Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MIAMI VALLEY ITS
FinalITS Strategic Deployment Plan
Prepared by:
BRW, INC.
in association with:
BattelleCH2M HillLJB, Inc.
TEC Engineering, Inc.
Prepared for:
Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission40 West Fourth Street, Suite 400
Dayton, Ohio 45402
September 1997
ITS STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT PLAN TEAM
The Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan Team was led by the Miami Valley Regional PlanningCommission and consisted of a Policy Committee, Technical Committee and Consultant Team. ThePolicy Committee set the strategic direction for and coordinated all activities of the Strategic DeploymentPlan development effort. The Technical Committee participated in all major planning activities andreviewed all major work products of the Strategic Deployment Plan. The Consultant Team, undersupervision of the Policy and Technical Committees, prepared the Strategic Deployment Plan and allassociated documents.
POLICY COMMITTEE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
Ms. Nora E. LakeMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Ms. Anne HassounMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Scott GlumMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Don SpangMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission
Mr. Jim BucksonFHWA - Ohio Division
Mr. Larry HimesClark County-Springfield Transportation
Coordinating Committee
Mr. Kerry LawsonCity of Dayton
Mr. Dexter McMillanCity of Kettering
Mr. Michael MorrisOhio Department of Transportation, District 8
Butler TownshipCity of BeavercreekCity of CentervilleClark CountyCity of EnglewoodCity of FairbornGreene CountyHarrison TownshipCity of Huber HeightsJet ExpressLeague of Women VotersMiami CountyMiami County Community Action CouncilMiami-Liberty Cab CompanyMiami TownshipMiami Valley Regional Transit AuthorityMontgomery CountyOhio Bicycle FederationCity of PiquaCity of SpringfieldSpringfield Bus CompanyCity of TroyCity of VandaliaWashington TownshipCity of West CarrolltonCity of Xenia
CONSULTANT TEAMMr. George SaylorOhio Department of Transportation, Central
Mr. Phil Stormer
BRW, Inc. (prime consultant)Battelle Memorial InstituteCH2M Hill
Ohio Department of Transportation, District 7 Lockwood, Jones & Beals, Inc.TEC Engineering, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . S-l
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-1
1.1 Origin of the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - l1.2 SDP Teamm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - l1.3 FHWA ITS Deployment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-51.4 Development of the SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-51.5 Accompanying Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-91.6 Vision, Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-9
OPPORTUNITIES AND DEFICIENCIES ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l
2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12.2 Qualitative Assessment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l2.3 Quantitative Assessment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
USER SERVICE PRIORITIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-l
3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-l3.2 Problem Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.3 User Service Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.4 Overriding Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.5 ITS Strategies/Project Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-l
4.14.2
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-lSummary of Selected Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-l
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND COMMUNITIES CONCEPT PLAN . . . . . . . . . 5-l
5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l5.2 Background Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l5.3 Communication Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l5.4 Recommended Architectures by Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Miami Valley ITS#24542 i
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
6.0 PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-l
6.16.26.3
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-1Project and Program Area Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1Project Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4Program Area 1: Freeway/Incident Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5Program Area 2: Advanced Traffic Signal Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-51Program Area 3: Public Transportation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-79Program Area 4: Multimodal Traveler Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-101Program Area 5: Public-Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-l 25Program Area 6: Technical and Planning Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-137
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-l7.2 Regional Deployment Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17.3 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-37.4 Schedule.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-77.5 Funding Sources and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-77.6 Project Programming Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-407.7 Contracting and Procurement Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-46
8.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-l
8.18.28.38.48.5
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-lBackground Informationn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1Overview of Benefits by Priority User Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8Benefits-Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22References Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32
9.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-l
9.19.29.3
Management Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-lResponsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3Non-Technical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8
APPENDIX
Typical ITS System Features
Miami Valley ITS#24542 ii
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
-
-
-
z-
i
-
1\
--
LIST OF FIGURES
-J
6
G1
,.-’
-
_
S-l
S-2
l- l
1-2
2-l
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
5-l
5-2
5-3
6-1
6-2
6-3
Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S - - 3
Proposed ITS Program Management Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-7
Study Areaa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-3
FHWA ITS Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-6
Freeway/Interstate Segments Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Freeway/Interstate Issues: Clark County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19
Freeway/Interstate Issues: Greene County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Freeway/Interstate Issues: Miami County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Freeway/Interstate Issues: Montgomery County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
Arterial Street Corridors Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Arterial Street Issues: Clark County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Arterial Street Issues: Greene County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Arterial Street Issues: Miami County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35
Arterial Street Issues: Montgomery County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
High Level Architecture: Immediate Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
High Level Architecture: Short-Term Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
High Level Architecture: Mid-Long Term Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
Freeway/Incident Management System Status:End of Year 2 (Immediate Term) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
Freeway/Incident Management System Status:End of Year 5 (Short-Term)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Freeway/Incident Management System Status:End of Year 10 (Mid-Term) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
Miami Valley ITS#24542
. . .111
Final ITS Strategic DepIoyment PlanSeptember 1997
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
6-4 Freeway/Incident Management System Status:EndofYear20(Long-Term).......................................................... . 6-11
6-5 Freeway Service Patrols Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
6-6 Freeway Detection System Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18
6-7 Freeway CCTV Camera Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21
6-8 Freeway Enhanced Reference Marking Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . 6-24
6-9 Freeway Proposed Implementation Phasing Changeable Message Signs . . . . . . . . . . 6-27
6- 10 Incident Management Program Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43
6-11 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Clark County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-59
6-12 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Greene County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-61
6-13 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Miami County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-63
6-14 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Montgomery County . . . . . . . . . 6-65
. 6-l5 Central Data Server Inputs and Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-108
7-l
7-2
Individual ITS System Deployment Process Suggestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
Major (>$l Million) Committed Freeway Construction Projects (SFY 1998-2001)Located Within Recommended ITS Capital Project Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-45
- -
r-
e
.-
9-l Miami Valley ITS Program Management Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
Miami Valley ITS#24542 iv
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
LIST OF TABLES
s. l
s.2
1.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
3.1
3.2
3.3
Summary of Overall Program Costs and Benefits (Years 1-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-5
Summary of Year l-5 Implementation and Operating and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . S-6
Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12
User Needs Survey - Problem Area Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
User Needs Survey - Top Five Problems Frequency of Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
User Needs Survey - User Need Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
User Needs Survey - ITS Project/Program Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Agency Interviews - Reported Problem Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Agency Interviews - Suggested Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Outreach Workshop - Reported Problem Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Outreach Workshop - Suggested Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l1
Freeway/Interstate Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l 5
Summary of Regional Freeway/Interstate Design Deficiencies Assessment . . . . . . . . 2-17
Summary of Freeway/Interstate Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l 8
Arterial Street Intersection Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
Local Traffic Engineering Arterial Street Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Summary of Arterial Street Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39
Problem Priorities - Workshop Intensive: January 28-29,1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
User Service Priorities - Workshop Intensive: January 28-29,1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
ITS Strategies/Project Concepts Prioritization - Workshop Intensive:January28-29,1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Miami Valley ITS#24542 V
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) -~
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
6.1
6.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5.1
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.10
7.11
7.12
Summary of Information for Non-Intrusive Traffic Detection Technologies 4-2 :-. . . . . . . .
Detector Types, Summary Data Types and Mounting Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Ll
Comparison of Detector Technologies Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 I.-
Summary of Cable Type Communications Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 ;-_
Variable Message Sign - Product - Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
CATV Communications Option - Commercially Owned FacilitiesAdvantages/Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 4-7
Traffic Signal System Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-55
Summary of Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-68
Freeway/Incident Management System Costing Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
Advanced Traffic Signal Control System Costing Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
Phase I and II (Years l-5) Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements . . . . . . . 7-6
Miami Valley ITS - Conceptual Implementation Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
Summary of Year 1-5 Miami Valley ITS - Conceptual Implementation Costs . . . . . . 7-20
Conceptual Implementation Cost by Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-23
Estimated Annual Public Agency Labor Requirements in Full-Time Equivalents 7-24 ... . .
Miami Valley ITS Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-25
Fiscal Year 1998 Transportation Funding (in Thousands) 7-31 /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Federal Funding Source Applicability by Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-36‘e -7.
ODOT “Major New” Project Selection Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-37 ___
Fiscal Year 1998 Transportation Funding (in Thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-39
Freeway/Incident Management Project Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 1
Miami Valley ITS#24542 v i
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997 -.
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.13
8.14
8.15
8.16
8.17
8.18
9.1
9.2
Emission Quantities from Stopped Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
Annual Cost Quantities for Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
Miami Valley Region Daily Person Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
Miami Valley Region Average Trip Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
Miami Valley Region Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
Miami Valley Region Highway Accident Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
User Service Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
Traffic Signal Control Systems Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
Typical National Incident Management Program Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
Delay Savings Due to Video Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12
Driver Information System Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14
Vehicle Management System Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16
Pre-Trip Traveler Information Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19
Benefit/Cost Assessment - Freeway/Incident Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26
Benefit/Cost Assessment - Traffic Signal Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28
Benefit/Cost Assessment - Public Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29
Benefit/Cost Assessment - Multi-Modal Traveler Information System . . . . . . . . . . 8-31
Summary of Overall Program Costs and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31
Proposed Committees and Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4
Proposed Miami Valley ITS Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
Miami Valley ITS#24542 vii
Final I T S Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the Strategic Deployment Plan for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) inClark, Greene, Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio (the “Miami Valley”). The reportsummarizes the steps that were performed in preparing the Strategic Deployment Plan and presentsthe plan recommendations, including projects, a system architecture, costs, schedule and programbenefits. This summary highlights the plan process, recommended projects, costs and benefits.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Preparation of the SDP was led by the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission and projectPolicy and Technical Committees. The Policy Committee set the strategic direction for andcoordinated all activities of the SDP development effort. The Technical Committee was formed inorder to assure broad jurisdictional and multimodal participation in the development of the SDP. Themembers of these committees are identified in the inside front cover of this report.
Development of the Miami Valley ITS EDP began in June 1996 and followed the ten step ITSPlanning Process developed by the Federal Highway Administration (see Section 1.3). Earlyactivities included development of an overall project vision, goals and objectives.
The ITS Vision for the Miami Valley is one of enhanced transportation Productivity mobilityefficiency and safety within the region with a reduction in energy use and improvement in theenvironment through the use of cost effective ITS technologies and systems. Goals of the StrategicDeployment Plan include to create a state-of-the-art ITS transportation system; enhance productivity;improve safety; reduce energy consumption and improve the environment; enhance mobility andaccessibility; and increase efficiency.
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
The Strategic Deployment Plan includes projects organized into the following six Program Areas:
1: Freeway/Incident Management Systems2: Advanced Traffic Signal Control Systems3: Public Transportation Systems4: Multi-Modal Traveler Information Systems5: Public-Private Partnerships6: Technical and Planning Support
The first program area implements a system to monitor freeway traffic conditions and to improveincident response. Program Area 2 includes projects which will improve the flow of traffic onarterial streets by making traffic signals more responsive to changing traffic conditions. ProgramArea 3 implements systems which make transit more responsive and efficient, including technology
Miami Valley ITS#24542 S-1
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
to speed fare payment and to inform riders of expected bus arrival times. Program Area 4 willprovide travelers information about traffic conditions and transit, such as traffic accidents and busschedules. Program Area 5 identifies specific opportunities for involving the private sector in ITSdeployment. Program Area 6 lays out the management and administrative structure to guideimplementation and to implement a public education and outreach program.
Figure S-l summarizes the recommended projects of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic DeploymentPlan.
PROGRAM BENEFITS
Throughout the United States, many of the ITS programs and projects similar to those included inthis Strategic Deployment Plan have demonstrated significant improvements in transportationefficiency and safety, including the following (Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Benefits:Expected and Experienced, FHWA, January 1996):
Freeway Management Systems
. 20 to 40 percent reductions in travel times. 17 to 25 percent increases in freeway capacity. 15 to 50 percent reductions in accidents. reductions in fuel consumption and emissions
Traffic Signal Control Systems
. 8 to 15 percent reductions in travel time. 6 to 12 percent reductions in fuel consumption. 4 to 13 percent reductions in emissions
Incident Management Programs
. 10 to 42 percent reductions in travel time. reductions in incident clearance times of up to 8 minutes
Traveler Information Systems
. reductions in travel times of up to 17 minutes under incident conditions. 6 to 12 percent reductions in fuel consumption. reductions in emissions of up to 25 percent
Transit Management Systems
. 15 to 18 percent reductions in travel times. 12 to 23 percent increases in service reliability
-
Miami Valley ITS#24542 S-2
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Using these and other data from ITS deployments throughout the world, the potential benefits ofimplementing the first five years of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan were estimatedin terms of benefit-cost ratios for the four “‘project-oriented” program areas (Program Areas 1through 4) and for the overall ITS program. As shown in Table S. 1, the recommended ITS programwill generate over $400 million in benefits over the first five years by reducing travel delay, fuelusage, vehicle emissions and accidents, nearly eight times the cost of the program.
TABLE S.lSUMMARY OF OVERALL PROGRAM COSTS AND BENEFITS
(YEARS 1-5)
Program Area
Freeway/Incident Management
Advanced Traffic Signal Control
Public Transportation System
Multi-Modal Traveler Information
Total Benefit($000)
$99,519
$23 1,723
$28,637
$76,154
Years l-5
Total Cost($000)
$17,205
$6,05 1
$22,26 1
$4,347
B/CRatio
5.8: 1
383:l
1.3:l
17.5:1
Total ITS Program: $436,033 1 $49,864 1 8.7:1 1
Source: BRW, Inc., July 1997
- SHORT TERM IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Implementation, operating and maintenance and staffing costs were estimated for the first five yearsof the recommended regional ITS deployment. The cost estimates assume no private sectorcontributions, although there are a number of opportunities for private sector involvement and costsharing arrangements, as discussed in Program Area 5.
As shown on Table S.2, the recommended program will cost approximately $49 million over thefirst five years. Public sector staffing requirements will increase over the first five years fromapproximately seven full-time equivalent positions in year 1 to approximately 2 1 positionsin year5. These labor requirements reflect all agency participation in the regional ITS program, includingoperations, project management and participation in regional deployment committees, as describedbelow.
MOVING TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION
Development of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan has required significantcooperation and coordination between all agencies within the region. These strong institutionalrelationships will need to continue as the program plan proceeds into the deployment stage.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 S-5
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Sum
mar
y of
Yea
r 1
- 5 M
iam
i Val
ley
ITS
- Con
cept
ual I
mpl
emen
tatio
n C
osts
by
Prog
ram
Are
aro
gram
Are
a &
Proj
ects
Y
ear
1
Y
ear
2
Yea
r 3
Yea
r 4
Y
ear
5
T
otal
Prog
ram
Are
a 1.
0 Fr
eew
ay/In
cide
nt M
anag
emen
t Sy
stem
sD
esig
n/St
udy
& C
onst
ruct
ion
$934
,400
$3
,177
,000
$2
,465
,000
$2
,975
,000
$4
,6 1
0,00
0 $1
4,16
1,40
0O
pera
tions
and
Mai
nten
ance
$1
5,00
0 $4
0,40
0 $2
61,8
00
$361
,900
$
519,
900
$1,1
99,0
00To
tal
Costs
$9
49,4
00
$3,2
17,4
00
$2,7
26,8
00
$3,3
36,9
00
$5,1
29,9
00
$15,
360,
400
Prog
ram
Are
a 2.
0 A
dvan
ced
Traf
fic S
igna
l Con
trol
Sys
tem
sD
esig
n/St
udy
& C
onst
ruct
ion
$1,0
82,5
00
$1,1
32,5
00
$1,2
45,0
00
$1,1
20,0
00
$1,1
33,0
00O
pera
tions
and
Mai
nten
ance
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tota
l Cos
ts $1
,082
,500
$1
,132
,500
$1
,245
,000
$1
,120
,000
$1
.133
,000
$5,7
13,0
00 $0$5
,7 1
3,00
0
Prog
ram
Are
a 3.
0 Pu
blic
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Syst
ems
Des
ign/
Stud
y &
Con
stru
ctio
n $1
,006
,250
$2
,381
,250
$5
,815
,800
$5
,515
,800
$4
,457
,550
$1
9,17
6,65
0O
pera
tions
and
Mai
nten
ance
$0
$9
5,62
5 $3
15,0
00
$871
,580
$1,
410,
660
$2,6
92,8
65To
tal C
osts
$1,
006,
250
$2
,476
,875
$6,1
30,8
00
$6,3
87,3
80
$5,8
68,2
10$2
1,86
9,51
5
rogr
am A
rea
4.0
Mul
timod
al T
rave
ler
Info
rmat
ion
Syst
emD
esig
n/St
udy
& C
onst
ruct
ion
Ope
ratio
ns a
nd M
aint
enan
ceTo
tal
Costs
$600
,000
$5
95,0
00
$854
,000
$9
48,0
00
$538
,000
$3
,535
,000
$47,
760
$53,
940
$74,
040
$99,
840
$99,
840
$375
,420
$647
,760
$6
48,9
40
$928
,040
$
1,04
7,84
0 $6
37,8
40$3
,910
,420
rogr
am A
rea
5.0
Publ
ic -
Priv
ate
Part
ners
hips
Tota
l Co
stsNo
te:
All
costs
sho
wn f
or P
rogr
am A
rea
5 ar
e fo
r St
udy/
Des
ign
rogr
am A
rea
6.0
Tech
nica
l and
Pla
nnin
g Su
ppor
tTo
tal
Costs
$2
50,0
00
$375
,000
$350
,000
$3
50,0
00
$350
,000
$1,6
75,0
00ot
e:Al
l co
sts s
hown
for
Pro
gram
Are
a 6
are
for
Stud
y/D
esig
n
LAN
TO
TAL
Des
ign/
Stud
y &
Con
stru
ctio
n $3
,623
,150
$7
,285
,750
$1
0,37
9,80
0
$10,
558,
800
$10
,738
,550
Ope
ratio
ns a
nd M
aint
enan
ce
$62,
760
$189
,965
$6
50,8
40
$
1,33
3,32
0 $2
,030
,400
Tota
l Cos
ts
$4
,005
,910
$7
,920
,715
$1
1,45
0,64
0
$12,
312,
120
$13,
188,
950
$42,
586,
050
$4,2
67,2
85$4
8,87
8,33
5
Sour
ce: B
RW, I
nc.,
Sept
embe
r 199
7 All
Cos
ts A
ssum
e 10
0% P
ublic
Fun
ding
(Ass
umes
No
Priv
ate
Sec
tor C
ontri
butio
ns)
P/
, ?
‘-1
~
”
j 4
:-I
~
I
I i
bI
,-
I :
-1
\ i
i 1
-1
,
1 I
1 ’
; _
ice
, ‘_)
1
_~
( ~
/ I
~ !
~_
/
8.
-1
-i
1 _
Figu
re S
-2
Prop
osed
ITS
Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
Stru
ctur
e
Mia
mi V
alle
y
ITS
Polic
y Co
mm
ittee
EDP
Dep
loym
ent C
omm
ittee
Prog
ram
Are
a 5:
Tech
nica
l and
Pla
nnin
g Su
ppor
t
Traf
fic/T
rans
it W
ork
Gro
upA
rchi
tect
ure/
Com
mun
icat
ions
/Info
rmat
ion
Wor
k G
roup
In
ciden
t M
anag
emen
t W
ork
Gro
upPr
ogra
m A
rea
2: A
dvan
ced
Traf
fic S
igna
l Con
trol
Pr
ogra
m A
rea
4: M
ultim
odal
Trav
eler
Inf
orm
atio
n Pr
ogra
tn A
rea
1: F
reew
ay/In
cide
nt M
anag
emen
t
Prog
ratn
Are
a 3:
Publ
ic T
rans
port
atio
n Sy
stem
s
1.0 INTRODICTION
The problems of urban traffic congestion and air quality are of national concern. The IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 established national goals for thedevelopment and implementation of advanced technologies to address these problems throughcoordinated programs. The term IVHS has since been renamed to Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS) to reflect the multi-modal nature of the program. This report presents an integrated, multi-modal, phased strategic deployment plan to address the surface transportation needs and problemsof Clark, Greene, Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio, through the use of IntelligentTransportation Systems. A map of the study area is presented in Figure l-l.
1.1 ORIGIN OF THE PLAN
The process which has culminated in the publication of this ITS Strategic Deployment Plan (SDP)began March 9, 1993 with the Federal Register publication of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) announcement of procedures for implementing the Strategic Deployment Program. In July1994, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) submitted to the FHWA an“Expression of Interest in the FHWA IVHS Strategic Deployment Program for theDayton/Springfield Area,” a request for funding under the FHWA IVHS Strategic DeploymentProgram.
The request for funding was approved by the FHWA. On January 12,1996 the MVRPC issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct the Dayton/Springfield Area ITS Strategic DeploymentProgram study. Proposals to conduct the study were submitted from several teams of privateplanning and engineering consultants on February 13, 1996. The most qualified consultants, asdetermined by the written proposals, were identified and in person interviews were conducted onApril 10, 1996.
The BRW, Inc. project team was selected to conduct the study and a contract was executed in May,1996. The study formally began in June 1997. Shortly after the beginning of the study, the workingname of the project was changed from “Dayton-Springfield Area” to “Miami Valley” ITS StrategicDeployment Plan, in recognition of the broader scope of the study.
1.2 SDP TEAM
The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission led the Miami Valley ITS Strategic DeploymentPlan team. The team included the following groups:
1. Policy Committee2. Technical Committee3. Consultant Team
Miami Valley ITS#24542 l - l
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
The Policy Committee set the strategic direction for and coordinated all activities of the SDPdevelopment effort. The Policy Committee was composed of 11 individuals representing thefollowing organizations:
Miami Valley Regional Planning CommissionClark County-Springfield Transportation Coordinating CommitteeFederal Highway Administration - Ohio DivisionOhio Department of Transportation - Central OfficeOhio Department of Transportation - District 7Ohio Department of Transportation - District 8City of DaytonCity of KetteringCity of Moraine
The Technical Committee was formed in order to assure broad jurisdictional and multimodalparticipation in the development of the SDP. The Technical Committee participated in all majorSDP planning activities and reviewed all major work products. The Technical Cornmittee includedall of the members of the Policy Committee plus 32 additional individuals representing the followingorganizations:
-
. Butler Township. City of Beavercreek. City of Centerville. Clark County. City of Englewood. City of Fairbom. Greene County. Harrison Township. City of Huber Heights. Jet Express. League of Women Voters. Miami County. Miami County Community Action Council. Miami-Liberty Cab Company. Miami Township. Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority. Montgomery County. Ohio Bicycle Federation. City of Piqua. City of Springfield. Springfield Bus Company. City of Troy. City of Vandalia. Washington Township. City of West Carrollton. City of Xenia
-
.~
--
-
--
-
-
Miami Valley ITS#24542 1-2
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
-
The private consulting team employed by MVRPC to assist in the preparation of the SDP consistedof:
. BRW, Inc. (prime consultant). Battelle Memorial Institute. CH2M Hill. Lockwood, Jones & Beals, Inc.. TEC Engineering, Inc.
1.3 FHWA ITS DEPLOYMENT PROCESS
Intelligent Transportation Systems represent an approach to serving transportation needs andresolving transportation problems through an inter-modal, strategic approach which applies advancedand emerging technologies. Preparation of the Miami Valley ITS SDP has followed the ten step ITSPlanning Process developed by the Federal Highway Administration. This process is illustrated inFigure 1-2.
The federal ITS planning and deployment process emphasizes the significance of a strategicapproach, a user-needs perspective and a strong institutional coalition. The deployment of ITSshould be structured and strategic in order to protect against the inefficient allocation of resourcesand to ensure that ITS potential can be fully realized. Deployment should be based upon solvinglocal user needs rather than simply looking for opportunities to utilize new technologies. Finally,successful deployment depends upon the development of an institutional framework and coalitionof transportation agencies and other stakeholders. Such a coalition and the cooperation it fosters
help ensure that each agency’s needs, constraints, opportunities and responsibilities are addressedand that the resulting system meets the needs and expectations of each agency and the public.
1.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SDP
The development of the Miami Valley SDP closely followed the ten step FHWA deploymentplanning process. The major activities of the planning effort are summarized in the sections whichfollow.
1.4.1 Agency and Stakeholder Coordination and Outreach
The Policy and Technical Committees developed the Miami Valley ITS SDP in a coordinatedmanner with multi-jurisdictional and multimodal involvement. During the course of the SDP study,the two committees met 11 times to develop goals and objectives, review needs and problems,discuss proposed program areas and priorities, and approve the SDP.
A broad range of transportation stakeholders in the region were kept informed of and involved inthe SDP development through workshops and newsletters. Workshops were held to inform andsolicit input and workshop participants were provided an opportunity to review draft SDP productsand identify and-discuss information specific to their concerns.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 l-5
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Two outreach workshops were held, one on November 7,1996 and one on May 1, 1997. The firstworkshop described the study to participants and elicited their comments on needs, problems andpotential solutions. The second workshop focused on the draft projects developed by the consultantteam in conjunction with the Policy and Technical Committees. Both workshops were held at theMVRPC in Dayton.
Three newsletters were published during the course of the study. The first newsletter was publishedin October 1996. It announced the study, a schedule of activities, and provided a brief introductionto ITS services. The second newsletter was published in April of 1997. This newsletter summarizedthe conclusions of the needs assessment and user service prioritization activities and presented thedraft program areas which have been used to organize specific projects.
The third newsletter was published in August of 1997. This newsletter provided an executivesummary of the report and an outline of the next steps for Miami Valley ITS deployment. Fivehundred copies of each newsletter were printed and distributed using a list of area transportationstakeholders as identified by the MVRPC. Invitations to the outreach workshops were distributedvia the newsletters.
1.4.2 Transportation Systems and Facilities Inventory
Prior to the assessment of specific transportation needs and deficiencies and the identification of ITSopportunities, an inventory was made of the elements of the transportation system that are mostrelevant to ITS, including existing methods of traveler information dissemination, incidentmanagement, traffic signal control and freeway management. This inventory focused on identifying
. existing technological components and architectures which can form the foundation for regional ITSdeployment. The results of the inventory are presented in the User Service Plan (July 1997).
1.4.3 Opportunities and Deficiencies Assessment
The opportunities and deficiencies identification process was two-pronged, featuring both qualitativeand quantitative activities. The qualitative assessment of regional problems, issues and perspectivesincluded a widely distributed project newsletter, interviews with local transportation agency staff,a regional survey of transportation stakeholders, and a public Outreach Workshop. The quantitativeassessment of regional transportation conditions centered on the development of maps and tablessummarizing area freeway/interstate and major arterial street deficiencies and issues. The followingdata was collected and mapped for all area freeway segments and important arterial streets:
. existing congestion (daily level of service);
. forecasted congestion;
. safety (accident rates); and
. roadway design deficiencies.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 1-7
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Each type of data was added as a layer to a single map, yielding a composite map where themagnitude of deficiencies was established based on the presence or absence of the various layers.The deficiencies assessment process is summarized in Section 2.0 of this report and presented indetail in the User Service Plan (July 1997).
1.4.4 Assessment of Technologies and Development of a System Architecture
Separate Working Papers were prepared which assessed ITS technologies and developed a systemarchitecture for the recommended Miami Valley ITS. The technology assessment identifiedcandidate technologies to perform required ITS functions and compared the technologies in termsof cost and performance. The technology assessment is presented in detail in the TechnologiesAnalysis Working Paper (March 1997). The system architecture is summarized in Section 5.0 ofthis report and is documented in detail in the Functional Needs, Requirements and PreliminarySystem Architecture Working Paper (January 1997) and in the Recommended System Architectureand Technologies Working Paper (August 1997).
1.4.5 Development of Projects
The central element of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan is the programs andprojects that will be deployed to deliver ITS user services. An iterative and interactive approach wasused to identify and develop programs and projects for the SDP.
The first step in the development of specific program areas and projects began with a special two-day workshop with the Policy and Technical Committees. The purpose of the workshop was to
. identify and prioritize the specific user services appropriate for early deployment in the MiamiValley and to preliminarily rank the effectiveness/attractiveness of specific ITS projects andapplications. This prioritization was based upon the results of the qualitative and quantitativeopportunities and deficiencies assessment process. The workshop included many presentations andinteractive voting and discussion activities. These activities yielded the following:
. a prioritized list of the most significant transportation problems in the Miami Valley;
. a prioritized ranking of the ITS user services most appropriate to address those problems;
. a list of overriding factors to guide the development of all of the specific programs andprojects included in the SDP; and
. a prioritized list of potential ITS projects/strategies for further investigation and development.
In the months following the workshop, several drafts of potential projects were developed andrefined based on Policy and Technical Committee input, resulting in the program area and projectdescriptions presented in Section 6.0 of this report.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 1-8
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
1.4.6 Development of the Strategic Depoyment Plan
The final step in the development of the Strategic Deployment Plan was the production of this finalreport and the elements necessary to move the plan into the deployment stages. In the fmal stagesof the study, strategies were established for the implementation of the plan, including arecommended ITS program management structure, roles and responsibilities (Section 9.0 of thisreport).
1.5 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS
Several documents were produced which support this ITS Strategic Deployment Plan. Thesedocuments consist of the following:
. Functional Needs, Requirements and Preliminary System Architecture Working Paper(January 1997)
. Technologies Analysis Working Paper (March 1997)
. Recommended System Architecture and Technologies Working Paper (August 1997)
1.6 VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
One of the initial steps in the development of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan wasto identify a vision of eventual ITS deployment, a destination to be reached via the road map represented by the Strategic Deployment Plan. Along with the development of this vision a list ofgoals and associated objectives were developed to help guide the preparation of the plan.
1.6.1 Vision Statement
The vision for the Miami Valley is one of enhanced transportation productivity, mobility, efficiencyand safety within the region with a reduction in energy use and improvement in the environmentthrough the use of cost effective ITS technologies and systems.
The vision starts with mutual cooperation between agencies and jurisdictions within the region toplan and implement advanced ITS technologies. The vision is an integrated approach to solvetransportation problems. The vision seeks to improve the use of existing infrastructure and thechoices of users and operators. The vision approaches problems that can be effectively addressedwith the resources available within the region.
The vision for the Miami Valley applies to all single and multimodal users who travel within andthose who travel through the area. The vision is also for transportation operators and agencies, andthe surrounding community. The vision for the region includes the following elements:
Miami Valley ITS#24542 1-9
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
. EvolutionThe implementation of ITS technologies within the Miami Valley will occur in anevolutionary manner. They will be introduced gradually as the costs and benefits of thetechnologies are demonstrated and justified for the region.
. Travel InformationInformation regarding the transportation system within the Miami Valley will be immediatelyavailable to users and operators through a variety of devices such as television, radio, personalcomputers at home and at work, public kiosks, handheld mobile devices, roadway signage andother interactive communication devices. Users and operators will be able to inquire andreceive information about current and expected traffic conditions, travel times, incidents andalternative routes. Users and operators will be also able to inquire and receive informationabout transit status and schedules. This information will allow users to make informeddecisions about when to leave, how to travel, and what route to take.
. Traffic ManagementThe traffic on selected Miami Valley routes will be monitored and controlled through anintegrated system. Integrated systems will control arterial and freeway operations, monitorand make adjustments to lane usage, speed limits, ramp access and traffic signals. The goalof an area-wide system is to maximize the efficiency of the overall network based on actualconditions. In cooperation with travel information systems, traffic control operators can notifyusers of current or changing conditions and thereby redirect traffic or set drivers’ expectationsfor safer more efficient flow. An incident management system will identify incidents,dispatch the appropriate response services, and serve to remove and mitigate the effects ofincidents throughout the area.
. Commercial OperationsIn coordination with national and regional initiatives, commercial carriers will be able to drivethrough the region with minimal delays. Commercial carriers will have access to travelerinformation systems that can assist with routing, scheduling and dispatching optimization.
. Electronic Payment ServicesDevices will allow users to electronically pay fares and fees with a minimum amount of delay.Payment systems will collect fares and fees from users and operators in an integrated mannerwith other collection systems.
. Travel DemandUsers who wish to ride share can immediately determine potential candidates and dynamicallycreate car pools. Devices such as smart cards, public kiosks and personal digital assistantswill allow users to communicate with each other and work together to reduce the number ofvehicles on the roadway. ITS technologies will allow for detailed traffic data collection andanalysis. This information can support demand management techniques such as congestionpricing and large employer travel management.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 l-10
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
. Transit SystemsPublic transportation will be more attractive by offering faster service resulting from trafficsignal priority at selected locations and control of special ramps or lanes. Service will alsobe improved through the use of technology to track vehicles, accurately maintain schedules,predict demand and operate fleets more efficiently with a minimum of downtime and delay.Users of transit systems can be informed immediately on the status of their chosen route usinga variety of devices such as telephones with services such as audiotext, public kiosks, personalcomputers and personal digital assistants. Users will be encouraged to use transit systemsthrough improved information and easier access to information. Fare collection will be madeeasier and more accessible through addressing policies and barriers.
. Vehicle TrackingSystems will monitor and track the status of commercial carriers, transit operators, emergencyand service vehicles, and hazardous material carriers. These systems will allow operators toefficiently schedule their services, monitor on-time performance, and quickly respond to userneeds.
. Emergency ManagementDevices will notify authorities of the need for dispatching emergency vehicles to the site ofa collision or incident. Systems will coordinate the response from fire, police and medicalagencies resulting in fast response in the most appropriate manner. Other systems willcoordinate the removal of incidents to promote the timely return of the travel network to peakperformance.
. NavigationSystems and on-board devices will assist drivers with planning and following safe andefficient routes throughout the Miami Valley. These devices will also provide localinformation such as services and attractions.
. PollutionAir pollution will be reduced through improved efficiency and use of transportation systemsincluding demand management strategies. Dynamic ride-sharing systems will encourage theuse of high occupancy vehicles. Traveler information systems will decrease the number ofvehicle miles traveled through better planning. Public transportation systems will improveinformation available to users which will increase the use of public transit services. . Trafficmanagement systems will improve the flow of vehicles and reduce the level of pollution.Detection systems will monitor vehicle emissions and support enforcement efforts.
. CooperationThe future of transportation in the Miami Valley starts with the mutual cooperation amongtransportation agencies within the region. All agencies from the Ohio Department ofTransportation (ODOT) to city traffic agencies to local fire, police and medical serviceproviders will work together to promote and encourage the most productive and safestoperation of the transportation network. These agencies will work together to plan, design,implement and operate ITS systems in a cooperative and mutual manner.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 1-11
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
. Institutional Issues and BarriersBarriers to deploying ITS technologies and arrangements will be researched and identified.Legislative initiatives will be developed and submitted where appropriate to reduce barriers,resolve privacy concerns and encourage arrangements such as public/private partnerships.
1.6.2 Goals and Objectives
Table 1.l presents the goals and associated objectives for the Miami Valley ITS StrategicDeployment Plan.
TABLE 1.1GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal
1. To create a state-of-the-art ITStransportation system
Objectives
l To establish an ITS architecture that:- Is open, receptive and adaptable to meet future area
architecture and field test needs.- Is consistent to the maximum degree possible with developing
national standards.l To develop and integrate the following systems throughout the area
as appropriate:- Travel and Traffic Management- Public Transportation Management- Electronic Payment Services- Commercial Vehicle Operations- Emergency Management
2. To enhance productivity l To reduce the travel delay and increase the reliability andpredictability of moving people and goods for all transportationusers.
l To improve the ability of users and operators to perform travelplanning using real-time travel information.
l To reduce the operational costs to operators incurred from poorlyoperating transportation facilities.
l To reduce the scheduling and processing delays and costs to usersand operators associated with the regulation of vehicles.
l To reduce the costs and improve the quality of data collection fortransportation system planning, use, operations, maintenance andinstallations.
3. To improve safety l To reduce the number and severity of motor vehicle collisions andassociated injuries and fatalities.
l To improve the average response time of emergency services.. To improve the ability to identify, respond, remove and/or mitigatethe effects of incidents.
l To improve the tracking of hazardous material movements, and theresponse to and mitigation of the effects due to loss of containmentsituations.
l To enhance personal security on all modes of transportation.
Miami Valley ITSii24542 l-12
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Goal Objectives
4. To reduce energy consumption and l To increase the use of public transit and other shared rideimprove the environment alternatives.
l To reduce harmful emissions per unit of travel for all transportationmodes.
l To maintain and improve air quality standards.l To reduce the energy consumption per unit of travel for all
transportation modes.l To reduce the need for new right-of-way requirements and related
community disruption associated with transportation facilityimprovements.
5. To enhance mobility andaccessibility
. To improve the accessibility and availability of travel optionsinformation to users of all transportation facilities.
l To reduce the variability and to simplify the use of publictransportation.
l To improve the predictability of travel time for all transportationmodes.
l To reduce the complexity of scheduling and fee collectionprocedures for operators and users of intermodal facilities.
6. To increase efficiency . To reduce congestion and associated costs.l To optimize the operational efficiency of goods and people
movement on existing facilities.l To increase average vehicle occupancy.l To reduce time lost in intermodal interchange.l To increase capacity of existing infrastructure through ITS
Deployment.
- Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Miami Valley ITS# 2 4 5 4 2 1-13
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Opportunities and Deficiencies
2.0 OPPORTUNITIES ANDDEFICIENCIES ASSESSMENT
2.1 OVERVIEW
This section summarizes the results of the Opportunities and Deficiencies Assessment. Detailedresults are presented in the User Service Plan (July 1997).
The opportunities and deficiencies identification process was two-pronged, featuring both qualitativeand quantitative activities. The qualitative assessment of regional problems, issues and perspectivesincluded a widely distributed project newsletter, interviews with local transportation agency staff,a regional survey of transportation stakeholders, and a public Outreach Workshop. The quantitativeassessment of regional transportation conditions centered on the development of maps and tablessummarizing area freeway/interstate and major arterial street deficiencies and issues.
2.2 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES
2.2.1 Newsletters
Three project newsletters were mailed to approximately 400 study area transportation stakeholdersrepresenting a wide range of interests. The newsletters educate and solicit input and represent oneof the tools of the qualitative deficiencies assessment. In October 1996 the first Miami Valley ITS
Newsletter was sent out to inform potential stakeholders of the ITS Strategic Deployment Plandevelopment process and to invite them to the first of two Outreach Workshops, described below.A second newsletter was distributed in April 1997 which included updates on the status of theproject and summaries of recommended program areas. The final project newsletter was distributedin October 1997 and summarized this Strategic Deployment Plan.
2.2.2 User Needs Survey
Over 200 surveys were distributed to transportation systems users and operators. Individualsreceiving the survey represent motorized modes of transportation including transit, highways,trucking, aviation, and intercity bus. Thirty-seven (37) returned surveys resulted in a 19 percentresponse rate.
The survey addressed problem areas, problem area suggestions, user needs, and ITS project ideas.Survey results are presented in Tables 2.1 through 2.4. Table 2.1 shows the results of the problemarea ranking exercise. As shown in Table 2.1, when asked to rank a pre-defined list of potentialproblems, highway congestion, highway safety and commercial vehicle hazardous materials routingwere ranked as the most significant.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-1
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Table 2.2 shows the results of the “fill in the blank” problem identification portion of the survey.As indicated, highway congestion, inadequate/unsafe roadway design, and lack of signal timingcoordination were the most frequently reported problems. Lack of traveler information was alsoidentified as a problem.
Table 2.3 shows the results of the user needs portion of the survey, where respondents were askedto rate the priority of the 30 ITS User Services identified by the United States Department ofTransportation. As shown in Table 2.3, hazardous materials incident response, traffic control andincident management scored highest.
Table 2.4 lists the ITS project suggestions which were identified by survey respondents. Asindicated, the suggestions covered a wide range of ITS services and include many of the specificapplications which are being deployed successfully nationally.
2.2.3 Stakeholder Interviews
Representatives of the following 23 area public and private transportation organizations wereinterviewed between October 2, 1996 and October 30, 1996:
l City of Beavercreekl Clark County Engineeringl CCSTCCl Dayton International Airportl City of Dayton Fire Department
l City of Dayton Police Departmentl City of Dayton Traffic Engineeringl Federal Highway Administrationl Greene County Engineeringl Jet Expressl City of Ketteringl Miami Valley Regional Transit. Authority
l Montgomery Countyl City of Morainel ODOT (Central). ODOT (District 7)l ODOT (District 8)l ODOT (CVO)l Ohio Trucking Associationl Ohio Public Utilities Commissionl City of Springfieldl Springfield Bus Companyl Wright State University
The purpose of the interviews was to identify agency goals and responsibilities, transportationproblems in the Miami Valley, ITS technologies already in use, ITS funded projects, and to-discussprojects or suggestions that might improve the Miami Valley transportation system. Interviewsprovided an opportunity to solicit detailed comments from agency representatives that might not beexpressed through the other outreach efforts such as the surveys and workshops.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-2
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.1USER NEEDS SURVEY
PROBLEM AREA RATINGS
ProblemArea Problem
Average Number ofRating Responses
HighwayHighwayCommercial VehiclesLocal Bus SystemsCommercial VehiclesIntercity Bus/RailHighwayHighwayLocal Bus SystemsCommercial VehiclesCommercial VehiclesCommercial VehiclesHighwayLocal Bus SystemsIntercity Bus/RailLocal Bus SystemsHighwayHighwayHighwayLocal Bus SystemsIntercity Bus/Rail
Intercity Bus/RailHighwayCommercial VehiclesIntercity Bus/RailHighwayHighwayIntercity Bus/RailIntercity Bus/RailLocal Bus SystemsLocal Bus SystemsLocal Bus Systems
Safety 2.9Congestion 2.9Hazardous Material Routing 2.8Status Information 2.7Hazardous Material Response 2.6Safety/Security 2.6Air Pollution 2.5Access 2.5Travel Time 2.5Weight Checking 2.5Regulations 2.4Safety Inspections 2.4Emergency Response 2.4Safety/Security 2.4Travel Time 2.4Scheduling and Route Information 2.3Road and Weather Condition Info. 2.3Travel Time Information 2.3Travel Time 2.2Scheduling 2.2Status Information 2.2Scheduling 2.2Car Pooling Coordination 2.1Fleet Routing 2.1Schedule and Route Information 2.1Personal Security 1.9Noise 1.9Operations 1.8Fleet Management 1.8Operations 1.6Fleet Management 1.5Fare Collection 1.2
1 Out of 37 surveys returned
Rating Categories:1 = Not a Problem2 = Occasional Problem3 = General Problem4 = Significant Problem5 = Very Significant Problem
Source: BRW; Inc., May 1997
3434191119
732331115161628107
123231331265
2515
82731
4488
10
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-3
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.2USER NEEDS SURVEY
TOP FIVE PROBLEMS FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE
Area Problem FrequencyHighway Congestion 20Highway Inadequate/Unsafe Roadway Design 12Highway Lack of Signal Timing Coordination 7Highway Traveler Information 6Highway Incident Management/Emergency Response 6Highway Access Control 5Transit Insufficient Transit Service 5Highway Excessive Speed 4Highway Road Construction Management/Coordination 3Highway Additional Width/Lanes Needed 3Highway Inadequate Snow Removal 2Highway No Park and Ride Options 2Institution Overdependence on Automobiles, Subsidized Automobile Use 2Highway Construction Caused Congestion and Accidents 2Transit Alternative Transportation Option (foot, Bicycle or Transit) 2Institution Licensing Standards for Drivers Are Too Low, More Education Needed 2Highway Capacity Constraints 2Highway Lack of Alternative Routes 2Commercial Truck Traffic 2Highway Interchange Needed 1Highway Lack of Traffic Signals 1Transit Lack of Options for Intercity Commercial Aviation Service 1Highway Lack of Protected Left Turns 1Transit Lack of Light Rail to Airport 1Highway Lack of Routes to West Dayton 1Commercial Safe and Efficient Movement of Trucks 1Highway Too Many Traffic Signals 1Highway Police Pursuits, Technology to shut Engines of fleeing Cars 1Highway Weather Advisory for Motorist 1Highway Varying Speed Limits 1Highway Cruising on Main Street 1Transit Alternative Transportation Information 1Institution Intermodal Coordination 1Highway Manintaining Ozone Attainment Status 1Highway Frequent Lane Changes Required to Go Downtown 1Highway Identification of High Hazard Crash Locations 1Institution Need to Plan Ahead of Development 1Highway Maintaining Existing Infrastructure 1Highway Lack of emergency (Incident) Information System 1Transit Lack of Public Transit Ridership, Need a Safer Transit Environment 1Transit Intercity Rail 1Highway congestion Pricing 1Highway Problem Areas on Interstate 75 1Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Miami Valley ITS Final ITS Strategic Deployment24542 2-4 September 1997
TABLE 2.3USER NEEDS SURVEY
USER NEED PRIORITIES
User Need Area User NeedAveragePriority
Number ofResponses 1
Commercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traffic ManagementTravel and Traffic ManagementEmergency Management ServicesEmergency Management ServicesAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsTravel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation ManagementAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsCommercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traflic ManagementTravel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation Management
Travel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation ManagementCommercial Vehicle ServicesCommercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traffic ManagementTravel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation Management
Commercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traflic ManagementCommercial Vehicle ServicesElectronic Payment ServicesAdvanced Vehicle Safety Systems
Out of 37 surveys returned
Rating Categories:1 = Very Low Priority2 = Low Priority3 = Average Priority4 = High Priority5 = Very High Priority
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Hazardous Material Incident Response 4.3 32Traflic Control 4.2 33Incident Management 4.1 33Emergency Vehicle Management 4.0 34Emergency Notification and Personal Security 3.9 35Intersection Collision Avoidance 3.5 29Vision Enhancement for Crash Avoidance 3.5 30Longitudinal Collision Avoidance 3.4 29Safety Readiness 3.4 30Travel Demand Management 3.3 35Public Travel Safety 3.3 33Pre-Crash Restraint Deployment 3.3 29Lateral Collision Avoidance 3.3 29On-Board Safety Monitoring 3.1 27Route Guidance 3.1 33En-Route Driver Information 3.0 33Public Transportation Management 3.0 31Highway-Railroad Intersection 3.0 26Emissions Testing and Mitigation 2.9 34Personalized Public Transit 2.9 32Automated Roadside Safety Inspections 2.9 28Freight Mobility 2.9 27Pre-Trip Travel Information 2.7 34Ride Matching and Reservation 2.6 34En-Route Transit Information 2.5 31Commercial Vehicle Administrative Processes 2.5 27Traveler Services Information 2.3 34Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearance 2.3 27Electronic Payment Services 2.2 28Automated Vehicle Operations 2.1 30
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-5
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.4USER NEEDS SURVEY
ITS PROJECT/PROGRAM IDEAS
Category Idea/Suggestion
System Congestion Traffic Signal CoordinationFreeway Management SystemMotorist InformationFreeway SurveillanceVariable Message SignsAlternate Route MessagesCongestion ManagementEstablish Park and RideEn-route Incident InformationHighway Advisory Radio-Real Time InformationClosed Circuit Television and Vehicle Detection EquipmentAdditional LanesRemote Monitoring of Traffic Signal Operation
Incident Management
Transit
Aviation
Highway Engineering
Commercial Vehicle Operations
Trip Planning
Standards
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Incident Management SystemAccident Avoidance Systems in VehiclesVideo Surveillance (Photo radar) at Frequent Crash AreasMore Emergency Response Staff TrainingFreeway Incident Information SystemCellular Caller IdentificationEnhance Area-Wide Snow Removal Capability
Develop Suburban TransitExpand Transit to out of County SuburbsExploration of Commuter Rail SystemITS Transit ProjectsITS Demand-Responsive Transit ProjectsImprove Multi-ModalismSafer Transit Environment
Expand/Market Dayton Airport Operations
Additional protected left turn lanesImprove I-75/SR 4 IntersectionAccess ManagementReconstruction of Accident Prone Sections of HighwayBridge Deicing System
Use ITS for CVO ManagementHazardous Material Identification
Traveler Information via Radio and ComputerRoad Construction Information
Adopt State Standards for Location IdentificationEnsure Connectability with other State/Local Systems
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-6
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
As shown in Table 2.5, the three (3) most frequently reported problems included traffic congestion,accidents/incidents and inadequate/poor roadway design. Funding and Interagency/ inter-jurisdictional issues were also identified as important. Table 2.6 identifies the transportationsolutions proposed by interviewees.
2.2.4 Outreach Workshop #1
Thirty-eight (38) people attended the Outreach Workshop held on November 7, 1996. Workshopattendees included the members of the project Policy and Technical Committees as well as interestedarea transportation stakeholders. Over 20 different organizations were represented at the workshop,including state, regional and local governments as well as several private sector organizations,including trucking, taxi cab and real estate firms. The purpose of the workshop was to explain theStrategic Deployment Plan project and to solicit input on transportation problems and potential ITSsolutions.
In an effort to identity problems and potential solutions, workshop attendees were divided into fourdiscussion groups based on their transportation interests and backgrounds: Transit, Highway,Incident Management/Institutional Issues and Commercial Vehicle Operations. In the breakoutsession the groups listed obstacles, problems, and trends interfering with the Miami Valley ITSvision and proposed solutions to overcome those obstacles. A high level summary of the problemsand potential solutions identified at the workshop are shown in Tables 2.7 and 2.8.
2.3 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES
The quantitative assessment of regional transportation conditions centered on the development ofmaps and tables summarizing area freeway/interstate and major arterial street deficiencies and issues.Issues in non-highway areas, such as traveler information and transit, were addressed through thequalitative activities described in Section 2.2. The quantitative roadway assessment described in thissection was used in conjunction with the results of the qualitative assessment activities described inSection 2.2 to guide the development of recommended projects.
2.3.1 Freeway/Interstate Issues
The freeway/interstate facilities that were considered in this analysis are shown in Figure 2-l. Thefollowing data was collected and mapped for each facility:
. existing congestion (daily level of service);
. forecasted congestion;
. safety (accident rates); and
. roadway design deficiencies.
Miami Valley ITSS24542 2-7
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.5 AGENCY INTERVIEWS
REPORTED PROBLEM AREAS
FrequencyCited
Problem Area
11 Traffic Congestion8 Accidents/Incidents7 Inadequate/poor Roadway Design5 Funding4 Inadequate Signage/Traveler Information4 Conflicting Agency/Jurisdictional Priorities & "Turf" Isssues4 Lack of Detour/Rerouting Traffic4 Impacts of Detouring Traffic2 Low Transit Ridership 2 Driver Behavior2 Railroad Crossing Delays2 Access to Incidents/Emergency Vehicle Regulatory & Enforcement Agencies2 Transit Not Suburb-Oriented2 Coordination Among Commercial Vehicle Regulatory & Enforcement Agencies1 Coordination on Construction/Detours1 Road Construction1 Inadequate Rest Trop/Sleeping Locations for Commercial Vehicle Drivers1 Commercial Vehicle Safety Inspections (Delays, Inadequate Facilities)1 Accidents1 Interstate On-Ramps/Merging & Weaving Areas1 Inadequate Staff Resources1 Access Control (too many driveways)1 Inadequate Commercial Vehicle airport Access1 Heavy Volume and Unrealibility of Cellular Incident Phone Calls1 Work Zone Safety1 Abundant Parking (Deterrent to Transit)1 Room for Bicycles Packages, Etc. on Transit Vehicles1 Transit Equipment Procurement (Dwindling Number of Suppliers)1 Difficulty in Implementing Non-Mandated Commercial Vehicle Programs1 Inadequate Regional Coordination/Cooperation of Traffic Signal Efforts1 Institutional Issues in Integrating ODOT Interstate Signals into Local Systems1 Lack of Support for Fixed Route Transit in Greene County1 Lack of Enthusiasm Among Commercial Vehicle Participants1 Lack of Qualified Commercial Vehicle Operators1 High Commercial Vehicle Fuel Taxes1 Size and Complexity of Commercial Vehicle Regulatory Databases
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Miami Valley ITS Final ITS Strategic Deployment24542 2-4 September 1997
TABLE 2.6AGENCY INTERVIEWS
SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS
Commercial Vehicle Operations
l Separate, grade-separated facilities for commercial vehiclesl Coordination of commercial vehicle databasesl Automated hazardous materials enforcementl Tie-ins with the Advantage I-75 project
Traveler Information
l Highway advisory radiol Traffic information on existing agency Internet sites. Traveler information for construction and detoursl Traveler information at park-n-ride lotsl Improved s&age/traveler information for the Nutter Centerl Changeable message signs
Freeway Management
l Pre-arranged incident detour plansl Dedicated incident reporting hotlinel A regional traffic management centerl Regional emergency communications center and common communications systeml Pavement/weather sensing stations
Traffic Signal Systems
. Improve traffic flow along arterial street detour routesl Regional traffic signal coordination/cooperation efforts
Transit
. “Smart” transit to better serve suburban/neighborhood tripsl Automatic vehicle location for transit vehiclesl Active transit station signs
Other
l Advanced warning for the presence of trains at at-grade rail crossingsl Automation of existing permanent traffic countersl Transponders on taxi cabs to allow automating counting and billing for airport usel Electronic debit card system for airport parking
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-9
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.7OUTREACH WORKSHOP
REPORTED PROBLEM AREAS
Highest Frequency ..
Medium Frequency
Low Frequency
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
.
Inadequate Cooperation and Coordination(among modes, organizations and services)
Legal/Institutional Issues (liability, legislatedresponsibilities, etc.)
Inadequate Information (travelers andoperators)
Funding
Congestion
Incidents
Standardization/Compatibility
Private Sector Costs
Driver Resistance
Inefficiency
Senior/Disabled Access
Emergency Vehicle Access
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-10
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.8OUTREACH WORKSHOPSUGGESTED SOLUTIONS
Incidents . Incident Response. Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control. Freeway Management
Coordination/Cooperation ... Training
EducationPolitical/Legislative Action
Traveler Information KiosksAutomated Phone SystemsReal-Time Data
Funding .. Identify Dedicated Source(s)State Participation
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Each type of data was added as a layer to a single map, yielding a composite map where themagnitude of deficiencies was established based on the presence or absence of the various layers.The methodology for each type of data and the resulting deficiencies and priorities summary mapsare briefly described below.
Congestion
Freeway/interstate roadway segments with existing and forecasted average daily Levels of ServiceE or F were identified. This information was taken from the Ohio Department of Transportation's1990 and 2020 “Existing Plus Committed Roadway Projects” regional travel forecasts.
Freeway/interstate accident data was obtained from the Ohio Department of Transportation for the1993 to 1995 time period for each of the freeway/interstate segments within the four county MiamiValley ITS study area. Some of the segments included accident rates and some did not. For thosesegments that did not include accident rates, accident rates were calculated based on the segmentlength and a generalized segment average daily traffic volume. The freeway segments within thestudy area and the documented accident rates are shown in Table 2.9. The data indicate that accident
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-11
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
rates on the various segments range from 0.6 accidents per million vehicle miles (Acc/MVM) to 1.6Acc/MVM.
The accident rates for each of the freeway segments were compared to a typical average urbanfreeway accident rate (1.7 accidents per million vehicle miles) to identify problem areas, based onthe assumption that Miami Valley freeway/ interstate segments with rates above the typical averagerate represent problem areas. As shown in Table 2.9, none of the segments analyzed have accidentrates above the typical average rate.
Although the accident rates analysis does not indicate higher accident rates than are typical, therelative accident rates of different freeway/interstate segments are useful in identifying theappropriate geographic phasing of ITS projects which address accidents or their effects. Formapping purposes, the accident rates were stratified into high, medium and low categoriescorresponding to the upper, middle and lower thirds of the accident rate distribution. Segmentswithin the two highest categories were mapped.
Design Deficiencies
The following six regional freeway/interstate segments were assessed for design deficiencies basedon a subjective “windshield survey”:
. I-75 from I-675 to I-70. I-70 from the Airport Access Road to I-675. I-675 from I-75 to I-70l US 35 from Third Street to Xenia. SR 4 from I-75 to I-70. SR 444 from SR 4 to I-675.
The assessment considered the following design features:
. Substandard Horizontal and Vertical Curvature. Short or Difficult Weaves. Short Merge Areas. Left Side On/Off Rampsl Loop Ramps. Features which Limit Capacity During Peaks
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-12
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
1 ‘_
1
I I
I N._
I_
i I
_’I
I I
j 1
-l
I :
I ‘-
5
~.I
’
11
‘TA
BLE
2.9
FREE
WA
Y/IN
TER
STA
TE A
CC
IDEN
T A
NA
LYSI
S
Segm
ent
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
Ave
rage
Dai
ly
Leng
thV
olum
e (2)
(mi.)
Avg
. #A
cc./Y
r. (1
)A
cc. R
ate
(Acc
./mvm
)A
vg. R
ate
(Acc
./mvm
)Is
Rat
e >
Avg
. Rat
e
I-75
(I-70
to U
S 35
)I-
75 (I
-70
to M
iam
i Cou
nty)
I-75
(US
35 to
War
ren
Cou
nty)
I-70
(I-7
5 to
Cla
rk C
ount
y)I-
70 (I
-75
to P
rebl
e C
ount
y)I-
675
(I-7
5 to
Gre
ene
Cou
nty)
Cla
rk C
ount
y
91,0
00
9 48
0 1.
6 1.
7 N
o63
,000
4
130
1.4
1.7
No
78,0
00
11.4
45
1 1.
4 1.
7 N
o43
,000
11
18
7 1.1
1.
7 N
o34
,000
12
.6
157
1.0
1.7
No
43,0
00
7.4
128
1.1
1.7
No
I-70
Gre
ene
Cou
nty
40,0
00
29.3
40
4 1.
0 1.
7 N
o
I-71
26,0
00
4.1
22
0.6
1.7
No
I-67
5 (M
ontg
omer
y C
ount
y to
SR
444)
54
,000
7.
7 15
0 1.
0 1.
7 N
oI-6
75 (S
R 44
4 to
I-70
) 41
,000
10
13
1 0.
9 1.
7 N
o
Mia
mi
Cou
nty
I-75
45,0
00
20
361
1.1
1.7
No
(1)
Ohi
o D
epar
tmen
t of
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n (1
990)
(2)
Ohi
o D
epar
tmen
t of
Publ
ic S
afet
y (1
995)
(3)
Dai
ly V
olum
es w
ere
aver
aged
ove
r en
tire
segm
ent
leng
th.
Sour
ce: B
RW
, Inc
., A
pril
199
7
For the most part, the detrimental impact of each of these characteristics on capacity and safety areself evident. Curves that are too tight and roads with abrupt crests and valleys reduce sightdistances, slow traffic and create safety problems. Merge and weave sections that are too short donot provide adequate gaps for safe lane changes. Relative to diamond interchanges, loop rampscreate slower and more difficult merges. Left side on/off ramps, which are generally much lesscommon than right side ramps, conflict with driver expectations and compound the negative impactof merging traffic on through lane capacity by introducing merging vehicles directly into what isnormally the fastest moving lane.
For each segment, any specific relevant design deficiencies were identified. Based on thesedeficiencies, the segment was given an overall numeric rating from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good).Table 2.10 presents this information. Segments with a rating of 3 or below were mapped.
Summary of Freeway/Interstate Issues
The information described above was mapped as layers on maps for the four county study area.These maps are shown as Figures 2-2 through 2-5. This information is presented in tabular form inTable 2.11.
Arterial Street Issues
A deficiencies data collection and mapping effort similar to the one performed forfreeways/interstates was conducted for major arterial streets. This exercise considered all majorarterial roadways as well as other roadways which parallel freeways and which represent potentialreliever routes. A map of the roadways which were considered in this analysis is shown in Figure
6-6.
Congestion
Like the freeway/interstate deficiencies analysis, the analysis of regional major arterial streetsmapped existing and forecasted Levels of Service of E or worse. Data was not available for ClarkCounty, which is currently preparing an update to their regional traffic forecasting model.Congestion data for Greene, Miami and Montgomery Counties was supplied by the Miami ValleyRegional Planning Commission.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-16
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.10SUMMARY OF REGIONAL FREEWAY/INTERSTATE DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
ASSESSMENT
Route
I-75 (south to north)
Overall Rating(l=very poor;
Segment Design Deficiencies 5=very good)
Montgomery County Line thru None notable 4US 35 interchange
Thru SR 4 interchange Substandard Horizontal CurvatureShort or Difficult WeavesShort Merge AreasLeft Side On/Off RampsCapacity Limiting During Peaks
2
l-70 (west to east)
Thru Needmore Road Substandard Vertical Curvature 3interchange Short or Difficult Weaves
Short Merge AreasCapacity Limiting During Peaks
Little York Road thru I-70 Short or Difficult Weaves 2interchange Short Merge Areas
Loop RampsCapacity Limiting During Peaks
Thru Miami County None notable 4-5
Montgomery County Line to I- Capacity Limiting During Peaks70
I-75 interchange
Thru SR 210
Thru Greene and ClarkCounties
L-675 (south to north) I-75 to I-70
US 35 (west to east) I-75 to Smithville Road
Thrn I-675
SR 4 (south to north) I-75 to SR 444
Source: LJB & BRW, Inc., April 1997.
Short or Difficult WeavesShort Merge AreasLoop RampsCapacity Limiting During Peaks
Short Merge AreasLoop Ramps
‘Capacity Limiting During Peaks
None notable
Minor Difficulties at Fairfield Road
Left Side On/Off Ramps
Includes At Grade Access
2
3
4-5
4-5
3-4
3-4
3
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-17
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 2.11SUMMARY OF FREEWAY/INTERSTATE ISSUES
“High” “Moderate”
CountyClark
Greene
Miami
Montgomery
Existing Forecasted Accident AccidentRoadway Segment (1)
DesignCongestion (2) Congestion (3) Rate (4)
I-70 (west to east)Rate (5)
Montgomery County line to SR 235Deficiencies (6)
interchange (or Mud Creek crossing) X X XSR 235 overpass to l-675 interchange X X
/
l-675 interchange X X X
l-675 interchange to SR 4 interchange X XSR 4 interchange through Enon Roadoverpass X X XEnon Road overpass to SR 72 X XSR 72 to Old Selma Road X X XOld Selma Road to east Clark Countyline X X
I-675 (south to north) Montgomery County line to US 35 X XUS 35 to Grange Hall Road XGrange Hall Road to Beavercreekborder X XBeavercreek Corporate Limit to NorthFairfield Road X X XNorth Fairfield Road to west of BeaverValley Road X XWest of Beaver Valley Road toDayton-Yellow Springs Road X
I-75 (south to north) Montgomery County line to SR 571 X XSR 571 through Tipp City border northcrossing . XTipp City border north crossing tonorth Miami County line X X
I-75 (south to north) Montgomery County Line through US35 interchange X X XUS 35 interchange through NeedmoreRoad interchange X X X XNeedmore Road interchange throughLittle York Road X X XLittle York Road through l-70interchange X X X Xl-70 interchange through US 40interchange X X XUS 40 interchange through Vandaliaborder north crossing X XVandalia border north crossing tosouth Miami County line X
I-70 (west to east) Montgomery County Line through SR49 west interchange XSR 49 west interchange to SR 49 east
I-675 (west to east)
crossingSR 49 east crossinn tn SR AR SR 48 to l-75l-75 interchange to SR 201SR 201 to Cl& fhmtv I ine
l-75 to Greene
X XX
X. . X XX XX XX x. .
X County line
(1) All locations are approximate(2) 1990 Daily Level of Service E or F(3) 2020 Daily Level of Service E or F(4) Locations with accident rates within the upper one-third of all segments analyzed(5) Locations with accident rates within the middle one-third of all segments analyzed(6) A subjective assessment based on a field review considering factors such as weaving/merging distances, interchange spacing,
horizontal and vertical curvature, left side on/off ramps and loop ramps
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997.
Traffic accident rates were calculated for a sampling of 20 area arterial street intersections. Thesample was selected based two “most dangerous intersection” news articles published in the DaytonDaily News, as well as information collected from the Cities of Dayton, Kettering and Springfieldand the Ohio Department of Public Safety (1995 Highway Accidents by County).
The “critical rate” accident analysis methodology was used. This approach identifies problemlocations based on the difference between site specific accident rates and areawide average rates forsimilar locations. Some variation from the average is expected and does not necessarily suggest alocalized safety problem. However, if a rate sufficiently exceeds the average, i.e., exceeds a “criticalrate”, the difference is statistically valid and suggests that there may be a localized safety problem.
An average accident rate was calculated using a sample of ten intersections considered to berepresentative of Miami Valley urban arterial street intersections in terms of traffic volumes, designand traffic control. Using a typical average accident rate of 1.5 accidents per million enteringvehicles for urban signalized intersections, a critical rate was calculated at each of the 20 “problem”locations. The accident rates at each locations were then compared to their respective critical rates.
As shown in Table 2.12, sixteen (16) of the “problem” locations exceeded their critical rates,indicating that localized safety problems may be present. Additionally, although not reflected inTable 2.12, two of the “typical” intersections also exceeded their critical rates. The roadways thatinclude at least one of the sixteen (16) problem locations were identified and mapped. Theseroadways are:
. Gettysburg Avenue. Dorothy Lane. Brandt Pike. SR 725l Woodman Drivel Spring Street
Local Priorities
A meeting was held with agency traffic engineering staff throughout the four county study area,including municipal, county and Ohio Department of Transportation personnel. The purpose of themeeting was to identify arterial street segments which are considered high priorities for ITS projectsfrom the perspectives of the traffic engineers responsible for these facilities. The meeting generateda list of priority locations for each of the four counties, shown in Table 2.13.
Summ ary of Arterial Issues
The information data described above was mapped as layers on individual county maps. These mapsare shown as Figures 2-7 through 2-10. This information is presented in tabular form in Table 2.14.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-28
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABL
E 2.
12A
RTE
RIA
L ST
REE
T IN
TER
SEC
TIO
N A
CC
IDEN
T A
LY
SIS
Inte
rsec
tion
1) B
rand
t Pi
ke/C
ham
bers
burg
Rd.
2) G
etty
sbur
g/H
oove
r A
ve.
3) B
rand
t Pi
ke/F
ishbu
rg R
d.
4) G
etty
sbur
g Av
e./3r
d S
t.
5) O
ld T
roy
Pike
/Tay
lors
ville
Rd.
6) C
ol. G
lenn
Hw
y./N
atio
nal
Rd.
7) D
ayto
n-Xe
nia/
Nor
th F
airf
ield
8)
Get
tysb
urg
Ave
./Ja
mes
McG
ee B
lvd.
9) D
orot
hy L
ane/
Wilm
ingt
on P
ike
10) H
elen
a St
./Ri
vers
ide
Dr.
11)
Keow
ee S
t./3r
d S
t.
12) N
eedm
ore
Rd.
/N. D
ixie
Dr.
13) D
orot
hy L
ane/
Woo
dman
Dr.
14) O
hio
725/
Ohi
o 74
1
15) O
hio
725/
Byer
s R
d.
16)
Patte
rson
/Woo
dman
17)
Forre
r/Sm
ithvi
lle
18) N
. Spr
ing
St./
E. N
orth
St.
Sign
al
28,70
0 32
3.0
9 1.5
2.08
Yes
19) S
. Spr
ing
St./
E. H
igh
St.
Sign
al
17,80
0 26
4.
00
1.52.2
1 Ye
s
20) E
. Mai
n St
./N
. Bur
nett
Rd.
Sign
al
21,70
0 26
3.
32
1.52.1
5 Ye
s
Exis
ting
Traf
fic
Con
trol
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Sign
al
Ente
ring
Dai
ly
Ave
rage
#V
olum
e”’
Acc
iden
ts/Y
r.
39,60
0 49
37,30
0 43
37,10
0 38
38,95
0 36
36,75
0 36
41,35
0 34
33,75
0 33
37,10
0 33
65,80
0 32
33,70
0 31
50,15
0 31
(199
4)
Acc
iden
t A
vera
ge A
reaw
ide
Criti
cal
Is R
ate
>R
ate
Rat
e R
ate
Criti
cal
Rate
3.39
1.5
2.0
Yes
3.16
1.5
2.0
Yes
2.81
1.5
2.0
Yes
2.53
1.5
2.0
Ye
s
2.68
1.5
2.0
Ye
s
2.25
1.5
2.0
Yes
2.68
1.5
2.0
Ye
s
2.44
1.5
2.0
Ye
s
2.03
1.5
1.89
Yes
2.52
1.5
2.0
Ye
s
1.69
1.5
1.94
No
(1) “
Hig
h A
ccid
ent L
ocat
ions
,” C
ity o
f Ket
terin
g (1
995)
(2) D
aily
Ent
erin
g Vo
lum
es O
btai
ned
from
Tra
ffic
Flow
Map
s.So
urce
: BRW
, Inc
., A
pril
1997
TABLE 2.13LOCAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ARTERIAL STREET PRIORITIES
Montgomery County
l SR 202 in Huber Heights from south to north corporation line. SR 201 in Huber Heights from south to north corporation line. Woodman Drive US 35 to SR 201l National Road (US 40) from Brown School House Road to Dogleg Roadl SR 48 from US 40 to Garver Road. Philadelphia Drive from Siebenthaler to Turner
Greene County
. Dayton-Yellow Springs Road in Fairborn from Southlawn Drive to Trebein Road. SR 444 from SR 844 to I-675l Dayton-Xenia Road in Beavercreek from west corporation line to Fairfield Roadl US 35 from Fairfield Road to Valley Road
Miami County
l SR 41 from Washington Road to Market Streetl South Market Street from Main Street to West Market Street. SR 571 from just west of I-75 to Hyattsville Roadl SR 55 from I-75 to Nashville Road. SR 55 from SR 718 to South Market Street
Clark County
. SR 72 North from North Street to Eagle City Road. SR 72 South from Main South to Leffel Lanel East Main Street/US 40 East from Limestone Street to East Corporate Linel SR 235 between SR 41 and US 40. Selma Road from SR 72 to Leffel Lane. Leffel Lane: Springfield - Xenia Road to Burnett Road
Source: Local, County and State Traffic Engineering Staff, April 21, 1997 Meeting
Miami Valley ITS#24542 2-30
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember I997
TAB
LE 2
.14
SU
MM
AR
Y O
F A
RTE
RIA
L S
TRE
ET
ISS
UE
S
Exis
ting
Fore
cast
ed“C
ritic
al”
Acc
iden
t R
ate
Loca
lC
ount
yCl
ark
Roa
dway
1 US
40 (
wes
t to
east
)Se
gmen
t (1
)M
iam
i Cou
nty
Line
to S
iC
onge
stio
n (2
) C
onge
stio
n (3
) In
ters
ectio
n(s)
(4)
R 23
5 X
X
Prio
rity
(5)
SR 3
34 (w
est t
o ea
st)
US
68
to S
R 4
SR 7
2 (s
outh
to
north
) Le
ffell
Lane
to J
ohn
Stre
etJo
hn S
treet
to M
ain
Stre
etN
orth
Stre
et to
McC
reig
ht A
venu
eM
cCre
ight
Ave
nue
to E
agle
City
Roa
dU
S 40
/Eas
t Mai
n St
reet
(wes
t to
east
) Li
mes
tone
Stre
et to
Eas
t Cor
pora
te
X
XX
XX
X
SR 2
35 (
sout
h to
nor
th)
Selm
a R
oad
(sou
th t
o no
rth)
Leffe
l Lan
e (w
est
to e
ast)
SR 5
6SR
444
(wes
t to
eas
t)
Line
US
40 to
SR
41
Leffe
l Lan
e to
SR
72
Sprin
gfie
ld-X
enia
Roa
d to
Bur
nett
Roa
dTh
roug
h C
lark
Cou
nty
Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
Line
to Z
ink
X X X XX
Gree
ne
Line
Xeni
a N
orth
Cor
pora
te L
ine
to S
RX
X
SR 7
2 (s
outh
to
north
)
SR 3
43 (w
est t
o ea
st)
SR 7
34 (w
est t
o ea
st)
235
Yello
w S
prin
gs S
outh
Cor
pora
te L
ine
to
Cla
rk C
ount
y Li
neI-7
1 in
terc
hang
e to
Clif
ton
Sout
hC
orpo
rate
Lin
eEn
tire
leng
thSR
72
to e
ast G
reen
e C
ount
y Li
ne
X
X
X X X
TAB
LE 2
.14
SU
MM
AR
Y O
F A
RTE
RIA
L S
TRE
ET
ISS
UE
S
Exis
ting
Fore
cast
ed“C
ritic
al”
Acc
iden
t R
ate
Loca
lC
ount
y R
oadw
ay
Segm
ent
(1)
Con
gest
ion
(2)
Con
gest
ion
(3)
Inte
rsec
tion(
s) (
4)M
iam
i SR
721
(so
uth
to n
orth
) Ju
st n
orth
of r
ight
ang
le tu
rn to
SR
185
XSR
66
(sou
th t
ono
rth)
Piqu
aaN
orth
Cor
pora
teLi
ne to
Mia
mi
Mon
tgom
ery
SR
571
(wes
t to
east
) Ju
st w
est o
fl-7
5to
Hy
SR 7
41(s
outh
to n
orth
)
SR
201
to M
iam
i Cou
nty
East
Lin
e
War
ren
Cou
nty
Line
to7
25
SR
SRR
48 (
sout
h to
nor
th)
Cen
terv
illee
Sout
h C
orpo
rate
Lin
e to
I
SR 4
9 (s
outh
to n
orth
)
Get
tysb
urg
Aven
ue (
sout
hto
SR 7
25SR
725
to U
S 35
X XX
l-75
to B
urge
ss A
venu
e X
XBu
rges
s Av
enue
to W
oole
ry L
ane
XG
arbe
r R
oad
to l-
70l-7
0 to
div
erge
nce
from
US
40
Xl-7
5 to
Wol
f R
oad
X X
Wol
f Roa
d to
l-70
X
north
) H
ome
Aven
ue t
o O
akrid
ge D
rive
XO
akrid
ge D
rive
to H
oove
r Av
enue
X
X.
--
-H
oove
r Av
enue
to W
olf C
reek
Pik
e X
X X
----
Wol
f Cre
ek P
ike
to L
ittle
Ric
hmon
d
US
35 (
wes
t to
east
) .
Nor
th D
ixie
Driv
e (s
outh
to n
orth
)
Roa
dLi
ttle
Ric
hmon
d R
oad
to S
R 4
9W
este
rn p
art o
f New
Leb
anon
toU
nion
Roa
dW
ilmin
gton
Pik
e to
Sm
ithvi
lle R
oad
Gre
at M
iam
i Riv
er C
ross
ing
to L
ittle
York
Roa
dLi
ne
X X
X
XX X
X
.X
I -
I ,
1: n
~
TAB
LE 2
.14
SU
MM
AR
Y O
F A
RTE
RIA
L S
TRE
ET
ISS
UE
S
Cou
nty
Exis
ting
Fore
cast
ed“C
ritic
al”
Acc
iden
t Rat
e Lo
cal
Roa
dway
Need
mor
e R
oad
(wes
t to
east
)S
R 2
02 (s
outh
to n
orth
)
SR 2
01 (
sout
h to
nor
th)
Con
gest
ion
(2)
Con
gest
ion
(3)
Inte
rsec
tion(
s) (
4)
Prio
rity
(5)
XSe
gmen
t (1
)II-
75 to
SR
201
ISR
4 to
Hub
er H
eigh
ts S
outh
Cor
pora
te L
imits
H
uber
Hei
ghts
Sou
th C
orpo
rate
Lim
its to
Cha
mbe
rsbu
rg R
oad
Cha
mbe
rsbu
rg R
oad
to M
iam
iC
ount
y Li
neSR
4 to
Kitr
idge
Roa
dKi
tridg
e R
oad/
Hub
er H
eigh
ts S
outh
Cor
pora
te L
imits
to P
owel
l Roa
dPo
wel
l Roa
d/ H
uber
Hei
ghts
Sou
thC
orpo
rate
Lim
its to
Mia
mi C
ount
y
X X
X
X X
X
X X
x
X X
X X
X
Line
X
XW
oodm
an D
rive/
Har
shm
an R
oad
Lin
den
Aven
ue to
SR
4
XX
A(s
outh
to n
orth
) S
R 4
to S
R 2
01
X X
XW
oodm
an D
rive
(sou
th to
nor
th)
Wilm
into
n Pi
ke to
US
35
XX
Wilm
ingt
on P
ike (
sout
h to
nor
th)
Woo
dman
Driv
e to
Dor
othy
Lan
eD
orot
hv L
ane
to S
mith
ville
Roa
d X
XIrv
ing
Aven
ue to
Day
ton
CBD
X
Dor
othy
Lan
e (w
est
to e
ast)
SR 7
41 to
Pat
ters
on B
lvd.
X
Patte
rson
Blv
d. to
La
Plat
a D
rive
X X
XN
atio
nal R
oad/
US
40 (
wes
t to
eas
t) D
ogle
g R
oad
to B
row
n Sc
hool
Hou
se R
oad
X .Ph
ilade
lphi
a D
rive
(sou
th t
o no
rth)
Sieb
enth
aler
Ave
nue
to T
urne
r R
oad
x --
SR 4
(sou
th to
nor
th)
l-75
thro
ugh
SR 4
44 in
terc
hang
e
XG
reen
e C
ount
y Li
ne to
l-70
X
(1)
All l
ocat
ions
are
app
roxi
mat
e(2
) 199
0 D
aily
Lev
el o
f Ser
vice
E o
r F(3
) 202
0 D
aily
Lev
el o
f Ser
vice
(4)
Roa
dway
seg
men
t inc
lude
s at
leas
t one
inte
rsec
tion
with
a “c
ritic
al” a
ccid
ent r
ate
(a ra
te s
igni
fican
tly h
ighe
r, st
atis
tical
ly, t
han
the
area
ave
rage
rate
)(5
) Ide
ntifi
ed a
s hi
gh p
riorit
y lo
catio
ns b
y ci
ty, c
ount
y an
d/or
sta
te tr
affic
eng
inee
ring
staf
f
Sour
ce: B
RW
, Inc
., M
ay 1
997.
U S E R S E R V I C E S
%
;
-
\
-
-i-
L,1
y’
-1
L%
-
r-.
i--
L,
-7
--..
I7
-
\I
I~
IXT
--I
-
-<
-
L
-.
3.0 USER SERVICE PRIORITIZATION
3.1 OVERVIEW
The final prioritization of Miami Valley transportation problems and ITS User Services occurred atthe Workshop Intensive held on January 28 and 29, 1997. The workshop represented theculmination of the qualitative portion of the deficiencies assessment. The Workshop was attendedby the project Policy and Technical Committees. The results of all of the previous qualitativeassessment activities were summarized and a number of interactive activities were conducted toidentify a final, subjective assessment of regional problems and ITS priorities.
The final activities of the Workshop Intensive focused on the discussion and preliminaryprioritization of potential ITS projects/strategies. This exercise was based upon the problems andUser Services prioritization and provided critical direction to the development of the program areasand projects presented in Section 6.0 of this report.
Thirty-five (35) people attended one or both days of the two-day workshop. Organizationsrepresented at the workshop include the following:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
...
.
City of BeavercreekButler TownshipCity of CentervilleClark County Transportation Coordinating CommitteeCity of DaytonCity of FairbomCity of Huber HeightsCity of KetteringFederal Highway AdministrationMiami Valley Regional Planning CommissionMiami CountyMontgomery CountyOhio Department of Transportation - Central OfficeOhio Department of Transportation - District 7Miami Valley Regional Transit AuthorityCity of SpringfieldCity of TroyCity XeniaThe project consulting team:
- BRW,Inc.- Battelle Memorial Institute- CH2MHill- LJB
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-l
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
- TEC- Dick Braun (Expert Panelist)- Ron Fisher (Expert Panelist)- Jerry Pittenger (Expert Panelist)
3.2 PROBLEM PRIORITIES
Utilizing the same list of predefined problem areas that was included in the User Needs Survey,Workshop participants individually scored area transportation problems. The individual scores werereviewed and a second round of voting was conducted. Table 3.1 presents the results of both votes.
3.3 USER SERVICE PRIORITIZATION
Workshop attendees performed a similar ranking of the 30 ITS User Services. The results are shownin Table 3.2.
3.4 OVERRIDING FACTORS
Before turning to the consideration of potential ITS projects to address identified problems and toimplement the high priority user services, workshop participants developed a list of OverridingFactors. These factors loosely define the characteristics of preferred projects and will help guideall subsequent project development activities. The following working list was identified:
. Reflects a Region-Wide Perspective. Addresses Safety. Funding/Sponsorship Available. Serves Many. Highly Visibility. “Early Winner”. Accepted by Users. Acceptable Risk-to-Benefit Ratio. Ease of Deployment. Maximizes Resources. Acceptable Operating/Maintenance Costs. Marketable. Recognizes and Takes Advantage of the Unique Features of the Region
Miami Valley ITS1124542 3-2
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
--
TABLE 3.1PROBLEM PRIORITIES
WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28 - 29,1997
Final Score Problem First Score
272121161413106632211111
Highway CongestionHighway SafetyCooperation & CoordinationHighway Emergency ResponseFundingHighway Road & Weather Info.Highway AccessHighway Travel TimeLocal Bus Intersystem ConnectionsLegal/InstitutionalHighway Special EventsLocal Bus Status Info.Highway Air PollutionHighway Lack of Bypass (Alternate RoCVO Safety InspectionRailroad CrossingsTransit OperationsLocal Bus Travel TimesCVO HAZMAT ResponseLocal Bus SchedulingLocal Bus Safety/SecurityCVO HAZMAT RoutingIntercity Bus/Rail ConnectionsHighway Travel Time Info.CVO Weight CheckingIntercity Bus Scheduling/Route Info.CVO RegulationsCVO Fleet RoutingHighway NoiseIntercity Bus/Rail Travel TimeCar-pooling CoordinationPersonal SecurityCVO CDL LicensingADA Compliance/Special PopulationsIntercity Bus/Rail Safety/SecurityLocal Bus Fleet ManagementIntercity Bus OperationsLocal Bus Fare CollectionIntercity Bus Status Info.Intercity Bus SchedulingIntercity Bus Fleet ManagementIntercity Bus ADA Compliance
lutes)
Source: BRW Inc.. May 1997
144816653595841634532362842513918
8413734332825242419151187665443100000
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-3
Find ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 3.2USER SERVICE PRIORITIES
WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28 - 29, 1997
Service Service Bundle Score
1. Traffic Control2. Incident Management3. En-Route Driver Information4. Route Guidance5. Traveler Services Info.6. Public Transportation Management7. Pre-Trip Travel Information8. Highway-Railroad Intersection9. HAZMAT Incident Response10. Emergency Vehicle Notification &
Personal Security11. Emergency Vehicle Management12. On-Board Safety Monitoring13. Demand Management & Operations14. En-Route Transit Information15. Pre-Crash Restraint Deployment16. Safety Readiness17. Intersection Collision Avoidance18. Automated Roadside Safety
Inspection19. Personalized Public Transit20. Automated Highway System21. Freight Mobility22. Electronic Payment Services23. Public Travel Security24. Emissions Testing & Mitigation 25. CV Electronic Clearance26. CV Administrative Processes27. Ride Matching & Reservation28. Vision Enhancement for Crash
Avoidance29. Longitudinal Collision Avoidance30. Lateral Collision Avoidance
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Travel & Transportation Management 146Travel & Transportation Management 101Travel & Transportation Management 71Travel & Transportation Management 67Travel & Transportation Management 52Public Transportation Operations 49Travel Demand Management 43(Not yet assigned) 38Commercial Vehicle Operations 36Emergency Management 35
Emergency Management 35Commercial Vehicle Operations 34Travel Demand Management 34Public Transportation Operations 23Advanced Vehicle Control 18Advanced Vehicle Control 17Advanced Vehicle Control 16Commercial Vehicle Operations 14
Public Transportation Management 14Advanced Vehicle Control 13Commercial Vehicle Operations 11Electronic Payment Services 11Public Transportation Operations 10Travel & Transportation Management 10Commercial Vehicle Operations 9Commercial Vehicle Operations 8Travel Demand Management 6Advanced Vehicle Control 6
Advanced Vehicle ControlAdvanced Vehicle Control
40
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-4
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
3.5 ITS STRATEGIES/PROJECT CONCEPTS
Potential ITS strategies were discussed in each of the following four areas:
l Freeway/Incident Managementl Advanced Traffic Signal Controll Public Transportation Management. Commercial Vehicle Operations
In terms of specificity, “strategies” f a l l between User Services and individual projects. For example,“changeable message signs” is an example of an ITS strategy within the User Service “En-RouteDriver Information”. Each discussion centered around a comparison of suggested ITS solutionsfrom the outreach process (User Needs Survey, Local Agency Interviews and the November 1996Outreach Workshop) with a “master list” of potential strategies. Potential strategies, their benefitsand their relationship to suggested ITS solutions were discussed. Traveler information strategieswere not discussed separately but were included throughout the other strategy areas.
Following the discussion, participants rated the strategies based on their ability to address highpriority transportation problems, implement high priority User Services and address OverridingFactors. The results of that rating are shown in Table 6.3.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-5
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Rank
1
2
3
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
17
20
TABLE 3.3ITS STRATEGIES/PROJECT CONCEPTS PRIORITIZATION
WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28-29,1997
Strategy/Proiect Concept
Changeable Message Signs
Multi-Jurisdictional Signal System Coordination
Advanced Traffic Control Systeml Closed Loopl Central Systemsl Adaptive Signal Control (SCOOT)
Detection System
Signal Timing and Synchronization Programs
Highway Advisory Radio Broadcasts
Special Event Traffic Control Plans
Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control
Emergency Vehicle Pre-Empt (EVP)
Railroad Grade Crossing Advanced Safety Systems
Mobility Management System - a central phone numberprovides access to integrated transit information,including personalized public transit
Surveillance Cameras
Service Patrols
Surveillance:l Vehicle Detectionl Visual, Manuall Visual Automated
Integrated Freeway Ramp Signals
Traffic Signal Preemption
Interactive Traveler Information Kiosks at TravelInformation Centers and Other Major Transfer Points
Transit Incident Alerts
Response and Clearance Procedures/Protocol
Traffic Management Center
Area Score
Freeway Management 84
Traffic Control 73
Traffic Control 71
Freeway Management
Traffic Control
Freeway Management
Traffic Control
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
Traffic Control
Traffic Control
67
63
41
36
33
26
26
Transit 26
Freeway Management
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
25
22
Traffic Control 20
Traffic Control 19
Transit 16
Transit
Transit
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
Freeway Management
14
14
14
13
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-6
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Rank20
22
22
24
Strategy/project Concept
Smart Card Fare collection/Passenger Counting System
En-route Driver-Base Communications to Correct forSchedule Problems (AVL required)
Coordination of Enforcement Databases (Weight,Licensing, Driver Inspections)
Automated Transfer Coordinator Connection Protection(AVL required)
24 High Speed Weigh-In-Motion
26
27
Ramp Meters
27
27
Automated Collection of Bus Passenger Loading, Run-Time, and Mileage Data
Interactive Traveler Information Kiosks at TravelInformation Centers and Other Major Transfer Points
Electronic Clearance for Safety and OperationsInspection
27 l/10 Mile Route Markers
31 Diversionary Timing Plans and Procedures for CVO, Incident Management andAlternative Arterial Routes HAZMAT
32 Automated Schedule Adherence Monitoring (AVLrequired)
32 Incident Recording System/Database
32 Regional Emergency Communications Center andCommon Communications System
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
32
36
37
Database of Scheduled Incidents (Maintenance,Construction and Events)
Traffic Signal Priority
Provide real-time traffic condition information todispatch centers of public transit agencies from TOCs
37 On-Board HAZMAT Incident Response Information
TABLE 3.3ITS STRATEGIES/PROJECT CONCEPTS PRIORITIZATION
WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28-29,1997
Area Score
Transit 13
Transit 12
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
12
Transit 11
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
11
Freeway Management 10
Transit 9
Transit
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
9
9
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
9
8
Transit 7
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
7
7
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
7
Traffic Control 6
Transit
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
5
5
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-7
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Rank
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
46
46
46
46
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
57
TABLE 3.3ITS STRATEGIES/PROJECT CONCEPTS PRIORITIZATION
WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28-29,1997
Strategy/Project Concept
Express Bus/Park and Ride
HOV Bypass
Computer Record Keeping of Telephone CustomerService Unserved Trips
Active Transit Station Signs
Random-Route (Dial-A-Ride) Transit
Integrated Operations Between Arterial, RampTerminals and Ramp Meters
Towing Rotational List
Automated Updating of Telephone Customer ServiceSchedule Database
Automated Origin-Destination Driven TelephoneCustomer Service Database
Evaluation of Driver Fitness for Duty (OOSDeterminations)
Special Access Points for Maintenance and EmergencyVehicles
Automated Identification and Billing System (AIBS) forParatransit
Single Trip Ridesharing (using both advance and real-time reservations)
Use of Remote Sensors and Cameras
Innovative Measures to respond to Incidents
On-Board Safety System Monitoring
Total Stationing Equipment
List of Key Equipment in Region
Enhanced Computerized Driver Scheduling (RunCutting) System
Area Score
Freeway Management 4
Freeway Management 4
Transit 4
Transit
Transit
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
Transit
Transit
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
Transit
Transit
Transit
Transit
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT
Transit
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-8
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
TABLE 3.3ITS STRATEGIES/PROJECT CONCEPTS PRIORITIZATION
WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28-29,1997
Rank Strategy/Project concept Area Score
57 On-Board Electronic Destination Signs Transit 1
57 On-Board Automated Bus Stop Annunciators Transit 1
57 Post Incident Debrief Sessions CVO, Incident Management and 1HAZMAT
61 Central DB for HAZMAT Incident Response CVO, Incident Management and 1HAZMAT
Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997
Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-9
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
4.0 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
4.1 OVERVIEW
Current technologies available to perform the functions associated with the highest priority ITS UserServices for the Miami Valley were assessed in terms of a number of criteria, including cost andperformance. The results of the assessment are presented in the Technologies Analysis WorkingPaper (March 1997).
Given the evolutionary nature of ITS technologies and the long, twenty year time frame consideredin this plan, specific technologies were not recommended for each specific projects. Rather, thetechnology assessment focused on providing the descriptive and comparative information necessaryto support the selection of specific technologies during the design phase of recommended projects.
4.2 SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINDINGS
The Technologies Analysis Working Paper (March 1997) includes findings regarding the relativecost and performance of a number of technologies. Selected findings for key technologies arepresented here in Tables 4.1 through 4.6.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 4-l
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FOR NON-INTRUSIVE TRAFFIC DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES
842: volume (up to 45 mph),
software to receive serial data
G-l: volume, occupancy, presence, temp.
PODDDoppler Microwave Whelen Engineering Co. volume, occupancy, speed $995 PC for serial data (optional)
TDW 10/TD 30 (TOW is wide beam) (TDN is narrow beam)Passive Acoustic AT&T I IRD volume, occupancy, speed $1,450 Mounting brackets
SmartSonic TSS-1 PC for serial data (optional)Pulse Ultrasonic Microwave Sensors, Inc. volume, occupancy, presence $560
TC-30CPulse Ultrasonic Sumitomo Electric USA, Inc. volume, occupancy, presence $1
SDU 420Video Tracking CRS, Inc. volume, occupancy, density, headway speed, $15,000-$18,000 Camera
TAS 2 classification, dwell, presence, queue length,incident detection
Video Tracking Condition Monitoring Systems volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed VME: $10,000-$30,000 VME: camerasMobilizer (VME, Wide Area, classification, delay, turn moves, headway WAS: $7,000-$25,0000 WAS: (includes cameras)and PC systems) acceleration, O/D studies, ped/bike detection PC: $5,000 PC: 586 PC, cameras
Video Tracking EM $1 CameraCruise
Video Tracking ELIOP Trafico S.A. (Spain) volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed, $7,000-$17,000 386 PC, camera, softwareEva 2000 S classification, headway
(Price varies with features)Video Tripline Econolite volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed, $17,000(1 camera unit) 486 PC (cameras included)
Autoscope 2004 classifications, headway, turning movements $24,000(4 camera unit)Video Tracking Peek Transyt volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed, $18,000(4 camera unit) 486 PC, cameras
Video Trak-900 classifications, headway, turning movements,incident detection
Video Tripline Rockwell International volume, occupancy, speed, presence $3,800 386 PC (camera included)TraffiCam
Video Sumitomo Electric USA, Inc. volume, occupancy, speed, classification, $15,000 (1)IDET 100 presence
Video Eagle Signal/Odetics volume, occupancy, speed, presence, $1VTDS headway
(1) Price is estimated or was not available.(2) Collection of relay data requires additional equipment.(3) Contact vendors for a full description of all device features, cost and additional equipment. Table updated February, 1996.
SOURCE: Minnesota DOT/FHWA
TABLE 4.2
DETECTOR TYPES, PRIMARY DATA TYPES AND MOUNTING OPTIONS
DETECTOR PRIMARY
TYPE DATA TYPE
Inductive Loop Presence
MOUNTING
OPTIONS
In Roadway(Per Lane)
Piezoelectric Strip
Radar(Continuous Wave)
Radar(Multi-Zone)
Active infrared(Non-Image)
Passive Infrared(Non-Image)
Passive Infrared
(Image)
Acoustic(Passive)
Ultrasonic(Pulsed)
Ultrasonic(Continuous Wave)
Magnetometer or Microloop
Axle Count,Weight
Speed
Presence
Presence
Presence
Presence
Presence
Presence
Presence
Presence
In Roadway(Per Lane)
Overhead(Per Lane)
Overhead or Side-Fired(Multi-Lane)
Overhead(Per Lane)
Overhead(Per Lane)
Overhead or Side-Fired(Multi-Lane)
Overhead(Per Lane)
Overhead(Per Lane)
Overhead(Per Lane)
In Roadway(Per Lane)
Video Image Detection Tracking Overhead or Side-Fired(Multi-Lane)
TABLE 4.3
COMPARISON OF DETECTOR TECHNOLOGIES ANALYZED
Microwave Doppler
Side-Fire
Infrared Passive
(Non-Image):
Infrared Active
(Non-Image):
Infrared Passive
(Image):
Acoustic Passive
4, 14, 15,17
4
4
7 (side-fire), 17
15
I,12
1, 2, 8, 16
1, 12, 8, 16
8 (overhead)
2, 8, 14, 16
Ultrasonic Pulse 7 (SF), 14, 4, 7 (side-fire), 14 8 (overhead)
Video 7 (side-fire), 15 8 (overhead), 17
1 History
2 Initial Cost (including support)
3 Life Cycle Cost
4 Calibration (ease)
5 Accuracy
6 Ability To Send Data
7 Pole Support
8 Structure Support or Mast Arm
9 Bridge Intrusive
10 Lane Closure for Installation
11 Lane Closure for Maintenance
12 Occlusion
13 Initial Cost
14 Envioronmental Performance
15 Ease of Installation
16 Single Lane Detection
177 Multi Lane Detection
TAB
LE 4
.4
SU
MM
AR
Y O
F C
AB
LE T
YP
E C
OM
MU
NIC
ATI
ON
S S
YS
TEM
S
Syst
em O
wne
rshi
p
Tele
phon
eC
ompa
nyFa
cilit
ies
Tech
nolo
gy
Voic
e G
rade
Cha
nnel
Dig
ital
Cha
nnel
Com
mun
icat
ions
Max
Ban
dwid
th
App
licab
leor
Dat
a Ra
te
Info
rmat
ion
Per C
ircui
t
9600
bps
D
ata,
Voi
ce a
ndSl
ow S
can
TV(S
STV)
1.54
mbp
s D
ata,
Voi
ce a
ndSl
ow S
can
TV(S
ST)
Max
imum
Tran
smis
slon
Dist
ance
s
up to
10
mile
s
up to
10
mile
s
App
licab
leSe
rvic
es
Traf
fic C
ontro
l Sy
stem
s
Traf
fic C
ontro
l Sy
stem
san
d IT
S Sy
stem
s us
ing
SS
TV
Tota
l Cos
tPe
r Ba
sis
Incl
udin
g Su
ppor
ting
Hard
ware
& E
quip
men
t
$80
to $
1 00
/mon
thpe
r ci
rcui
t or
chan
nel
up to
$30
0/m
onth
per c
ircui
t or
chan
nel
Twis
ted
Pai
rC
able
9600
bps
Ana
log
Dat
a, V
oice
and
Slow
Sca
n TV
(SST
)
2 to
3 m
iles
Traf
fic S
igna
l an
d $1
5 to
$25
Traf
fic C
ontro
l Sy
stem
pe
r fo
ot
Age
ncy
Ow
ned
Faci
litie
sC
oaxi
al C
able
Dig
ital 3
0 kb
ps
350
MH
z D
ata,
Voi
ce a
ndC
CTV
up to
15
mile
s wi
th
Cap
illary
Cab
ling
ream
plifi
catio
ns
only
in IT
S
up t
o 2
000’
with
out
Traf
fic C
ontro
l Sy
stem
s $2
0 to
$30
ream
plific
atio
ns,
up
Parti
cula
rly C
CTV
and
pe
r fo
otto
4 to
5 m
iles
with
IT
Sre
ampl
ificat
ions
Fibe
r O
ptic
Cab
le2.
5 G
Hz
Dat
a, V
oice
and
CC
TVup
to 5
mile
sm
ultim
ode
fib
erup
to 2
5 m
iles
singl
emod
e fib
er
Traf
fic C
ontro
l an
d IT
SBa
ckbo
ne
Syst
ems
$20
to $
25pe
r fo
ot
. .
No
tes:
All
cabl
e ty
pes
can
be i
nsta
lled
in a
ny c
ondu
it in
clud
ing
unde
rgro
und
can
be a
lread
y bu
ried
whi
ch u
sual
ly re
quire
s sp
ecia
l cab
le ja
cken
ing
or c
an b
e in
stal
led
alon
g an
ove
rhea
d ca
ble
line
(I.e.
sup
porti
ng m
esse
nger
cab
le)
betw
een
pole
s. M
aint
enan
ce r
equi
rem
ents
are
gen
eral
ly no
ne, e
xcep
t if t
he c
able
and
any
con
nect
ions
have
bee
n di
stur
bed
or c
ut b
y ut
ility
exca
vatio
ns.
TAB
LE 4
.5
VAR
IAB
LE M
ESSA
GE
SIG
NPR
OD
UC
T -
CO
ST C
OM
PAR
ISO
N
Flip
Dis
k
HIS
TOR
Y
Rel
iabl
e
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
Lim
ited
visi
bilit
y un
der
som
e lig
htin
g co
nditi
ons.
Fadi
ng o
f co
lors
.M
echa
nica
l fai
lure
s (d
ots
stic
k).
I I
I I
Bulb
Mat
rix
Unr
elia
ble
Hig
h po
wer
con
sum
ptio
n.H
igh
tem
pera
ture
out
put.
I I
I I
Ligh
t em
ittin
g - D
iode
R
elia
ble
Early
pro
blem
s of
brig
htne
ss d
urin
g da
ylig
ht, v
aria
nce
inbr
ight
ness
, poo
r br
ight
ness
deg
ener
atio
n cu
rve
and
colo
r.Pr
oble
ms
have
bee
n re
solv
ed b
ut o
nly
4 ye
ars
of h
isto
ry a
vaila
ble.
Fibe
r O
ptic
Rel
iabl
e Ea
rly p
robl
ems
of h
alo
effe
ct h
ave
been
res
olve
d.Sc
ored
ver
y hi
gh in
sid
e-by
-sid
e te
sts
in th
e ar
eas
of b
right
ness
unde
r all
light
ing
cond
ition
s, v
isib
ility
and
legi
bilit
y.
I I
Hyb
rid
Rel
iabl
e Tw
o hy
brid
s pr
esen
tly in
use
, LED
and
Fib
er O
ptic
. Eac
h de
liver
sa
brig
hter
mes
sage
. The
Fib
er O
ptic
is c
apab
le o
f del
iver
ing
a do
tm
uch
brig
hter
than
that
del
iver
ed b
y LE
D.
CO
ST
3 ro
w -
21 c
hara
cter
$50,
000
- $1
00,0
003
row
- 8
char
acte
r$2
5,00
0 -
$50,
000
Not
Ap
plica
ble
3 ro
w -
21 c
hara
cter
$60,
000
- $1
30,0
003
row
- 8
char
acte
r$4
0,00
0 -
$60,
000
3 ro
w -
21 c
hara
cter
$50,
000
- $1
10,0
003
row
- 8
char
acte
r$3
0,00
0 -
$50,
000
Add
15%
- 20
%ab
ove
basic
LED
or
Fibe
r O
ptic
sign.
TAB
LE 4
.6
CA
TV C
OM
MU
NIC
ATI
ON
S O
PTI
ON
- C
OM
MER
CIA
LLY
OW
NED
FA
CIL
ITIE
SA
DVA
NTA
GES
/ D
ISA
DVA
NTA
GES
CA
TV a
s a
com
mun
icat
ions
opt
ion
has
som
e ad
vant
ages
.Th
ese
are
sum
mar
ized
as
follo
ws:
1. T
heir
cabl
e ne
twor
k is
alre
ady
in p
lace
Ther
e ar
e al
so s
ome
disa
dvan
tage
s in
usi
ng C
ATV
.’
Thes
e ar
e su
mm
ariz
ed a
s fo
llow
s:
1. M
ost C
ATV
netw
orks
are
des
igne
d w
ith e
mph
asis
on
dow
nstre
amtra
nsm
issi
on o
f vid
eo s
igna
ls to
cab
le s
ubsc
riber
s.
2. T
he d
esig
n ef
fort
and
initi
al in
stal
latio
n co
sts
are
muc
h lo
wer
than
an
agen
cy o
wne
d sy
stem
.
2. V
ideo
cha
nnel
s ta
ke u
p m
ost o
f the
ava
ilabl
e ba
ndw
idth
. The
ban
dwid
thav
aila
ble
for
traffi
c co
ntro
l may
be
very
nar
row
rang
ing
from
a s
ingl
e 6
MH
z ch
anne
l to
4 or
5 c
hann
els.
3. A
fran
chis
e ag
reem
ent m
ay p
rovi
de g
over
nmen
t use
of C
ATV
cabl
e at
3.
Fre
quen
cies
of a
vaila
ble
chan
nels
are
ofte
n th
e le
ast d
esira
ble
and
eith
er r
educ
ed r
ates
or
free
of c
harg
e.
susc
eptib
le to
noi
se a
nd in
terfe
renc
e.
4. A
sec
ond
sepa
rate
cab
le, r
efer
red
to a
s an
inst
itutio
nal n
etw
ork
(I-N
et),
may
exi
st fo
r the
pur
pose
of p
rovi
ding
ser
vice
s to
gov
ernm
ent a
ndco
mm
erci
al s
ubsc
riber
s.
4. C
ATV
faci
litie
s ar
e of
ten
conc
entra
ted
in r
esid
entia
l are
as. S
ervi
ces
near
freew
ays
and
in c
entra
l bus
ines
s di
stric
ts a
re fe
w o
r no
nexi
sten
t.
S Y S T E M A R C H I T E C T U R E
5.0 SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE ANDCOMMUNICATIONS CONCEPT PLAN
5.1 OVERVIEW
This section summarizes portions of the recommended system architecture that was developed tosupport the ITS program areas and projects presented in Section 6.0 of this report. The effort todevelop the system architecture included two reports, the Functional Needs, Requirements andPreliminary System Architecture Working Paper (January 1997) and the Recommended SystemArchitecture and Technologies Working Paper (August 1997). The latter report includes the finalrecommendations for system architecture, including high-level architecture diagrams for programareas 1 through 4 of the recommended ITS (program areas are discussed in Section 6.0 of thisreport), and summary architectures for each of the implementation time frames: Immediate Term(years l-2), Short Term (years 3-5), Mid-Term (years 6-10) and Long-Term (years 1 l-20). Thesummary presented here includes only the summary architectures.
5.2 BACKGROUND CONCEPTS
Architecture, as it pertains to Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), refers to the technicalblueprint by which integrated systems are designed, built, and deployed. Typically, an architecturecomprises three major components: the processing system, the communications, and a dataarchitecture. The architecture is the strategy, not the applications or services built within that
architecture. It defines “what” components and systems must talk to each other but not necessarily“how” they communicate. These “how” decisions are typically defined on the project or processlevel.
For ITS deployment in the Miami Valley, some architectural components are already in place.Whether by design or not, agencies and organizations around the Miami Valley region have deployedsystems that will become a part (either in part or in their entirety) of the overall ITS deployment inthe region. The challenge facing those involved in guiding ITS deployment in the area is toimplement an architecture that is flexible enough to respond to changing needs and technologies butrobust enough to handle the volume of data and information that must be processed and distributedthroughout the region.
5.3 COMMUNICATION PROFILES
One of the most important components of an architecture is the communications infrastructure. Thetype of communication methods and technologies selected must support the collection anddissemination of transportation information throughout the Miami Valley Area. The RecommendedSystem Architecture and Technologies Working Paper (August 1997) identifies candidatecommunication technologies that are applicable for the various program areas but does notrecommend specific types of communications for a specific interface.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 5-1
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
Each program area can be successfully implemented with a variety of communicationsmethodologies. The type of communication ultimately selected will depend on many factors suchas existing communication infrastructure, resources available, data communication requirements,and the long-range plan for the systems involved. In order to simplify the multitude ofcommunications options available for each program area, “profiles” have been identified thatrepresent the type of communications and data transmission requirements necessary in each programarea rather than a particular communication medium. These profiles (A, B, and C) vary dependingon the amount of data (which could be voice, video, or electronic data) that must be transmitted(volume) and how often this transmission takes place (frequency). The three profiles are definedbelow and are used in the architecture diagrams in Section 5.3.
5.3.1 Profile A
. Low volume data. Manual data. Updates only when required
Systems using this profile of communications typically do not have large amounts of data to transferto the central data server, which receives raw data and processes it for dissemination to variousindependent service providers and traveler information systems. The data to be transferred typicallyis not available electronically and most data is manually processed through hardcopy, voice,facsimile, or pager networks. Typical sources of this information would be transit agencies that havestatic schedules or special event information. Some examples of communication technologies thatfall under this category are public switched networks, cellular networks, pager networks, etc.
5.3.2 Profile B
. Electronic data. Low and high volumes of data. Static and dynamic data. Updated regularly, but not real-time
Systems using this profile of communications typically have large amounts of data to transfer thatare available electronically. The data is not updated frequently and could be either static or dynamicin nature. The frequency of data received and transmitted using these profile ranges from one updatedaily to more than one update (usually if updates occur during peak morning and evening hours).A transit agency would be a typical source of this type of information where they have their routeschedules in an electronic format that can be transmitted to a central data server. While not static,this transit information is not frequently updated and thus does not require a real-timecommunications link to the central data server. This profile could also be used to disseminateinformation out to changeable message signs, highway advisory radio, and electronic station signs.Some examples of communication technologies that fall under this category are analog telephonelines, digital modem lines, packet radio networks, etc.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 5-2
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
5.3.3 Profile C
. Low and high volume data. Continuous update of information - real-time. Primarily dynamic information
Systems using this profile typically have large amounts of data that are available by electronic mediaand/or updated frequently or almost continuously. Typically, the data is dynamic, supplemented bysome static information. The frequency of data received and transmitted in this category is in real-tune. While this may not constitute a continuous open communication link between two systems,it is necessary that this profile support frequent updating of the information. Sources of suchinformation include real-tune incident detection, speed data, CCTV images, and video detectionsystems. Types of dissemination techniques which use this type of communications are travelerinformation services like the Internet, Cable TV, in-vehicle navigation devices, and planningorganization like Emergency Management, Incident Rescue Operations, etc. Some examples ofcommunication technologies that fall under this category are fiber optic network, FM Subcarriersystems, coaxial cable systems, etc.
5.4 RECOMMENDED ARCHITECTURES BY TIME FRAME
The architectures described below relate to specific projects described in detail in Section 6.0 of thisreport. For the purposes of system architecture, the Mid- and Long-Term time frames have beencombined.
The architectures presented on the next several pages reflect a distributed architecture for the MiamiValley. A distributed architecture relies heavily on local storing and processing of data and thencommunicating that data between systems using the various communications means discussed inSection 5.3. In a distributed architecture, each site receives separate data inputs, then processes thedata into the appropriate information content and stores it for retrieval. Each user (or data terminal)makes a request of the “system” for information. The type of information requested will determinewhich “server” or processor will respond to the request.
The primary disadvantage of a distributed architecture is that data is not resident in a single“location,” which generally makes maintenance, consistency and standardization of data formateasier. However, a strong advantage of distributed architectures is that it can be more easilyexpanded incrementally and control can be maintained at the local level.
5.4.1 Immediate Time Frame Near l-2 Projects
Projects recommended for immediate implementation focus on establishing “early winners.” Theseprojects are relatively autonomous systems that can be useful to travelers even if there is not a large,installed base of traffic detection and reporting devices. In later phases, as more traffic data andsurveillance systems become available, more data intensive projects are recommended forimplementation.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 5-3
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
For the Freeway/Incident Management Systems program area, projects recommended fordeployment in the immediate time frame include vehicle detection, changeable message signs andclosed-circuit television surveillance. These systems can provide immediate benefits to agenciesresponsible for monitoring freeway flow and responding to incidents on the freeway system.
The projects recommended for implementation in the Advanced Traffic Control Systems programarea are scheduled timing updates, microprocessor controller conversions, and phase 1 of thecoordinated traffic signal system improvements.
For the Public Transportation Systems program area, the immediate time frame includes projectsin the automatic vehicle location systems for MVRTA buses, automated on-board fare and datacollection, and transit traveler information through electronic displays on MVRTA buses.
The five projects recommended for implementation in the Multimodal Traveler Information Systemsprogram area during this time frame include media reports, Internet, pagers, automated telephone,and the central data server. The central data server is the most complex of these projects and isimplemented in the immediate time frame to establish a foundation on which future projects can beimplemented. Without the central data server, many of these systems would not be able to takeadvantage of traffic information that will be collected.
The remaining four projects in the Multimodal Traveler Information Systems program area can beestablished as autonomous systems, not necessarily connected into the central data server. Theirdeployment can parallel the development and deployment of the central data server. While thesesystems can provide functionality without connection to the central data server, it is highlyrecommended that this connection be designed into each system so when the central data server comes “on line,” each system can take advantage of the extended information that is available.
Figure 5-1 presents the recommended high level system architecture for the Immediate (years l-2)deployment time frame.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 5-4
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
B
C
B BCC
A
FIG
UR
E 5-
1
HIG
H L
EV
EL
AR
CH
ITE
CTU
RE
: IM
ME
DIA
TE T
IME
FR
AM
E
A
A
A
FRE
EW
AY
&IN
CID
EN
TM
AN
AG
EM
EN
T
Auto
mate
dTe
lepho
ne
Page
rs
Inter
net
Media
Repo
rts
Traf
ficSi
gnal
Coor
d.
MVRT
AAV
L
MVRT
AEle
ctro
nicDi
splay
s
MVRT
AAu
toma
ted
Collec
tion
CMS
CCTV
LOC
AL
CO
NTR
OL
CEN
TER
CEN
TRA
L D
ATA
SER
VER
PU
BLI
CTR
AN
SIT
SY
STE
MS
AD
VA
NC
ED
TRA
FFIC
CO
NTR
OL
TRA
VE
LER
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
SY
STE
MS
LEG
EN
D
PRO
FIL
E A
PRO
FIL
E B
PRO
FIL
E C
5.4.2 Short Term Time Frame Near 3-5 Projects
Projects recommended for the short term time frame typically, though not always, rely more on anestablished infrastructure and are more complex with respect to the implementation and deploymentrequirements.
For the Freeway/Incident Management Systems program area, it is recommended that a cellularhotline be established for callers to use from their vehicles to report traffic incidents and otherfreeway problems as well as gain information regarding current traffic situations. HighwayAdvisory Radio is the second project in this area to be deployed in the short time frame. Thisproject allows broadcast of traffic and travel related information to all motorists.
Deployment of ITS technologies at highway rail intersections, and phase 2 of the coordinated trafficsignal system improvements are the projects recommended in the Advanced Traffic Control Systemsprogram area for this time frame.
For the Public Transportation Systems program area, inclusion of on-board annunciators,announcing critical bus stops and major intersections is the project recommended forimplementation in the short time frame.
Multimodal Traveler Information Systems program area has three projects recommended forimplementation in this time frame. These are a cable television traffic system, traveler informationkiosks, and in-vehicle devices. These projects typically rely more heavily on receipt of data and aredependent on the previous development and deployment of the central data server. Continuedupdating of the central data server would also be required as additional systems are brought “on-
* line.”
Figure 5-2 presents the recommended high-level system architecture for the Short Term (years 3-5)deployment time frame.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 5-6
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
B
CB BCC
A
C
C
B
B
AB
C
FIG
UR
E 5-
2
HIG
H L
EV
EL
AR
CH
ITE
CTU
RE
: SH
OR
T-TE
RM
TIM
E F
RA
ME
A
A
A
FRE
EW
AY
&IN
CID
EN
TM
AN
AG
EM
EN
T
Auto
mate
dTe
lepho
ne
Page
rs
Inter
net
Media
Repo
rts
Traf
ficSi
gnal
Coor
d.
MVRT
AAV
L
MVRT
AEle
ctro
nicDi
splay
s
MVRT
AAu
toma
ted
Collec
tion
CMS
CCTV
LOC
AL
CO
NTR
OL
CEN
TER
CEN
TRA
L D
ATA
SER
VER
PU
BLI
CTR
AN
SIT
SY
STE
MS
AD
VA
NC
ED
TRA
FFIC
CO
NTR
OL
TRA
VE
LER
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
SY
STE
MS
LEG
EN
D
PRO
FIL
E A
PRO
FIL
E B
PRO
FIL
E C
Kiosk
s
In-ve
hicle
Devic
es
MVRT
AOn
-boa
rdAn
nunc
iator
s
ITS D
evice
s@H
RI
HAR
Cellul
arHo
tline
Cable TV
PA
VE
ME
NT
& W
EA
THE
RS
EN
SO
RS
5.4.3 Mid-Term/Low-Term Time Frame Near 6-20 Projects
Projects recommended for implementation in the mid- to long-term time frames are typicallyheavily dependent on established infrastructure or are recommended based on anticipated growthin the previous 5-10 years that would then make these additional systems a necessity.
Ramp Metering is the only project in the Freeway/Incident Management Systems program areaimplemented in this area. It was felt that ramp metering was not needed in the immediate or shortterm periods and a study would be initiated to determine the feasibility and necessity of rampmetering before any implementation.
In the Advanced Traffic Signal Control Systems program area, projects include phase 3 & 4 of thecoordinated traffic signal system improvements, and ITS strategies at Highway/RailroadIntersections.
In the Public Transportation Systems program area, projects include implementation of AVL,electronic display, and automated fare collection on SCAT buses.
Figure 5-3 presents the recommended high-level system architecture for the combined Mid- andLong-Term (years 6-20) deployment time frames.
Miami Valley ITS#24542 5-8
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997
B
CB BCC
A
C
C
B
B
AB
C
B
C
FIG
UR
E 5-
3
HIG
H L
EV
EL
AR
CH
ITE
CTU
RE
: MID
-LO
NG
TE
RM
TIM
E F
RA
ME
A
A
A
FRE
EW
AY
&IN
CID
EN
TM
AN
AG
EM
EN
T
Auto
mate
dTe
lepho
ne
Page
rs
Inter
net
Media
Repo
rts
Traf
ficSi
gnal
Coor
d.
MVRT
AAV
L
MVRT
AEle
ctro
nicDi
splay
s
MVRT
AAu
toma
ted
Collec
tion
CMS
CCTV
LOC
AL
CO
NTR
OL
CEN
TER
CEN
TRA
L D
ATA
SER
VER
PU
BLI
CTR
AN
SIT
SY
STE
MS
AD
VA
NC
ED
TRA
FFIC
CO
NTR
OL
TRA
VE
LER
INFO
RM
ATI
ON
SY
STE
MS
LEG
EN
D
PRO
FIL
E A
PRO
FIL
E B
PRO
FIL
E C
Kiosk
s
In-ve
hicle
Devic
es
MVRT
AOn
-boa
rdAn
nunc
iator
s
ITS D
evice
s@H
RI
HAR
Cellul
arHo
tline
Cable TV
Ramp
Mete
rs
ALL S
CAT
PROJ
ECTS
PA
VE
ME
NT
& W
EA
THE
RS
EN
SO
RS
xjpu
addy
APPENDIXTYPICAL ITS SYSTEM FEATURE
Miami Valley ITS#24542
Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997