1. Leveraging Existing Traffic Signal Infrastructure to Produce Performance Measures for System Optimization and Construction Acceptance

2. Advisory Committee Study Advisory Committee – Indiana LTAP Neal Carboneau and John Habermann – Local Highway Departments and Engineering Firms Lafayette: Fred Koning Elkhart County: Jay Grossman BFS Engineering: Steve Hardesty BFS Engineering: Tom Vandenberg – Vendors Traffic Control Corp: Chip Lang Purdue University Researchers – Principal Investigator: Darcy Bullock – Research Assistants: Ross Haseman and Chris Day

3. Background 3 What are Traffic Signal Performance Measures? Using the new generation of signal controllers to monitor and record actual traffic data Analyzing the data to get a sense of how well the signal is performing, and plan changes Analyzing the data later to verify that changes worked as planned

4. Why Do We Care? 4 National Traffic Signal Report Card

5. Why Do We Care? BENEFITS OF EXCELLENCE IN TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS If the nation supported its signals at an A grade level, quality of life and protection of the environment would benefit significantly, including: Reductions in traffic delay ranging from 15–40 percent; reductions in travel time up to 25 percent; and reductions in stops ranging from 10–40 percent. Reductions in fuel consumption of up to 10 percent. Reductions in harmful emissions (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) up to 22 percent. According to the Surface Transportation Policy Project, motor vehicles are the largest source of urban air pollution. Source: 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card 5

6. I. Define Objectives, Assess and Prioritize activities by Time of Day and location II. Assembly relevant data to support timing and docu- mentation objectives III. Software Modeling IV. Timing Design and Docu- mentation V. Deployment VI. Assess Traffic Signal Timing Process Performance Measures Performance Measures

7. Current Practice Collect Model Deploy Observe and Adjust

8. Current Vendor Provided Performance Measures Not Enough for Real Optimization/Analysis Vendors will respond to specifications, but we need to know what to ask for

9. Issues Data Collected is Expensive and Sparse – 6 AM to 6 PM one work day every three years Analysis of Implemented Changes can be Subjective – ‘Watch’ traffic for 20 minutes – Phone calls from public

10. Performance Measure Evolution Procurement Specification 2006 2003 2008 2010

11. Six Recommended Performance Measures

12. Cycle Length

13. Equivalent Hourly Flow Rate

14. Green Time Plot

15. Volume to Capacity Ratio

16. Split Failures Per Half Hour

17. Purdue Coordination Diagram (PCD)

18. Percentage of Phases with Peds

19. Draft Specification

20. Indiana LTAP Research Project 20 Adapt previous research to local agency level Try performance measures with a wider array of equipment installations Develop base number of recommended performance measures Train agencies to implement tools

21. Elkhart County 21

22. CR17 at Missouri 22 Test of performance measures at isolated LPA intersection. Use of video detection with performance measures.

23. Sample Use of Performance Measures Purdue Progression Diagrams as Changes Were Implemented at CR17/Missouri

24. PCD Before Change, Phase 6, 02/17/09 Φ1Φ1 Φ6Φ6 Φ5Φ5 Φ8Φ8 Φ3Φ3 Φ7Φ7 Φ4Φ4 Φ2Φ2 N Start of Green We want to shift platoon earlier Start of Yellow End of Cycle Double Cycle Triple Cycle T

25. Predicted PCD After Change, Phase 6 02/17/09 Φ1Φ1 Φ6Φ6 Φ5Φ5 Φ8Φ8 Φ3Φ3 Φ7Φ7 Φ4Φ4 Φ2Φ2 N Calc Offset 35s+19s=54s We want to shift platoon earlier T

26. PCD After Change, Phase 6, 02/24/09 Φ1Φ1 Φ6Φ6 Φ5Φ5 Φ8Φ8 Φ3Φ3 Φ7Φ7 Φ4Φ4 Φ2Φ2 N Time Change Was Implemented

27. PCD Phase 6, 02/25/09 Φ1Φ1 Φ6Φ6 Φ5Φ5 Φ8Φ8 Φ3Φ3 Φ7Φ7 Φ4Φ4 Φ2Φ2 N Subsequently Fixed on 3/09/09 54s offset ok with 60s cycle 54s offset fails with 50s cycle

28. PCD Phase 6, 03/07/09 Φ1Φ1 Φ6Φ6 Φ5Φ5 Φ8Φ8 Φ3Φ3 Φ7Φ7 Φ4Φ4 Φ2Φ2 N Not set back to TOD after correction, fixed 3/09

29. PCD Phase 6, 03/20/09 Φ1Φ1 Φ6Φ6 Φ5Φ5 Φ8Φ8 Φ3Φ3 Φ7Φ7 Φ4Φ4 Φ2Φ2 N

30. Future Work: CR17 Corridor 30 Apply performance measures to an LPA corridor Follow after similar study on Indiana SR37

31. 2010-2011: CR17 Corridor 31 14 Signals Links I-80/90 Toll Road with US20 and US33 Volumes from 12,000 – 30,000 vpd Letting this spring for communications interconnect project Downloading of event logs from individual intersections to central database Tools for performance measures work on downloaded database files

32. CR350 – Lafayette, IN Performance Measures as a Construction Acceptance Tool 32

33. Multiscale: Intersection Details Where are my Opportunities for improvement 33

34. I. Define Objectives, Assess and Prioritize activities by Time of Day and location II. Assembly relevant data to support timing and docu- mentation objectives III. Software Modeling IV. Timing Design and Docu- mentation V. Deployment VI. Assess Role of Performance Measures Our Focus 34

35. How do we know if the signal system is functioning as intended when we turn it on after construction? 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord 35

36. Data Collection About 150,000 events occur every day at each intersection Current generation controllers can record these events to 0.1 second fidelity for analysis 36 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord

37. Abbreviated Performance Measure Based Checklist 1.Are the detectors detecting? 2.Are the counts reasonable? 3.Are all of the phases active? 4.Are the TOD plans working correctly? 5.Are our green time allocations reasonable? 6.Is our progression functioning? 37

38. 1. Are the detectors detecting? NA NB NL EA EAc EL ELc SA SL Sac SLc WA WB WAcWBc WL WLc Detectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (NA, NB, and NL) not reporting detections, as their conduit was crushed during construction. (9 th St.) 38

39. 1. Corridor Overview 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord 3 Detectors Not Reporting Data 2 Detectors Not Reporting Data 0 Detectors Not Reporting Data 1 Detector Not Reporting Data 39

40. 2. Are the counts reasonable? Count Detector for EB counting far too few vehicles (18 th St.) NA NB NAc NBc NL EA NLc EAc EB EL EBc ELc SA SAc SL SLc WB WL WBc WLc SA and SL have far too many detections (chatter) (18 th St.) 40

41. 2. Corridor Overview 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord 0 Detectors Miscounting 3 Detectors Miscounting 0 Detectors Miscounting 0 Detector Miscounting 41

42. 3. Are all phases receiving reasonable green time? Are min times as expected? 1 EL 2 W 3 NL 4 S 5 WL 6 E 7 SL 8 N WL Phase Not Active (Concord) 0:0024:0012:000:0024:0012:000:0024:0012:000:0024:0012:00 42

43. 3. Corridor Overview 43 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord 0 Phases Not Active 1 Phase Not Active

44. 4. Are the TOD plans working correctly? Only the 11:30 to 13:00 Timing Plan is Running, Intersection Free for the Rest of the Day (Concord) Coordinating 5 intersections is like trying to have 5 people record the same sequence of TV shows

45. 4. Corridor Overview 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord 1 TOD Plan Not Correct 0 TOD Plans Not Correct 1 TOD Plan Not Correct 4 TOD Plans Not Correct

46. 5. Are our green time allocations reasonable? Time of Day Volume to Capacity Ratio 0:0024:0012:00 100% 0 50% 0 0:0024:0012:00 0:0024:0012:00 0:0024:0012:00 100% 50% EL W NL S WL E SL N 46 Southbound Could Use Some More Green Time

47. Methodology: Build From Measurable Quantities Volume to Capacity Ratio Uniform Delay g = green time (s) C = cycle length (s) X = volume to capacity ratio v = flow rate (veh/h) s = saturation flow rate (veh/h) Measurable Quantities

48. Eastbound V/C Ratios Morning TOD Plan Should Start Earlier

49. Eastbound V/C Ratios Morning TOD Plan Should Start Earlier

50. 6. Is our progression functioning? 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord B A

51. 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord Improving Progression by Adjusting Offsets B A B A

52. Is the Progression Functioning Using the PCD 9 th St.18 th St.Regal ValleyOsborneConcord

53. 18 th Street Most vehicles are arriving on red Most vehicles are now arriving on green

54. Abbreviated Performance Measure Based Checklist 1.Were the detectors detecting? – 7 were not 2.Were the counts reasonable? – 6 were not 3.Were all of the phases active? – 1 was not 4.Were the TOD plans working correctly? – 6 were not 5.Were our green time allocations reasonable? – 1 adjustment called for 6.Was our progression functioning? – Tweaking the weekday TOD plan offsets reduced travel time by 15% per vehicle. 54

55. We want to embrace “picture book based performance measures”

56. Contact Jay Grossman jgrossman@elkcohwy.org

57. Extras

58. Leveraging Existing Traffic Signal Infrastructure to Produce Performance Measures for Construction Turn-On and Scheduled Maintenance March 8 th, 2010 Purdue Road School

59. Advisory Committee Study Advisory Committee – Indiana LTAP Neal Carboneau and John Habermann – Local Highway Departments and Engineering Firms Lafayette: Fred Koning Elkhart County: Jay Grossman BFS Engineering: Steve Hardesty BFS Engineering: Tom Vandenberg – Vendors Traffic Control Corp: Chip Lang Purdue University Researchers – Principal Investigator: Darcy Bullock – Research Assistants: Ross Haseman and Chris Day

60. CR17 at Missouri 60 One study objective was to try performance measures on intersections with a variety of equipment, as would be found in a typical LPA

61. Signal System Timing Process I. Define Objectives, Assess and Prioritize activities by Time of Day and location II. Assembly relevant data to support timing and docu- mentation objectives III. Software Modeling IV. Timing Design and Docu- mentation V. Deployment VI. Assess Today’s Topic 61