Planning for Success: Applying Systems Engineering to

ASCT Implementation

TRANSPO 2012October 29, 2012

Eddie Curtis, PEFHWA

Office of Operations / Resource Center

2

Adaptive Signal Control Technology

1Monitor Traffic

2Evaluate Performance

3Update Timing

Trigger Event

Data Collection

Modeling / Optimization

Implement & Fine Tune

Reporting

US Implementation 1992-2009

Source: NCHRP 403 2010 & FHWA Arterial Management Program

ASCT Systems Deactivated 1992 - 2009

Knowledge gained from demonstrations

• Substantial benefits over coordinated TOD operation– Travel time, Delay, Emissions, – Congestion, Safety

• Most effective where demand conditions are Variable and unpredictable

• Linear Arterials, limited success within tight grids

• Under Saturated

What we know about Traffic Signal Management & Operations Practices

2005 2007 2012

Technology Innovation

• Warm Mix Asphalt

• Precast Bridge Elements

• Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil

• Safety Edge

• Adaptive Signal Control Technology

Better, Faster, Smarter

Shortening Project Deliveryo Planning & Environmental Linkages

o Legal Sufficiency Enhancements

o Expanding Use of Programmatic Agreements

o Use of In–Lieu Fee and Mitigation Banking

o Clarifying the Scope of Preliminary Design

o Flexibilities in ROW

o Flexibilities in Utility Accommodation and Relocation

o Enhanced Technical Assistance on Ongoing EISs

Benefits• Better

– Benefits to Road Users & Agencies• Travel time reduction 13% - 50% • Fuel Consumption 8% - 38%

– Ongoing performance measurement• Smarter

– Solves problems that are difficult to address with time-of-day and traffic responsive

– Saves cost of mundane data collection and retiming• Faster

– Reduces retiming intervals from years to minutes

9

Barriers to Adoption

– Complexity

– Cost

– Uncertainty about Benefits

Possible Approaches

• Consumer Reports – Evaluate Available

Technology– Consult with vendors /

Distributors– Deploy small scale

system (DEMONSTRATION)

– Evaluate– Abandon or Expand

• Systems Engineering– Objectives– Needs / Constraints– Requirements– Design– Implement– Verification– Validation– (Operate & Maintain)– Abandon or Expand

10

11

Successful Deployment

• Goals well understood• Agency describes its needs• Positive response to requirements in RFP• Requirements are verified • Performance objectives are validated • System is effective over entire life cycle

12

What are the Risks - ASCT?

• Problem could be solved with other strategies• Functional Objectives of the system do not

align with agency objectives• Loss of other critical functions / features• Constraints not properly addressed• Cost• Maintenance

13

Other Risk Issues• Technology NEW to most• Technology still evolving• Most systems have very limited track record• Documented history of failed ASCT projects (40%+)• Significantly increased complexity• Extremely dependant upon infrastructure

– Communications systems– Detection– Staff

• Not “one size fits all”• Marketing often exceeds performance

The Role of Systems Engineering

Understanding the problem

•Projects getting bogged down with shifting requirements

•Acquisitions being challenged by unsuccessful bidders/proposers/vendors

•Projects not meeting agency needs

Managing risk

+ it is mandatory for federal-aid projects

Purpose of SE Model Documents• Evaluate need for Adaptive Control• Help agencies identify verifiable,

needs-driven requirements for evaluating design and implementation choices

• Model documents greatly reduce systems engineering effort by providing wording and documentation…

• …but agencies still must identify their needs

Model Document Process

Build Requirements• Answer questions• About the situation• About you

• Select and tailor ConOps statements

• Select and tailor requirements

Evaluate Alternatives• Evaluate proposed

approaches/products against requirements

• Solution feasible given constraints?

Continue Tailoring Until Solutions… • Fulfill requirements• Are feasible

FHWA Every Day Counts Outreach/Support/Technical Assistance

US Implementation 2010 - 2012

FHWA EDC/ASCT Influence 2010-2012

Rate of Implementation

Deployment 1

992 - 2009

Deployment 2

010 - 2012

Planned Deploym

ent

Deactiva

tions 1992 -2

0090

10203040506070

38

63

42

20

Application of Systems Engineering

Completed Deployments applying SE (1992 - 2012)

Planned Deployments using SE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

8%

62%

22

Influencing Change

“Innovation is not what the customers does it is what the customer adopts”

~ Jesse Glazer CAL-SOUTH Change Agent

Questions?

Eddie Curtis, P.E.Traffic Management Specialist

(404) 562-3920

eddie.curtis@dot.gov

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts