GDOT’s Metro Atlanta Ramp Meters

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Trend for Precision Soil Testing % Zone or Grid Samples Tested compared to Total Samples.
Advertisements

AGVISE Laboratories %Zone or Grid Samples – Northwood laboratory
EuroCondens SGB E.
CALENDAR.
0 Data Through 2008 Report for Statewide Transportation Plan and Business Plan Performance Measures October 2009 Report to District Engineers Safety 2009.
Status Report: Evaluation of Private Sector Data in Minneapolis Shawn Turner Texas Transportation.
Minnesotas Congestion Pricing Program Road User Charging Conference January, 2009 By Bernie Arseneau Minnesota (USA) Department of Transportation.
General Update March Background As the region grows, increased travel demand on our aging Metro Highway System will continue to create additional.
Beltline Highway ITS – Ramp Metering Project ODOT Planners Meeting April 25, 2012.
Public Involvement Open Houses Develop Problem Statement Review plans, policies, regulations, and standards Identify and assess Alternate Mobility.
OR 42: County Line Curves Environmental Assessment Purpose and Need February 17, 2009.
Oregon Department of Transportation.
1 Innovative Tools October 27, 2011 Chi Mai. 2 Presentation Overview VISSIM Corridors VISSIM Protocol Hours of Congestion.
A34 Corridor Strategy Strategic Route Improvements 25 th November 2004 working together with.
A Fractional Order (Proportional and Derivative) Motion Controller Design for A Class of Second-order Systems Center for Self-Organizing Intelligent.
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS: GETTING THE MOST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK! GPA Fall Conference 2013 Kyle Mote GDOT Office of Planning October 10, 2013.
Traffic Analysis Toolbox & Highway Capacity Manual Transition
OR 217 Interchange Management Study John Bosket, PE A la carte planning for an unpredictable fiscal future.
Overview of Electric Cars November Terminology – EVs, HEVs, & PHEVs Electric Vehicles: available today –All electric, battery power/electric motor,
Data Collection Methods BluFax: vehicle identification using bluetooth MAC addresses – provides corridor traffic patterns (origin-destination data) and.
EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS IN MINNESOTA A JOINT PRESENTATION TO THE Transportation Funding Advisory Committee September 14, 2012.
Charging at 120 and 240 Volts 120-Volt Portable Vehicle Charge Cord 240-Volt Home Charge Unit.
TCCI Barometer September “Establishing a reliable tool for monitoring the financial, business and social activity in the Prefecture of Thessaloniki”
Before Between After.
Fast Forward Ramp Meter Design for Metro Atlanta Taylor H. Stukes, PE Gresham, Smith and Partners 2325 Lakeview Parkway, Suite 400, Alpharetta, Georgia.
JUSTIFY. Methodology for Measuring NaviGAtor ITS Performance ITS Georgia Annual Meeting 2010 Presented By: Prasoon Sinha, P.E, PTOE Department Manager,
Static Equilibrium; Elasticity and Fracture
UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES. 22 HILLSBOROUGH IS A REALLY BIG COUNTY.
D2 Roadway Discussion Sound Transit Board September 22, 2011.
I-80 Corridor System Management Plan Alameda County Transportation Commission ACTAC Meeting September 7, 2010.
TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS: GETTING THE MOST BANG FOR YOUR BUCK! GPA Fall Conference 2013 Garth Lynch, PE, AICP HNTB Corporation October 10, 2013.
Ramp Metering Pilot Project May 11th, 2010 E. Jason Sims, P.E. Kansas City Scout TMC Manager.
Transportation Data Palooza Washington, DC May 9, 2013 Steve Mortensen Federal Transit Administration Data for Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) Analysis,
A service for setting the speed of vehicles to their location speed limits based on speeds set by a traffic speed management system used for optimizing.
Evaluation Tools to Support ITS Planning Process FDOT Research #BD presented to Model Advancement Committee presented by Mohammed Hadi, Ph.D., PE.
Congestion Reduction Using Intelligent Transportation Systems Ben Sperry University of Evansville University of Evansville MESCON March 25, 2006.
Month XX, 2004 Dr. Robert Bertini Using Archived Data to Measure Operational Benefits of ITS Investments: Ramp Meters Oregon Department of Transportation.
Traffic Incident Management – a Strategic Focus Inspector Peter Baird National Adviser: Policy and Legislation: Road Policing.
Florida Department of Transportation District 4 TSM&O Program Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) Installation in South Broward County ATMS.
Less Stop More Go EXPRESS LANES Travel Choices and Strategies to Relieve Congestion Presentation to FDOT’s Annual ITS Working Group Meeting March 2008.
Bus Rapid Transit: Chicago’s New Route to Opportunity Josh Ellis, BRT Project Manager Metropolitan Planning Council.
An Intelligent Transportation System Evaluation Tool in the FSUTMS Regional Demand Modeling Environment By Mohammed Hadi, Florida International University.
Fast Forward Full Speed Ahead Presented at the Joint ITS Georgia / Tennessee Annual Meeting September 25, 2006 by Carla W. Holmes, P.E., PTOE Georgia Department.
Pat Bursaw, Minnesota DOT International Partnership Meeting Washington D.C. January 26, 2012.
4-1 Model Input Dollar Value  Dollar value of time  Accident costs  Fuel costs  Emission costs.
Congestion Causes and Solutions. Traffic Congestion Characteristics Slower speeds Longer trip time Increased queues More vehicles.
1 Mississippi River Bridge An Analysis of Alternatives Expert Panel Review Sharon Greene & Associates.
California Department of Transportation Transportation Management Systems (TMS) and their role in addressing congestion Discussion Materials Lake Arrowhead.
November 15, 2005 Dr. Robert Bertini Dr. Sue Ahn Using Archived Data to Measure Operational Benefits of a System-wide Adaptive Ramp Metering (SWARM) System.
Georgia’s Regional Traffic Operations Program Christopher Barrow, E.I.T. Traffic Engineer II.
Company LOGO Ramp Meters. Company LOGO What are Ramp Meters? Part of NaviGAtor, Georgia DOT’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Also includes electronic.
3000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 208 Washington, DC
Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Project L07 Identification and Evaluation of the Cost- Effectiveness of Highway Design Features to Reduce Nonrecurrent.
I-95 Access Study Fredericksburg Area Project Status Update February 12, 2010.
THE EL MONTE HOV / BUSWAY: A Policy Driven Experiment in Congestion Management Frank Quon Division of Operations Deputy District Director HOV LANES IN.
2004 Transportation M etropolitan A tlanta P erformance Report – Congestion Measures Presentation to ITS Georgia August 29, 2005.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Fairfax County Parkway Corridor Study Board of Supervisors Transportation Committee December 1,
Expressway Driving Legacy High School Drivers Education.
Minnesota’s Urban Partnership Agreement UPA Timeline The UPA agreement with the US DOT requires that the project be operational by September 30, 2009,
Using Archived Data to Measure Operational Benefits of a System-wide Adaptive Ramp Metering (SWARM) System Data Collection Plan / Experimental Design May.
Company LOGO Georgia Truck Lane Needs Identification Study Talking Freight Seminar March 19, 2008 Matthew Fowler, P.T.P Assistant State Planning Administrator.
1 National Governors Association Roundtable Presentation April 2, 2001 Dr. Christine Johnson Director, ITS Joint Program Office Program Manager, FHWA Operations.
CEE 495/771 – Fall 2008 Topic 9 Ramp Metering Ramp Metering.
Grand Valley Metropolitan Council March 3, 2016 Erick Kind Region Engineer MDOT-Grand Region.
Garden State Parkway HOT Lanes By Matt Lawson October 14, 2010.
Lessons Learned from Intersection Improvements on U.S. Highway 280 PMI Central Alabama Chapter Darrell B. Skipper, P.E.
ITS Virginia Annual Conference April 20, 2012 Sensys Networks and the Sensys Networks logo are trademarks of Sensys Networks, Inc. Other product and company.
Expertise SR 710 North Study An Evaluation of the DEIR/EIS Presentation to the City of San Gabriel City Council February 2, 2016 Leland C Dolley, Special.
The I-465 West Leg Reconstruction Project
Module 6 A 21st Century Transportation Network
Presentation transcript:

GDOT’s Metro Atlanta Ramp Meters Marc Plotkin Traffic Engineer II :Regional Traffic Operations

Topics What, and Why Safety Benefits Design Considerations History in Atlanta Implementation Operations Results and Findings I’m going to give a brief explanation or what ramp meters are and why they were implemented Then talk about the safety analysis done in Minnesota and the benefits behind ramp metering. After that talk about the implementation of ramp meters in metro Atlanta, how we as operations manage them from day to day and share some results.

What Are Ramp Meters Part of NaviGAtor, Georgia DOT’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) “Traffic lights” on interstate entrance ramps designed to control traffic flow onto the interstate Proven to relieve traffic congestion in over 20 U.S. cities for over 20 years Ramp meters are a part of Georgia DOT’s large computer operated Intelligent Transportation System, housed and managed at the TMC. Meter detection loops are embedded in the pavement throughout metro Atlanta that feed information about traffic volumes and speed on the interstates and ramps to central software. Ramp Meters are essentially “traffic lights” positioned on interstate entrance ramps. They are designed to control cars entering the freeway, allowing less disruption to mainline traffic.

Ramp Meter Locations Here is a map of some other cities that currently have a ramp metering system Minneapolis St. Paul, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix, San Jose, Dallas, Atlanta, and many others

Why? Reduces crashes at merge points Increases freeway productivity Reduces stop-and-go traffic Reduces fuel consumption Cost-effective traffic management tool Improves trip predictability Without metering, groups of closely-spaced vehicles all enter the Interstate together. At the merge point, they force their way into travel lanes, causing congestion- especially in the right lanes. In already heavy traffic, there is a total breakdown of free-flow near the on-ramps. This has a ripple effect for many miles. Even with no incidents, heavy on-ramp traffic causes congestion that builds and lasts through the rush-hour Ramp meters are a cost effective tool to help manage traffic

Safety Analysis Minnesota Ramp Meter shutdown test With Metering 261 crashes Without metering 476 crashes Annual Savings from metering Property damage only $4.8 million Injuries $6.8 million Fatalities $6.6 million In 2000 Minnesota DOT issued a system wide shutdown of their ramp meters for 6 weeks. As can be seen there was a large increase in interstate crashes during this period. During this 6 weeks there was a 9% reduction in freeway volume however there was a 22% increase in travel time, and 26% increase in crashes There was an estimated Annual Savings of $18.2 Million when using ramp metering.

Reduction in Crashes 43% 20% 38% 26% 15% Portland, OR Los Angeles, CA Minneapolis, MN Los Angeles, CA Seattle, WA Portland, OR Long Island, NY 43% 20% 38% 26% Crash Reduction with ramp meter implementation in Major Cities 15%

Benefits of Ramp Meters PREPARE TO STOP Improved traffic flow from surface street to freeway Faster travel times Reduced merging accidents Reduced fuel consumption Reduced vehicle emissions Ramp meters are designed to alleviate back-ups on interstate entrance ramps. Our central computers can then adjust the rate at which the meters operate based on plan thresholds, allowing traffic to flow more freely when entrance ramps get crowded. During high peak times, drivers tend to compete for position and to merge all at once into mainline traffic. Ramp meters have been proven to reduce the number of accidents associated with rear-ending and merging by 30%. The average wait at a ramp meter usually does not exceed 2 minutes with a maximum of 5 minutes.

Design Considerations Some ramps dropped out of consideration during design phase “slip” ramps – such as I-85 frontage road system Ramps with very short storage C/D ramps No “geometrical” changes allowed No widening Some striping changes allowed if shoulders maintained Acceleration distances AASHTO Green Book compliance maintained With the initial roll out of ramp meters, no geometric changes were allowed and only some striping changes could be made.

History of Ramp Meters in Atlanta Begin Phase II –the Modern Years Preparation for Olympics in 1996 Congestion was back, relief needed and capacity was fixed Pilot project – 5 ramps selected Meters began operation December 1996 Low impact ramps were selected for the pilot: No widening/extending Single lanes Not a big residential area Relatively low volumes Phase 2 of ramp metering started because of the increase in congestion leading up to the olympics. 5 ramp meters were selected on I-75 N inside the perimeter where ramps had lower volumes and all entrance ramps were single lanes.

Downtown Atlanta 1967 – Atlanta History Center One of the first ramp meters in the city of Atlanta in 1967. This is the exit for the Atlanta History Center which at that time was located downtown.

Ramp Meter Pilot I-75 NB Meters programmed to turn ON at 3:45 PM weekdays (TMC Planning) Loop Detection with 3 second gap Max rate set on the fly Minimize delay on ramp (adjust rate) Longer ramps = Adjust rate up Shorter ramps = Adjust rate down Meter ramps as needed on individual basis Base rates on various time of day schedule As said previously, 5 ramps were chosen for the initial pilot test. All meters were turned on at 3:45PM and rates were adjusted based on storage space on each individual ramp. Being the pilot test, thresholds were modified during peak hours.

History of Ramp Meters in Atlanta Phase III – the ‘Fast Forward’ years (2006-2012) GDOT elected to go “all in” Funding mechanism, Governors’ “Fast Forward” program 18 year worth of congestion-relief projects in 6 years Included 165 more ramp meters Staged installation, one freeway at a time During Phase 3, GDOT received funding from the Governors Fast Forward program to add 165 more ramp meter locations. Installation would be done one corridor stretch at a time.

Meters on as of January 2009 GA 400 I-85 I-75 I-20 I-20 I-75 I-85 87 Ramp Meters I-75 I-85

Meters on as of January 2010 GA 400 GA 400 I-85 I-85 I-75 I-75 I-20 Another 62 ramp meters were constructed totling 149 Ramp Meters I-75 I-75 I-85 I-85

Georgia Ramp Meter System Today GA 400 I-75 I-85 185 Ramp Meters with Construction projects pushing West on I-20 to add over 200 Ramp Meters in the next 2 years I-20 I-85 I-75

Current Ramp Meter Locations 185 Ramp Meters: Original 5 on I-75 NB, Midtown to Cumberland Mall (1996) 27 Locations on I-20 51 Locations on I-285 8 Locations on I-575 40 Locations on I-75 North and South of Atlanta 15 Locations on the 75/85 Connector 19 Locations on I-85 2 Locations on the Buford Connector 15 Locations on GA 400 8 Locations on US 78 Since the original 5 ramp meter locations on I-75 NB inside the perimeter, 180 additional ramp meters have been installed with more under construction.

Operations- GDOT Mindset GDOT’s goal: partner with locals to provide the best possible travel time for the public. best = more consistent and reliable Ramp meter’s objective: Aid the mainline while limiting the impact from arterial networks supplying demand. How do we do that? Providing consistent flow for merging vehicles Resulting in improved Mobility Safety Our operational goal is to provide the best possible travel time to the public while staying consistent. To do this we constantly adjust metering thresholds to improve gaps for merging vehicles. This results in more mobility and improved safety.

Operations – Day to Day Queue Management Making sure that arterials aren’t negatively impacted How do we do that? Remote monitoring – during peaks Navigator 2 Centrally connected system Threshold adjustments Speed up metering Shut down Ramp Mainline (Testing) On a day to day basis there is a handful of employees on the operations floor and dedicated employees in the Regional Traffic Operations division that make sure all adjustments to thresholds are made properly, detectors and functioning and mainline readings are calibrated. This is done using Central software and Navigator 2

Queue Management WITHOUT … WITH … Quick simulation of how proper ramp metering can supply a needed gap to eliminate congestion in the right lanes.

Travel Time reduced 6 Minutes Results 285 Westbound – PM peak – from Chamblee Dunwoody to I-75 (9 Miles) Travel Time (Min) # of Stops Avg Speed(mph) Total Delay(min) Totals Before 17.19 6.3 33.9 5.62 After 11.22 1.4 51.9 1.02 Change -5.97 -4.9 18.0 -4.61 Data from TMC floor study regarding travel times before and after turn on. On average travel time was reduced 6 minutes Travel Time reduced 6 Minutes

Travel Time reduced 5 Minutes Results 285 Eastbound – PM peak from Roswell Rd to I-85 (8 Miles) Travel Time (Min) # of Stops Avg Speed(mph) Total Delay(min) Totals Before 16.12 6.3 33.9 6.92 After 11.45 1.4 51.9 2.56 Change -4.67 -4.9 18.0 -4.36 On average Travel time was reduces 5 minutes Travel Time reduced 5 Minutes

Result Summary Travel time reductions ranged from: 50 seconds to 6 minutes 8 – 35% # of stop reductions ranged from: 0.7 to 5.3 Total delay reductions ranged from: 30 seconds to 5 minutes 11 to 82% Overall travel time and total delay saw significant reductions throughout the whole system

Result Summary Carbon Monoxide (g) reductions ranged from: Emissions data was also collected Hydrocarbon (g) reductions ranged from: 5 to 31% Oxides of Nitrogen (g) reductions ranged from: 5 to 38% One corridor increased 6% Carbon Monoxide (g) reductions ranged from: 1 to 15% Two corridors had increases (1% and 13%) Emissions data was collected as well. Not all Corridors showed improvement but overall the results were very promising

I-285 Westbound PM Peak Detection Data studied 3 weeks before and 3 weeks after ramp meter implementation on I-285 Westbound during the PM peak

Comparing september of 2007 to september of 2008 on I-285 near Riverside Dr, 62% of days were moderately to severely congested before metering and only 28% moderately or severly congested after metering implemented.

I-75 NB in the AM hours Comparing October 2007 to October 2008, 86% of days were moderately to severely congested before metering and only 39% moderately congested with no severely congested days after metering implemented.

Lastly I-85 NB near Beaver Ruin comparing October 2007 to October 2008, 100% of days were moderately to severely congested before metering and only 9% moderately or severely congested after metering implemented.

Thank you Marc Plotkin Traffic Engineer II mplotkin@dot.ga.gov