Columbus Metropolitan Signal System Assessment

1
Columbus Metropolitan Signal System Assessment
Strategic Plan Development

• ITS Mid-America/ITE Annual Meeting
• September 8, 2003

2
Outline

• History of Columbus Signal Systems
• Project Impetus/Opportunity
• Scope Development
• Information gathering
• Project Details
• Technical / Operational Assessment
• Institutional Assessment
• Timeline

3
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

4
History Columbus Metropolitan Computerized
Traffic Signal System

• Original System
• Dates back to the 1950s
• 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 its own

5
History Columbus Metro Signal System (contd)

• 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 1950s electromechanical system
• Update CBD
• Began working with other jurisdictions

6
History Columbus Metro Signal System (contd)

• Closed Loop Systems
• Started in 1981
• Put in with construction projects as surrounding
  areas developed
• Currently, limited coordination between closed
  loop systems

7
History Columbus Metro Signal System (contd)
8
History Columbus Metro Signal System (contd)

• 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

9
What does the future hold for the Columbus Metro
Traffic Signal System?

• Communications Infrastructure?
• Central Control System?
• Inter-jurisdictional collaboration?

10
National ITS ArchitectureFinal 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.

11
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.

12
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

13
MORPC/City Seizing an Opportunity

• Review compliance with the Regional ITS
  Architecture
• Aim to contain cost overruns
• Aim to minimize constructions delays

14
Project Partners
Suburban Communities
Safety Forces
15
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

16
Part 1Awareness 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?

17
Part 1Awareness Assessment Ques. (contd)

• 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?

18
Part 1Awareness Assessment Results

• 36 didnt 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

19
Part 1Awareness Assessment Results (contd)

• 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

20
Part 2Traffic Signal Oversight Committee

• Quarterly meetings
• April 9th
• Kickoff meeting overview of project/process
• July 1st
• Stakeholder opportunity to review the RFP and
  questionnaire
• Next Meeting October
• Consultant kickoff meeting

21
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

22
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

23
Part 3ID 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.

24
Part 3The 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)

25
MORPC FY 2004Planning Work Program

• Signal system assessment
• similar to CMFMS Detailed Project Plan, saving
  40M 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

26
What are the project details?

• Technical Operational Assessment
• Consultant
• Institutional Assessment
• MORPC / signal stakeholders

27
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

28
RFP Technical Operational Assessment (contd)

• 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

29
RFP Technical Operational Assessment (contd)

• 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

30
RFP Technical Operational Assessment (contd)

• 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)

31
RFP Technical Operational Assessment (contd)

• System cost, including
• Implementation costs
• Replacement costs
• Operating costs
• Maintenance costs
• Training costs
• Resources necessary to operate, including
• Operations staff
• Communications

32
RFP Technical Operational Assessment (contd)

• 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

33
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

34
RFP Strategic Plan Development (contd)

• 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

35
RFP Strategic Plan Development (contd)

• 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

36
RFP Strategic Plan Development (contd)

• Develop Costs
• Implementation costs
• Maintenance costs
• Establish resource needs
• Operations staff
• Communications

37
RFP Early Tasks (November 2003)

• Evaluate the city of Columbuss 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

38
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 MORPCs TAC
• Will be administered to signal stakeholders in
  October

39
MORPC Sub-TaskSample 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

40
MORPC Sub-TaskSample 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?

41
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

42
For Additional Information

• Erika Witzke, project manager
• ewitzke_at_morpc.org
• 614.233.4149
• Eagan Foster, City of Columbus
• Mike Meeks, Franklin County Engineers Office
• Mark Nawrath, COTA
• Jim Buckson, FHWA