1. I-6 Traffic Response Program Arterial Service Patrol Mobility Strategy Evaluation Tom Ryan, HDR Carlos Sun, MU

3. 270 170 64 141 100 340 D 180 366 30 21 Clayton Hanley Kingshighway Forest Park Hampton Brentwood Ladue Ashby Tier I Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Legend 70 N 67 370 Mississippi River Missouri River Meramec River 44 55 364 Areas of Study –Tier 1 –Tier 2 –Tier 3 –Tier 4 Two-Year Full Roadway Closure Evaluation

4. Arterial Service Patrol Assessment Factors Reduction in traffic delay Reduction in fuel and emission Reduction in secondary crashes Reduction in response staff (emergency and operations) Improved public support

5. Arterial Service Patrol Public Support I-64 Traffic Response Program is DefinitelyProbably Valuable7889 I-64 Traffic Response Program overallVery SatisfiedSatisfiedVery Dissatisfied Percentage of Very Satisfied or Satisfied Effectiveness75429199.9% I-64 Traffic Response Operators are Very SatisfiedSatisfiedVery Dissatisfied Knowledgeable73942199.9% Courtesy77519199.9% Professionalism77223199.9% Safety Procedures77027199.9%

6. Arterial Service Patrol Traffic Delay and Emission ModelTraffic DataIncident/Impact Baseline2007No Incident Post-construction 1a 2007No Incident Post-construction 2a2007Incident 5 minutes lane blockage Post-construction 1b 2007Incident 15 minutes lane blockage Post-construction 2b2008Incident 15 minutes lane blockage Post-construction 3a2007Incident 30 minutes lane blockage Post-construction 3b2008Incident 30 minutes lane blockage Response TimeMail-in Survey Information PercentAccumulative Percent Assists in 2008 Estimated Lane Closure < 5 minutes25332.3% 2074 20 5 to 10 minutes25031.9%64.2% 2050 25 10 to 20 minutes17722.6%86.7% 1451 30 20 to 30 minutes617.8%94.5% 500 40 30 to 40 minutes243.1%97.6% 197 50 > 40minutes192.4%100.0% 156 > 50 Total784 6428

7. Arterial Service Patrol Secondary Crash 2004 St. Louis Study By MU 5% Secondary Crash Factor Spatial and Temporal Thresholds 2007 Crash Data – Draft Report National Safety Council - Average Comprehensive Cost

8. Arterial Service Patrol Response Staff Savings HighwayAssistMulti-OrganizationsAssistDriverAssist Debris Removal1921Spill34Tire1346 I-70 Express Lane4Abandoned Vehicle2211Dispense Fluid992 Signal/Lighting209Crash2327Lost Motorist954 Signing359Mechanical2811 Pavement92 CMS/DMS132 Construction Zone77 Special Lighting1 Dead Animals315 Flooding51 Ice/Snow103 Total3264Totals4572Totals6103

9. Arterial Service Patrol Results Response TimeMail-in Survey Information Percent Incidents in 2008 Estimated Lane Closure Potential Savings < 5 minutes25332.3% 2074 20 $3,170,433 5 to 10 minutes25031.9% 2050 25 $3,167,219 10 to 20 minutes17722.6% 1451 30 $2,339,754 20 to 30 minutes617.8% 500 40 $806,356 30 to 40 minutes243.1% 197 50 $317,255 > 40minutes192.4% 156 > 50 $251,160 Total784 6428 $10,052,176 St. LouisSt. Louis CountyPotential Potential SecondaryCost perEstimated Type of CrashCounty 2007% by TypeCrashesCrashes by TypeCrash TypeSavings Fatal170.2%60.3$4,100,000$1,161,667 Serious Injury1681.7%562.8208,500$583,800 Minor Injury222822.6%74337.153,200$1,975,493 Property Damage759375.5%2531126.69,990$1,264,235 Total100063335$4,985,195

10. Arterial Service Patrol Results Total Savings Traffic Delay and Congestion Savings$1,266,574 Secondary Crash Savings$2,991,117 Response Staff Savings$57,977 Total Savings$4,315,668 Benefit/Cost5.9 Program Cost 2008 Equipment Cost$23,520 Annual Cost - Labor, gas, etc.$703,980 $727,500

11. Where Do We Go From Here? Current Research and Challenges

12. Assessment of Safety: Crash Analysis Challenges with attributing safety benefits How do we know which crashes were secondary? –MUAR 16. Traffic Conditions? –wrt Primary Incidents?

13. Secondary wrt Primary: Zone of Influence 2004

14. Distribution of Crash Severity fatalinjurypdo I-703.00271.00670.00 I-2703.00219.00555.00 total6.00490.001225.00 %0.3528.4771.18 crash cost (1999)3390000441003220

15. Traffic Incident Management/ITS Everyone has a role: police, fire, EMS, HAZMAT, towing, MA/traffic response, TMC, media, the public What is the baseline in an evaluation? –How do we establish that baseline? Benefits in: detection, verification, traffic control, clearance? –Do benefits come from non-independent sources?

16. Data Issues Self-selected samples, reliability –MA survey letters vs. randomized sample Resolution compatible with detail required –ITS: real-time, dynamic, fine resolution I think the data is there, but alas!

17. Include Us (Evaluators) Early, Please ITS evaluations are intensely data driven Include the evaluators ahead of time – to get baseline data – to ascertain if data currently being collected is adequate – to make recommendations on what data to archive