Transcript Planting Seed Money for Work Zone ITS Applications Mainstreaming IWZ Systems in MN Marvin L.

Planting Seed Money for
Work Zone ITS Applications
Mainstreaming IWZ Systems in MN
Marvin L. Sohlo P.E., Work Zone Standards Engineer
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Presented at ATSSA National Conference & Expo – February 11, 2008
Presentation Topics
Education
Quality Control
Funding Issues
Education
What is a Work Zone ITS System?
 Identity Crisis:
 Smart Systems,
 ITS in Work Zones,
 Smart Construction Devices… etc.
 Minnesota: “Intelligent Work Zones”
IWZ Systems
What is a Work Zone ITS System?
Definition
A system of devices that provides
motorists, and/or workers,
“real-time” information
for improved mobility and safety
through a work zone.
Real Time
 “Current” information for making
immediate decisions – traffic/environmental
 Static vs. Dynamic Systems
Static Systems




Utilizes the motorist’s driving knowledge
Typical system of traffic control devices
Conventional or Electronic
24/7 with no change
Dynamic Systems
 Dynamic systems only supplement
existing Static Systems
 Automatically identifies less obvious or
confusing conditions or hazards
 Provides information immediately
 Appropriate message given
What is a Work Zone ITS System?
 Does IWZ only include new technology?
 What once was “new” is now commonplace:
 Traffic Signals (fixed time vs. traffic actuated)
 Flashing Arrow Panels
 Portable Changeable Message Signs
 They are now components in IWZ Systems
IWZ System Components






Detection (radar, sonic, optical, etc.)
Monitoring (quality, redundancies, etc.)
Communications (cell, wired, radio, etc.)
Analysis (algorithms, logic, procedures, etc.)
Management (databases, backup, etc.)
Information Delivery
(dynamic traffic control devices such as CMS,
broadcasting via radio or internet, and special
warnings such as alarms or lights)
What is Possible?
 Mix and Match
 Detection Components
 Analysis Methods
 Information Delivery
 Each combination leads to a new system
 Scenarios are endless
What is Possible?
Identify the Key Issues to be addressed:
 The underlining “cause” of an “issue”
 The “action” required
to mitigate “cause”
 The “best practice”
to generate “action”
Implement a Solution
What is Possible?
 Different issues surface for each project
 Congestion / Volumes / Vehicle Types
 Travel Time / Delay / Alternate Routes
 Duration / Short or Long Term / Incidents
 Geometry / Temporary Alignments
 Traffic Movements / Turns / Merges
 Hazards / Weather / Obstructions / Clearances
What is Possible?
 Each issue requires a different level of
information delivery importance
 Three Categories of IWZ Systems
 Conflict Warning
 Motorist or worker action required
 Traffic Control
 Commands / Instructions
 Traveler Information
 Background Information
What is Possible?
 Project’s issue/problem solvers need to
understand the possibilities available
 Field
 Office
 Minnesota IWZ Toolbox
Minnesota IWZ Toolbox
 Uniformity of terminology
 Listing of basic IWZ systems
 System informational sheet
 Typical Layout with
Design Considerations
 Warrants and Benefits
 Options and Precautions
 New Information will be added continuously
Terminology
 Dynamic vs. Changeable vs. Variable ?
 Speed Advisory vs. Advisory Speed Limit
vs. Work Zone Speed Limit?
Dynamic
Speed Advisory
Changeable
Speed Limit
Listing of IWZ Systems
 The systems that have been used
successfully within Minnesota,
 Other basic systems used outside
Minnesota that fall within the policies
and standards for Minnesota TTC, or
 Basic systems that “think outside the box”
 Not field tested, but sound engineering concept
 Field tested, but not studied or documented
System Information
 Minnesota IWZ Toolbox will collect basic
system information:
 Warrants
 Benefits
 System Design Guidance




Precautions
Alternate Solutions
Best Practices
Brainstorming Resource
Warrants
 Each system works best within “Ideal”
traffic parameters / conditions
 Systems deployed when conditions fall
outside “Ideal” may not perform as
anticipated
 No improvement in safety or mobility
 An economic waste
 “Ideal” can be defined with Warrants
Benefits
 Properly deployed systems should display
benefits to the motorists and/or workers




Reduced incidents or severity
Reduced delay times
Reduced driver frustration
Economic benefits


Contractors / Construction Costs
Motorists
 Most benefits are difficult
to quantify
System Design Guidance
 Generic Best Practices (best guess)




Typical
Typical
Typical
Typical
system layout (device placement)
warning messages
sign designs
multi-system combinations
System Design Guidance
 Alternate Solutions
 Device alternatives
 Static system layout
 Precautions
 All TTC plans shall meet MN MUTCD
standards without the addition of the IWZ
System.
 All devices shall meet MN MUTCD and
Qualified Products List standards and
qualifications.
Brainstorming Resource
 Designers may add IWZ into the project to
mitigate anticipated mobility and safety
issues
 Project Engineers may solve mobility and
safety issues during construction
 Contractors may increase their economical
and safe working conditions
Conflict Warning Systems







Trucks Entering
Trucks Exiting/ Crossing
Excessive Speed
Prepare to Stop
Work Space Intrusion
Over Dimension
Hazardous Roadway
Trucks Entering Warning
 Warrants
 Merging trucks must
accelerate in traffic lane.
 Merge location is obscured
to motorists.
 Small gaps in traffic.
 Benefits




Driver awareness
Fewer conflicts
Safer operations
Efficiency
Excessive Speed Warning
 Warrants
 Hazard requires reduced
speed to safely negotiate.
 Hazard is unexpected.
 Benefits
 Provides warning and
time/distance to slow.
Traffic Control Systems





Dynamic / Static Late Merge
Changeable Speed Limit
Dynamic Speed Display (Your Speed)
Dynamic Speed Advisory
Temporary Ramp Metering
Dynamic Speed Advisory
 TRB DOI 10.3141/2015-02
 Warrants
 Congestion Slowdowns
 Volumes not determined
 Benefits
 Improved thru-put by 7%
 Smoothed-out shockwave
 Speed differential
reduction 25-35%
 Reduced panic stops
Dynamic Late Merge
 Warrants
 1500 vehicles/hour
 Benefits
 Reduces queue 40%
 Removes lane speed
differentials
 Reduces confusion
Static Late Merge
 Signs or PCMS messages
on time-clock schedule
 Warrants
 Predictable sustained
volumes over 1500 v/h
 Benefits
 Same as DLMS
 LOWER COST
Traveler Information Systems




Travel Time Information
Travel Delay Information
Congestion Advisory Information
Route Management Information
Travel Time System
 Warrants
 Distance to destination
10 miles or less
 No traffic signals
 Benefits
 Informed decisions
 Reduced tempers
Travel Delay System
 Warrants
 Easily identifiable “location”
causing traffic delays
 Display should be placed
prior to the location
 Benefits
 Informed decisions
 Reduced tempers
 Only a prediction of the
added travel time (delay)
is needed
 Signals factored in
Quality Control
on
IWZ Systems
Quality Control
The Provider
The Project
The Penalties
Qualified Products List (QPL)
 All products found on a QPL have met
applicable product requirements
 Various lists include:
 Construction / Maintenance Materials
 Bridge / Environmental Materials
 Uniform Traffic Control Devices
 Signals, Lighting, Signs, Pavement Markings
 TTC Devices and IWZ System Providers
IWZ System Provider QPL
 Separate lists for each category
 Conflict Warning
 Traffic Control, and
 Traveler Information
 Two levels of qualification
 Provisional Approved and Fully Qualified
QPL Qualification Process
 Application with references




Previous types of systems deployed
Expertise of staff
Testimonials and Interviews
Must agree to the Qualification Process
 Review materials and references as they
apply to each of the 3 categories
 “Provisional Approval” if qualified
Provisional Approval on QPL
 Listed on QPL as “provisionally approved”
for each qualified category.
 Allowed to bid on projects with IWZ needs.
 IWZ Provider competes with any other
“Approved” IWZ Providers on the QPL.
 Upon successful bidding the IWZ Provider is
awarded the IWZ project.
 Generally, IWZ Provider is a subcontractor
Field Testing and Reviews
 Three stages of reports are required:
 Preliminary
 Periodic Interim
 Final Summary
 Performance Reviews
 Continuous quality reviews
Approval Process
 Successful completion of the IWZ project.
 Full IWZ System Provider approval status
on the QPL.
Project Expectations are Defined
 Projects with IWZ systems have:
 Temporary Traffic Control Plans
 IWZ System typical layouts
 IWZ System pay item
 Special Provisions for IWZ Pay Item
 “Who, What, Where, Why and How Good”
Special Provisions
 Who – require contact info
 Deployment & Calibration
 Maintenance
 Emergencies - Outages
 What – general system description
 Types of systems to be installed
 Equipment to be placed on project
 Where – general project location
Special Provisions
 Why – description of the GOALS of the
IWZ System deployment
 How – “how good” rather than “how”
 Minnesota specifies the IWZ system’s
tolerances, public information format,
and data reporting requirements.
 Performance Specs vs. Method Specs
Special Provisions
 Tolerances on Information Displayed
 +/- 1 minute during Non-Peak Traffic
 +/- 3 minutes during Peak Hour Traffic
 etc.
 Threshold / Event Triggers




Speeds measured below 20 mph = Congested
Speeds measured over 50 mph = Free Flow
Water level measured 1” deep on road
etc.
Special Provisions
 Messages to be displayed
 Various levels of messages
 Cautionary vs. Warning
 Allowable optional display methods
 Electronic (PCMS) vs. static signs with changeable
LED bricks, or static signs with flashing warning
lights, etc.
 Location of message displays
 Generally shown in the TTC plan
 Time of message display operation
 24/7 vs. during PM rush hours, etc.
Special Provisions
 Data reporting requirements including:




Event logs
Quality control reports
Problem/maintenance response logs
Details dependent upon system and needs
 Specific data protocols to transfer data for
other uses, such as:
 Mn/DOT’s internal algorithms
 Posting on Mn/DOT’s website, etc.
Not in the Special Provisions
 IWZ System provider determines:
 Number of sensors/detectors needed
 Type of system communications needed
 Algorithms needed to analyze the data
 Provider has latitude to utilize system
components that are “Cost Efficient”
Accurate, Reliable, Proven, Bullet-proof, etc.
Performance vs. Method Specs.
WHY? --- we want the end result!
 Technology is constantly changing
 Little or No interest in component details
 IWZ Provider needs to know:
 Limitations of various models/types
distances, power, obstacles, interferences, etc.
 Accuracy of various models/types
ranges, repeatability, tolerances, etc.
 Reliability of various models/types
compatibility, availability, interchangeability, etc.
Quality Assurance
 Field reviews of the systems
 Construction personnel observations
 District / Central Office reviews
 Motorist’s comments
 Quality Control Reports by the provider
 Operational Reports by the provider
 Raw data summaries if needed
The Penalties
 Poor or Non-Performance
 Daily / Hourly “Monetary Deductions”
are set in the Special Provisions.
 “Provisional Approval Status” in jeopardy
with non-successful project.
 Repeating Poor “Track Record” could cause
removal from IWZ QPL.
IWZ Funding
Issues
Funding IWZ Systems
Historically:
 IWZ systems are not FREE !!!
 Only on Large / High Profile Projects:
 Public awareness
 Funding sources are available
 Intuitively easy to justify without warrant
studies or B/C ratios due to high volumes,
complexity, duration, and/or congestion.
 Completed IWZ Systems are not studied for
economic and safety benefits.
Funding IWZ Systems
Recent Status:
 Funding for construction is drying up.
 Bells & Whistles are being dropped.
IWZ is considered fluff for designers and project
engineers who have never used them. Rural
areas have little experience with IWZ Systems.
 IWZ systems that are not “field proven” for
benefits are considered economically risky,
confusing and difficult to specify.
Funding IWZ Systems
Current Changes:
 Confidence in IWZ Systems
 MN IWZ Toolbox is collecting warrants and
benefits for each system
 Standard specifications are developed
 Traffic Office is working with the designers and
project engineers to develop special provisions
 Separate funding sources
 IWZ Seed Program was developed
 ITS Research Funding is looking at Work Zones
IWZ Seed Program
 State Funding for ITS programs statewide
controlled by Guidestar.
 Guidestar is a group of public, private and
educational partners dedicated to improving
and promoting ITS in MN.
 Guidestar dedicated a
portion of the ITS Program
funds for 3 years.
IWZ Seed Program
 $300,000 per fiscal year (est.)
 Started: July, 2007
Ends: June, 2010
 IWZ Committee approves projects
 Minnesota Guidestar member
 Construction Office members (2)
 Traffic Engineering Office members (2)
IWZ Seed Program
Guidelines were developed:
www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/workzone/
 Limitations on funding distribution:
 Districts may receive up to 100% funding on first
two IWZ systems
 Additional projects up 50% funding
 Committee may limit funding based upon:



Equitable distribution between Districts
Previous experience level with a system type
District’s previous experience with IWZ
Solve Existing Issues
 Identify needs for IWZ Systems on an
existing construction project. Projects could
benefit from systems such as:
 Earth moving jobs could utilize “trucks entering /
exiting / crossing” systems.
 Lane closures could utilize “dynamic late merge”
systems.
 Large congestion generating jobs could utilize
travel time / delay time / alternate route systems.
Solve Existing Issues
 Add the IWZ System to the existing const.
project via a Supplemental Agreement or
Work Order:
 IWZ description is written and approved.
 Negotiated cost is approved.
 Funds for the IWZ System are transferred to
the Construction Project.
Mitigate Future Issues
 Identify “Mobility or Safety” issues that could
be mitigated via the usage of an IWZ
System.
This is the ultimate goal of our
“Mainstreaming IWZ Program”
 Design the IWZ System’s plans and
specifications into the construction project.
Mitigate Future Issues
 To design IWZ Systems into a project
requires scoping, design/development, plans,
specifications and a cost estimate.
 Estimates are always necessary for the bidding
process, but within the Seeds Program, the cost
estimate is critical for the program’s budgeting.
 IWZ operational concepts are reviewed and
approved continuously from scoping to design.
 Estimated IWZ costs are approved.
 A maximum funding amount is assigned to the
IWZ pay item.
Add IWZ Capabilities
 IWZ components may be purchased for the District
for multiple usage
 Submit a proposal for the equipment’s usage and
include the cost for purchase.
 Funds are transferred to the District’s Scientific
Equipment Budget.
 Example: “Dynamic Speed Display Sign”
 Uniform in design, publicly and technically wellestablished, self-contained, easy to deploy, and used
frequently in maintenance or construction.
 Not economical to have an IWZ system provider
deploy the system.
IWZ Seed Funding to-date
 Excessive Speed Warning with a
Snow Plow Warning Message




S.A. on TH 10 - Detroit Lakes, MN
Multi-lane traffic diverted onto single lane
65 mph traffic slowing to 35 mph
Narrow curve with restricted sight-distance
IWZ Seed Funding to-date
 Retaining wall clearance
 Plows may cross centerline
 Messages activated
from within the plows
IWZ Seed Funding to-date
 Travel Delay Information, Stopped Traffic
Warning and Video Surveillance Service.
 TH 61 – Hastings, MN
 Restrict traffic to one lane
 Large delay times
 Delay times displays near
alternate river crossing
locations
IWZ Seed Funding to-date
 Delay times displayed near alternate route
choices to avoid the congestion within the city
 Large south bound traffic queues expected and
panic stops could be common during
construction
 RTMC and State Patrol will
monitor traffic visually for
incidents
IWZ Seed Funding to-date
 Dynamic Speed Display sign and
Speed Data Recorder Equipment
 TH 169 approach to the Minnesota River




Restricted to a single lane
Severe grades
Reduced speed limits
Speed monitoring devices
 before/after data
 assist in effective DSD sign placement.
 Proposed usage on several projects within
the District
Funding from ITS Research
“ITS During Major urban Reconstruction”
 Guidestar has contracted with a group
of ITS partners to study a deployment
concept for IWZ systems.
 Group consists of professionals in:




ITS engineering
IWZ deployment expertise
Equipment supplier
Temporary traffic
control expertise
 The group is anticipated to find
expedient methods to deploy
IWZ systems on the I-35W and
TH 62 Crosstown Commons
interchange project.
 Approx. $150,000 available
 Contract finalized Dec, 2007
 As a companion part of this project, an
independent 3rd party has been contracted to
review the processes and procedures followed
by the group.
 Approx. $50,000 available
 Will monitor the systems
for useful warrant and
benefit information
 To-date:
 Excessive Speed Warning System
 Tight narrow curve with
reduced speed limit
 Placement of Speed Detection Devices
 Data transmitted to Mn/DOT’s RTMC
 Travel Times computed for the corridor
 Times are displayed on permanent and PCMS
Questions
 More information available at:
 www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/workzone




MN IWZ Toolbox
IWZ Seed Program
IWZ QPL Qualification Process
ATSSA National Conference Presentation
 Contact Information:
 651-234-7380
 [email protected]