assessment Ques. (cont’d)
What works well?
 What could work better?
 What do you see as future
demands/expectations on signal systems?



5 years – 10 years – 15 years?
How will your organization interface with the
Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System
in the future?
Part 1:
Awareness Assessment Results

36% didn’t know what the ITS architecture was nor why
it is important

86% were aware of the Columbus Computerized Traffic
Signal System

64% currently had some sort of relationship with the
signal system (67% monitoring, 44% maintenance, 33%
design)

Some indicated they would like more of a relationship
with the system, but needed to learn how to do that
Part 1:
Awareness Assessment Results (cont’d)

What could work better?




Signal progression to meet the needs of the
community
Communications between staff and other non-city
stakeholders re: signal timing changes and
maintenance needs
Local access to data
Signal priority and pre-emption
Part 2:
Traffic Signal Oversight Committee
Quarterly meetings
 April 9th



July 1st


Kickoff meeting – overview of project/process
Stakeholder opportunity to review the RFP and
questionnaire
Next Meeting: October

Consultant kickoff meeting
Part 3:
ITS Peer to Peer Exchange

Intelligent Transportation Systems



Location: Columbus, OH
April 8th & 9th, 2003
Purpose: On site expertise for
stakeholder buy in
Part 3:
ITS Peer to Peer Exchange

MORPC sought an unbiased source
for traffic signal system advice and
expertise


Avoid consultant conflicts
Wanted to learn from those who had
similar problems as central Ohio



Older signal system technology
Signal technology not compliant with the
Regional ITS Architecture
Wanted to improve regional systems
integration at a reasonable cost
Part 3:
ID Peer Requirements









Be fluent in state-of-the-art signal technologies
Be fluent in older signal technologies
Relate how communities have migrated to newer technologies
without losing investment in existing systems
Explain why design philosophies are moving in the direction they
are
Explain the pros and cons of the various systems
suppliers/components
Be current on National ITS Architectural issues
Be current on emerging ITS standards
What will traffic systems be in 3 to 5 years? … in 8 to10 years?
Have experience with signal interfaces including transit, safety and
freeway management systems
…. the list goes on and on and on….
Part 3:
The Results - Two Perspectives

Colorado Springs, CO


Approach: Retro-fit an older signal system
Oakland County, MI

Approach: Start from scratch and build a new signal
system (SCATS)
MORPC FY 2004
Planning Work Program

Signal system assessment


similar to CMFMS Detailed Project Plan, saving
$40+M on build out of CMFMS
Evaluation of system and user perspectives

What works, what can work better?
Evaluation of emerging standards
 Evaluation of new “OTS” technology
 End product: a new design philosophy

What are the project details?

Technical & Operational Assessment


Consultant
Institutional Assessment

MORPC / signal stakeholders
RFP: Technical & Operational
Assessment

A survey of member agencies outlining their agency
standards and existing equipment types/manufacturers
in use for:




Traffic signal central control system(s)
Intersection controller to local master
Local master to central monitoring station
An evaluation of available traffic signal control systems
stating their relative advantages and disadvantages
RFP: Technical & Operational
Assessment (cont’d)

Consider suitability, existing examples of systems in use,
and NTCIP compliance of the evaluated systems for
implementation of interface to:





Signal priority systems
Signal preemption systems
Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System
Other agency signal systems
ITS systems proposed in the CORTRAN concept, including
advanced traveler information systems
RFP: Technical & Operational
Assessment (cont’d)

Qualitative assessment to determine ability to
communicate on a variety of media, including:









Twisted-pair telephone wire
Dial-up telephone connection
Fiber-optic cable
Coaxial cable
Spread-spectrum wireless
Other existing or emerging wireless technology
TCP/IP via cable modem over public utility ISP
Microwave
800/900 MHz
RFP: Technical & Operational
Assessment (cont’d)

Ability to provide access to the system to member
agencies

Tools included with the system software to optimize
signal timings (including signal sequences) for
intersections:




Included in the CTSS / other systems
In an off-line “planning” mode, a real-time or nearly real-time
mode
Operator-confirmed download of optimal timing to automatically
download
Playback intervals (e.g., historical account of signal
priority/preemption requests)
RFP: Technical & Operational
Assessment (cont’d)

System cost, including:






Implementation costs
Replacement costs
Operating costs
Maintenance costs
Training costs
Resources necessary to operate, including:


Operations staff
Communications
RFP: Technical & Operational
Assessment (cont’d)

Simplicity of implementation and use, including:



Fewest number of existing systems that need to be
modified
Possibility of partner agencies to have some level of
interaction with the system without changing their own
controllers, local masters, central system hardware,
central system software, etc.
Ability for a new operator to understand the system
RFP: Strategic Plan Development

The cost benefits of the preferred alternative

A “strategic plan” for the continued
expansion/utilization of the communications
network, to include recommendations for type
and location for the ultimate/preferred
communications network

A “strategic plan” for the upgrade of the central
computer system
RFP: Strategic Plan Development
(cont’d)

A “strategic plan” for prioritization between:




The addition of new intersections to the CTSS
The conversion of intersections already on the CTSS to new
technology
Modifications to corridors, clusters, other areas, etc., as
appropriate
A “strategic plan” for transitioning/coordinating between
existing systems and the recommended new system,
developing a plan that includes:



Cross-jurisdictional signal timing
Signal preemption systems for safety forces:
Signal priority systems for transit
RFP: Strategic Plan Development
(cont’d)

A “strategic plan” for becoming compliant with
the latest versions of the National ITS
Architecture and NTCIP standards addressing:



Applicability of standards,
Proposed status, and
How signal systems should achieve compliance with
these standards, related to:


Open architecture software
Communication protocols
RFP: Strategic Plan Development
(cont’d)

Develop Costs:



Implementation costs
Maintenance costs
Establish resource needs


Operations staff
Communications
RFP: Early Tasks (November 2003)

Evaluate the city of Columbus’s coaxial communications
systems to see whether its basic topology and
technology can be the basis for future expansion of the
system. The impact of this early task is to confirm that:



The Phase 11 signalization project can proceed as scheduled for
sale in January 2005
Design can begin on Phase 12 signalization project for sale in
January 2006
Or, identify easy-to-execute design changes to facilitate
the sale of Phase 11 signalization project and the design
of Phase 12 signalization project
MORPC Sub-Task (on-going)
Investigating Institutional Relationships
 “Sharing Responsibility in a Regional Traffic
Signal System”




Developed by oversight committee
Screened by local stakeholders and MORPC’s TAC
Will be administered to signal stakeholders in
October
MORPC Sub-Task:
Sample Questions

Will your agency participate in a cooperative
effort with other agencies to determine the
optimum intersection timing strategies,
coordination timing plans, etc., to balance stops
and delays in cross-jurisdictional corridors?




Signal Timing Related
Signal Interconnect Maintenance Related
Signal Equipment & Equipment Standards Related
Signal Equipment Maintenance Related
MORPC Sub-Task:
Sample Questions

Will your agency agree to a traffic signal timing plan that
minimizes CORRIDOR stops / delays irrespective of
“through-street” designation?

Will your jurisdiction accept coordination timing that is
based on a critical intersection in the corridor that is
outside your jurisdiction?

Are you willing to participate financially in proportion to
your benefit to keep the system (mostly software /
computers) running to enable signals to be coordinated
regionally?

Will your agency change existing signal equipment to
allow for regional signal coordination?
Timeline: When will we see results?

RFP Due Date: August 6, 2003

Selection: In process

Early Tasks Due: late November 2003

Project Duration: 12 months

Traffic Signal Oversight Committee Meetings

Quarterly, on-going
For Additional Information

Erika Witzke, project manager


[email protected]
614.233.4149
Eagan Foster, City of Columbus
 Mike Meeks, Franklin County Engineers Office
 Mark Nawrath, COTA
 Jim Buckson, FHWA
