Columbus Metropolitan Signal System Assessment & Strategic Plan Development ITS Mid-America/ITE Annual Meeting September 8, 2003

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

Importance of Coordinated Traffic Signal Systems  Reduce congestion  Reduce accidents  Reduce aggressive driver behavior  Improve air quality/reduce fuel consumption  Postpone or eliminate the need for construction of additional capacity

History: Columbus Metropolitan Computerized Traffic Signal System  Original System Dates back to the 1950’s Captured federal dollars – civil defense funding Utilized electromechanical controllers  Modifications to Original System Improvements to CBD operations TOPICS funds Central control system Coaxial cable interconnect and conduit Closed circuit camera – funding Set model for future deployment System that the city can maintain on it’s own

History: Columbus Metro Signal System (cont’d)  Continued system expansion as Columbus expanded  Innovative ideas – federal money for demonstration project Northland area monitored from downtown office  CMAQ funding to upgrade to a new central system (Phases 1 - 6) Monitor up to 1,000 signals Update 1950’s electromechanical system Update CBD Began working with other jurisdictions

History: Columbus Metro Signal System (cont’d)  Closed Loop Systems Started in 1981 Put in with construction projects as surrounding areas developed Currently, limited coordination between closed loop systems

History: Columbus Metro Signal System (cont’d)

 Relationships built with other jurisdictions for design, monitoring, maintenance and incident management Bexley, Franklin County, Grandview Heights, Marble Cliff, ODOT, OSU, Reynoldsburg, Upper Arlington, Valleyview, and Whitehall

What does the future hold for the Columbus Metro Traffic Signal System?  Communications Infrastructure?  Central Control System?  Inter-jurisdictional collaboration?

National ITS Architecture Final Rule / Policy  On January 8, 2001, FHWA issued an ITS Architecture and Standards regulation and FTA issued a parallel Policy. These two “policies” are virtually identical in content.  They both became effective April 8,  The intent is to foster integration (and proper consideration of integration) of ITS systems being deployed in a region.

Regional ITS Architecture  Regional Architectures must be maintained by the responsible agencies (e.g. MORPC).  Areas with existing architectures need to evaluate that architecture and revise as necessary to be in conformance with the Final Rule/Policy.

MORPC Investment in the System  CM/AQ funds  City design = local match  Spent Phases 1 – 10 = $16.5 M  Programmed Phases 11 – 14 = $11.3 M

MORPC/City Seizing an Opportunity  Review compliance with the Regional ITS Architecture  Aim to contain cost overruns  Aim to minimize constructions delays

Project Partners Suburban CommunitiesSafety Forces

Information Gathering: How did we get to where we are today?  Part 1: Awareness Assessment  Part 2: Technical Oversight Committee  Part 3: ITS Peer to Peer Exchange

Part 1: Awareness Assessment Questions  Do you know what the Regional ITS Architecture is?  Do you know what the Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System is?  Does your agency have a relationship with the Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System? Maintenance, monitoring, design, other?  Would you like to have a relationship with the Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System?

Part 1: Awareness Assessment Ques. (cont’d)  What works well?  What could work better?  What do you see as future demands/expectations on signal systems? 5 years – 10 years – 15 years?  How will your organization interface with the Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System in the future?

Part 1: Awareness Assessment Results  36% didn’t know what the ITS architecture was nor why it is important  86% were aware of the Columbus Computerized Traffic Signal System  64% currently had some sort of relationship with the signal system (67% monitoring, 44% maintenance, 33% design)  Some indicated they would like more of a relationship with the system, but needed to learn how to do that

Part 1: Awareness Assessment Results (cont’d)  What could work better? Signal progression to meet the needs of the community Communications between staff and other non-city stakeholders re: signal timing changes and maintenance needs Local access to data Signal priority and pre-emption

Part 2: Traffic Signal Oversight Committee  Quarterly meetings  April 9th Kickoff meeting – overview of project/process  July 1st Stakeholder opportunity to review the RFP and questionnaire  Next Meeting: October Consultant kickoff meeting

Part 3: ITS Peer to Peer Exchange  Intelligent Transportation Systems Location: Columbus, OH April 8th & 9th, 2003 Purpose: On site expertise for stakeholder buy in

Part 3: ITS Peer to Peer Exchange  MORPC sought an unbiased source for traffic signal system advice and expertise Avoid consultant conflicts Wanted to learn from those who had similar problems as central Ohio  Older signal system technology  Signal technology not compliant with the Regional ITS Architecture  Wanted to improve regional systems integration at a reasonable cost

Part 3: ID Peer Requirements  Be fluent in state-of-the-art signal technologies  Be fluent in older signal technologies  Relate how communities have migrated to newer technologies without losing investment in existing systems  Explain why design philosophies are moving in the direction they are  Explain the pros and cons of the various systems suppliers/components  Be current on National ITS Architectural issues  Be current on emerging ITS standards  What will traffic systems be in 3 to 5 years? … in 8 to10 years?  Have experience with signal interfaces including transit, safety and freeway management systems …. the list goes on and on and on….

Part 3: The Results - Two Perspectives  Colorado Springs, CO Approach: Retro-fit an older signal system  Oakland County, MI Approach: Start from scratch and build a new signal system (SCATS)

MORPC FY 2004 Planning Work Program  Signal system assessment similar to CMFMS Detailed Project Plan, saving $40+M on build out of CMFMS  Evaluation of system and user perspectives What works, what can work better?  Evaluation of emerging standards  Evaluation of new “OTS” technology  End product: a new design philosophy

What are the project details?  Technical & Operational Assessment Consultant  Institutional Assessment MORPC / signal stakeholders

RFP: Technical & Operational Assessment  A survey of member agencies outlining their agency standards and existing equipment types/manufacturers in use for: Traffic signal central control system(s) Intersection controller to local master Local master to central monitoring station  An evaluation of available traffic signal control systems stating their relative advantages and disadvantages

RFP: Technical & Operational Assessment (cont’d)  Consider suitability, existing examples of systems in use, and NTCIP compliance of the evaluated systems for implementation of interface to: Signal priority systems Signal preemption systems Columbus Metropolitan Freeway Management System Other agency signal systems ITS systems proposed in the CORTRAN concept, including advanced traveler information systems

RFP: Technical & Operational Assessment (cont’d)  Qualitative assessment to determine ability to communicate on a variety of media, including: Twisted-pair telephone wire Dial-up telephone connection Fiber-optic cable Coaxial cable Spread-spectrum wireless Other existing or emerging wireless technology TCP/IP via cable modem over public utility ISP Microwave 800/900 MHz

RFP: Technical & Operational Assessment (cont’d)  Ability to provide access to the system to member agencies  Tools included with the system software to optimize signal timings (including signal sequences) for intersections: Included in the CTSS / other systems In an off-line “planning” mode, a real-time or nearly real-time mode Operator-confirmed download of optimal timing to automatically download Playback intervals (e.g., historical account of signal priority/preemption requests)

RFP: Technical & Operational Assessment (cont’d)  System cost, including: Implementation costs Replacement costs Operating costs Maintenance costs Training costs  Resources necessary to operate, including: Operations staff Communications

RFP: Technical & Operational Assessment (cont’d)  Simplicity of implementation and use, including: Fewest number of existing systems that need to be modified Possibility of partner agencies to have some level of interaction with the system without changing their own controllers, local masters, central system hardware, central system software, etc. Ability for a new operator to understand the system

RFP: Strategic Plan Development  The cost benefits of the preferred alternative  A “strategic plan” for the continued expansion/utilization of the communications network, to include recommendations for type and location for the ultimate/preferred communications network  A “strategic plan” for the upgrade of the central computer system

RFP: Strategic Plan Development (cont’d)  A “strategic plan” for prioritization between: The addition of new intersections to the CTSS The conversion of intersections already on the CTSS to new technology Modifications to corridors, clusters, other areas, etc., as appropriate  A “strategic plan” for transitioning/coordinating between existing systems and the recommended new system, developing a plan that includes: Cross-jurisdictional signal timing Signal preemption systems for safety forces: Signal priority systems for transit

RFP: Strategic Plan Development (cont’d)  A “strategic plan” for becoming compliant with the latest versions of the National ITS Architecture and NTCIP standards addressing: Applicability of standards, Proposed status, and How signal systems should achieve compliance with these standards, related to:  Open architecture software  Communication protocols

RFP: Strategic Plan Development (cont’d)  Develop Costs: Implementation costs Maintenance costs  Establish resource needs Operations staff Communications

RFP: Early Tasks (November 2003)  Evaluate the city of Columbus’s coaxial communications systems to see whether its basic topology and technology can be the basis for future expansion of the system. The impact of this early task is to confirm that: The Phase 11 signalization project can proceed as scheduled for sale in January 2005 Design can begin on Phase 12 signalization project for sale in January 2006  Or, identify easy-to-execute design changes to facilitate the sale of Phase 11 signalization project and the design of Phase 12 signalization project

MORPC Sub-Task (on-going)  Investigating Institutional Relationships  “Sharing Responsibility in a Regional Traffic Signal System” Developed by oversight committee Screened by local stakeholders and MORPC’s TAC  Will be administered to signal stakeholders in October

MORPC Sub-Task: Sample Questions  Will your agency participate in a cooperative effort with other agencies to determine the optimum intersection timing strategies, coordination timing plans, etc., to balance stops and delays in cross-jurisdictional corridors? Signal Timing Related Signal Interconnect Maintenance Related Signal Equipment & Equipment Standards Related Signal Equipment Maintenance Related

MORPC Sub-Task: Sample Questions  Will your agency agree to a traffic signal timing plan that minimizes CORRIDOR stops / delays irrespective of “through-street” designation?  Will your jurisdiction accept coordination timing that is based on a critical intersection in the corridor that is outside your jurisdiction?  Are you willing to participate financially in proportion to your benefit to keep the system (mostly software / computers) running to enable signals to be coordinated regionally?  Will your agency change existing signal equipment to allow for regional signal coordination?

Timeline: When will we see results?  RFP Due Date: August 6, 2003  Selection: In process  Early Tasks Due: late November 2003  Project Duration: 12 months  Traffic Signal Oversight Committee Meetings Quarterly, on-going

For Additional Information  Erika Witzke, project manager  Eagan Foster, City of Columbus  Mike Meeks, Franklin County Engineers Office  Mark Nawrath, COTA  Jim Buckson, FHWA