miami valley its, early deployment plan ... - .net framework

MIAMI VALLEY ITS

FinalITS Strategic Deployment Plan

Prepared by:

BRW, INC.

in association with:

BattelleCH2M HillLJB, Inc.

TEC Engineering, Inc.

Prepared for:

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission40 West Fourth Street, Suite 400

Dayton, Ohio 45402

September 1997

ITS STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT PLAN TEAM

The Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan Team was led by the Miami Valley Regional PlanningCommission and consisted of a Policy Committee, Technical Committee and Consultant Team. ThePolicy Committee set the strategic direction for and coordinated all activities of the Strategic DeploymentPlan development effort. The Technical Committee participated in all major planning activities andreviewed all major work products of the Strategic Deployment Plan. The Consultant Team, undersupervision of the Policy and Technical Committees, prepared the Strategic Deployment Plan and allassociated documents.

POLICY COMMITTEE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

Ms. Nora E. LakeMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission

Ms. Anne HassounMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission

Mr. Scott GlumMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission

Mr. Don SpangMiami Valley Regional Planning Commission

Mr. Jim BucksonFHWA - Ohio Division

Mr. Larry HimesClark County-Springfield Transportation

Coordinating Committee

Mr. Kerry LawsonCity of Dayton

Mr. Dexter McMillanCity of Kettering

Mr. Michael MorrisOhio Department of Transportation, District 8

Butler TownshipCity of BeavercreekCity of CentervilleClark CountyCity of EnglewoodCity of FairbornGreene CountyHarrison TownshipCity of Huber HeightsJet ExpressLeague of Women VotersMiami CountyMiami County Community Action CouncilMiami-Liberty Cab CompanyMiami TownshipMiami Valley Regional Transit AuthorityMontgomery CountyOhio Bicycle FederationCity of PiquaCity of SpringfieldSpringfield Bus CompanyCity of TroyCity of VandaliaWashington TownshipCity of West CarrolltonCity of Xenia

CONSULTANT TEAMMr. George SaylorOhio Department of Transportation, Central

Mr. Phil Stormer

BRW, Inc. (prime consultant)Battelle Memorial InstituteCH2M Hill

Ohio Department of Transportation, District 7 Lockwood, Jones & Beals, Inc.TEC Engineering, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . S-l

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-1

1.1 Origin of the Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - l1.2 SDP Teamm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - l1.3 FHWA ITS Deployment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-51.4 Development of the SDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-51.5 Accompanying Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-91.6 Vision, Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-9

OPPORTUNITIES AND DEFICIENCIES ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l

2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12.2 Qualitative Assessment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l2.3 Quantitative Assessment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

USER SERVICE PRIORITIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-l

3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-l3.2 Problem Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.3 User Service Prioritization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.4 Overriding Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23.5 ITS Strategies/Project Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-l

4.14.2

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-lSummary of Selected Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-l

SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND COMMUNITIES CONCEPT PLAN . . . . . . . . . 5-l

5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l5.2 Background Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l5.3 Communication Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-l5.4 Recommended Architectures by Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

Miami Valley ITS#24542 i

Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

6.0 PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-l

6.16.26.3

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6-1Project and Program Area Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1Project Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4Program Area 1: Freeway/Incident Management Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5Program Area 2: Advanced Traffic Signal Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-51Program Area 3: Public Transportation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-79Program Area 4: Multimodal Traveler Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-101Program Area 5: Public-Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-l 25Program Area 6: Technical and Planning Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-137

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-l7.2 Regional Deployment Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-17.3 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-37.4 Schedule.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-77.5 Funding Sources and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-77.6 Project Programming Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-407.7 Contracting and Procurement Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-46

8.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-l

8.18.28.38.48.5

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-lBackground Informationn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1Overview of Benefits by Priority User Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8Benefits-Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-22References Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-32

9.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-l

9.19.29.3

Management Structure and Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-lResponsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3Non-Technical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

APPENDIX

Typical ITS System Features

Miami Valley ITS#24542 ii


-

-

-

z-

i

-

1\

--

http://www.its.dot.gov/cyberdocs/edldocs/9943/sec6.pdf




LIST OF FIGURES

-J

6

G1

,.-’

-

_

S-l

S-2

l- l

1-2

2-l

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

2-7

2-8

2-9

2-10

5-l

5-2

5-3

6-1

6-2

6-3

Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S - - 3

Proposed ITS Program Management Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-7

Study Areaa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-3

FHWA ITS Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-6

Freeway/Interstate Segments Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

Freeway/Interstate Issues: Clark County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

Freeway/Interstate Issues: Greene County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

Freeway/Interstate Issues: Miami County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

Freeway/Interstate Issues: Montgomery County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

Arterial Street Corridors Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

Arterial Street Issues: Clark County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

Arterial Street Issues: Greene County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

Arterial Street Issues: Miami County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35

Arterial Street Issues: Montgomery County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37

High Level Architecture: Immediate Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

High Level Architecture: Short-Term Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

High Level Architecture: Mid-Long Term Time Frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

Freeway/Incident Management System Status:End of Year 2 (Immediate Term) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

Freeway/Incident Management System Status:End of Year 5 (Short-Term)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

Freeway/Incident Management System Status:End of Year 10 (Mid-Term) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10

Miami Valley ITS#24542

. . .111

Final ITS Strategic DepIoyment PlanSeptember 1997

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

6-4 Freeway/Incident Management System Status:EndofYear20(Long-Term).......................................................... . 6-11

6-5 Freeway Service Patrols Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15

6-6 Freeway Detection System Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18

6-7 Freeway CCTV Camera Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-21

6-8 Freeway Enhanced Reference Marking Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . 6-24

6-9 Freeway Proposed Implementation Phasing Changeable Message Signs . . . . . . . . . . 6-27

6- 10 Incident Management Program Proposed Implementation Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43

6-11 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Clark County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-59

6-12 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Greene County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-61

6-13 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Miami County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-63

6-14 Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements: Montgomery County . . . . . . . . . 6-65

. 6-l5 Central Data Server Inputs and Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-108

7-l

7-2

Individual ITS System Deployment Process Suggestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

Major (>$l Million) Committed Freeway Construction Projects (SFY 1998-2001)Located Within Recommended ITS Capital Project Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-45

- -

r-

e

.-

9-l Miami Valley ITS Program Management Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

Miami Valley ITS#24542 iv


LIST OF TABLES

s. l

s.2

1.1

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

2.10

2.11

2.12

2.13

2.14

3.1

3.2

3.3

Summary of Overall Program Costs and Benefits (Years 1-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-5

Summary of Year l-5 Implementation and Operating and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . S-6

Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

User Needs Survey - Problem Area Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

User Needs Survey - Top Five Problems Frequency of Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

User Needs Survey - User Need Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

User Needs Survey - ITS Project/Program Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Agency Interviews - Reported Problem Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Agency Interviews - Suggested Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Outreach Workshop - Reported Problem Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

Outreach Workshop - Suggested Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l1

Freeway/Interstate Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l 5

Summary of Regional Freeway/Interstate Design Deficiencies Assessment . . . . . . . . 2-17

Summary of Freeway/Interstate Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l 8

Arterial Street Intersection Accident Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

Local Traffic Engineering Arterial Street Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

Summary of Arterial Street Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39

Problem Priorities - Workshop Intensive: January 28-29,1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

User Service Priorities - Workshop Intensive: January 28-29,1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

ITS Strategies/Project Concepts Prioritization - Workshop Intensive:January28-29,1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

Miami Valley ITS#24542 V


LIST OF TABLES (Continued) -~

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

6.1

6.2

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.5.1

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

7.10

7.11

7.12

Summary of Information for Non-Intrusive Traffic Detection Technologies 4-2 :-. . . . . . . .

Detector Types, Summary Data Types and Mounting Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 Ll

Comparison of Detector Technologies Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 I.-

Summary of Cable Type Communications Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 ;-_

Variable Message Sign - Product - Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

CATV Communications Option - Commercially Owned FacilitiesAdvantages/Disadvantages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 4-7

Traffic Signal System Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-55

Summary of Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-68

Freeway/Incident Management System Costing Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

Advanced Traffic Signal Control System Costing Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

Phase I and II (Years l-5) Coordinated Traffic Signal System Improvements . . . . . . . 7-6

Miami Valley ITS - Conceptual Implementation Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

Summary of Year 1-5 Miami Valley ITS - Conceptual Implementation Costs . . . . . . 7-20

Conceptual Implementation Cost by Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-23

Estimated Annual Public Agency Labor Requirements in Full-Time Equivalents 7-24 ... . .

Miami Valley ITS Implementation Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-25

Fiscal Year 1998 Transportation Funding (in Thousands) 7-31 /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Funding Source Applicability by Program Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-36‘e -7.

ODOT “Major New” Project Selection Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-37 ___

Fiscal Year 1998 Transportation Funding (in Thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-39

Freeway/Incident Management Project Interrelationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 1

Miami Valley ITS#24542 v i

Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997 -.

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.9

8.10

8.11

8.12

8.13

8.14

8.15

8.16

8.17

8.18

9.1

9.2

Emission Quantities from Stopped Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Annual Cost Quantities for Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Miami Valley Region Daily Person Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

Miami Valley Region Average Trip Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

Miami Valley Region Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

Miami Valley Region Highway Accident Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

User Service Bundles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

Traffic Signal Control Systems Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

Typical National Incident Management Program Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11

Delay Savings Due to Video Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-12

Driver Information System Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14

Vehicle Management System Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-16

Pre-Trip Traveler Information Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-19

Benefit/Cost Assessment - Freeway/Incident Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-26

Benefit/Cost Assessment - Traffic Signal Control System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-28

Benefit/Cost Assessment - Public Transportation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-29

Benefit/Cost Assessment - Multi-Modal Traveler Information System . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

Summary of Overall Program Costs and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31

Proposed Committees and Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

Proposed Miami Valley ITS Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

Miami Valley ITS#24542 vii

Final I T S Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the Strategic Deployment Plan for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) inClark, Greene, Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio (the “Miami Valley”). The reportsummarizes the steps that were performed in preparing the Strategic Deployment Plan and presentsthe plan recommendations, including projects, a system architecture, costs, schedule and programbenefits. This summary highlights the plan process, recommended projects, costs and benefits.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Preparation of the SDP was led by the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission and projectPolicy and Technical Committees. The Policy Committee set the strategic direction for andcoordinated all activities of the SDP development effort. The Technical Committee was formed inorder to assure broad jurisdictional and multimodal participation in the development of the SDP. Themembers of these committees are identified in the inside front cover of this report.

Development of the Miami Valley ITS EDP began in June 1996 and followed the ten step ITSPlanning Process developed by the Federal Highway Administration (see Section 1.3). Earlyactivities included development of an overall project vision, goals and objectives.

The ITS Vision for the Miami Valley is one of enhanced transportation Productivity mobilityefficiency and safety within the region with a reduction in energy use and improvement in theenvironment through the use of cost effective ITS technologies and systems. Goals of the StrategicDeployment Plan include to create a state-of-the-art ITS transportation system; enhance productivity;improve safety; reduce energy consumption and improve the environment; enhance mobility andaccessibility; and increase efficiency.

PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS

The Strategic Deployment Plan includes projects organized into the following six Program Areas:

1: Freeway/Incident Management Systems2: Advanced Traffic Signal Control Systems3: Public Transportation Systems4: Multi-Modal Traveler Information Systems5: Public-Private Partnerships6: Technical and Planning Support

The first program area implements a system to monitor freeway traffic conditions and to improveincident response. Program Area 2 includes projects which will improve the flow of traffic onarterial streets by making traffic signals more responsive to changing traffic conditions. ProgramArea 3 implements systems which make transit more responsive and efficient, including technology

Miami Valley ITS#24542 S-1


to speed fare payment and to inform riders of expected bus arrival times. Program Area 4 willprovide travelers information about traffic conditions and transit, such as traffic accidents and busschedules. Program Area 5 identifies specific opportunities for involving the private sector in ITSdeployment. Program Area 6 lays out the management and administrative structure to guideimplementation and to implement a public education and outreach program.

Figure S-l summarizes the recommended projects of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic DeploymentPlan.

PROGRAM BENEFITS

Throughout the United States, many of the ITS programs and projects similar to those included inthis Strategic Deployment Plan have demonstrated significant improvements in transportationefficiency and safety, including the following (Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Benefits:Expected and Experienced, FHWA, January 1996):

Freeway Management Systems

. 20 to 40 percent reductions in travel times. 17 to 25 percent increases in freeway capacity. 15 to 50 percent reductions in accidents. reductions in fuel consumption and emissions

Traffic Signal Control Systems

. 8 to 15 percent reductions in travel time. 6 to 12 percent reductions in fuel consumption. 4 to 13 percent reductions in emissions

Incident Management Programs

. 10 to 42 percent reductions in travel time. reductions in incident clearance times of up to 8 minutes

Traveler Information Systems

. reductions in travel times of up to 17 minutes under incident conditions. 6 to 12 percent reductions in fuel consumption. reductions in emissions of up to 25 percent

Transit Management Systems

. 15 to 18 percent reductions in travel times. 12 to 23 percent increases in service reliability

-



Using these and other data from ITS deployments throughout the world, the potential benefits ofimplementing the first five years of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan were estimatedin terms of benefit-cost ratios for the four “‘project-oriented” program areas (Program Areas 1through 4) and for the overall ITS program. As shown in Table S. 1, the recommended ITS programwill generate over $400 million in benefits over the first five years by reducing travel delay, fuelusage, vehicle emissions and accidents, nearly eight times the cost of the program.

TABLE S.lSUMMARY OF OVERALL PROGRAM COSTS AND BENEFITS

(YEARS 1-5)

Program Area

Freeway/Incident Management

Advanced Traffic Signal Control

Public Transportation System

Multi-Modal Traveler Information

Total Benefit($000)

$99,519

$23 1,723

$28,637

$76,154

Years l-5

Total Cost($000)

$17,205

$6,05 1

$22,26 1

$4,347

B/CRatio

5.8: 1

383:l

1.3:l

17.5:1

Total ITS Program: $436,033 1 $49,864 1 8.7:1 1

Source: BRW, Inc., July 1997

- SHORT TERM IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

Implementation, operating and maintenance and staffing costs were estimated for the first five yearsof the recommended regional ITS deployment. The cost estimates assume no private sectorcontributions, although there are a number of opportunities for private sector involvement and costsharing arrangements, as discussed in Program Area 5.

As shown on Table S.2, the recommended program will cost approximately $49 million over thefirst five years. Public sector staffing requirements will increase over the first five years fromapproximately seven full-time equivalent positions in year 1 to approximately 2 1 positionsin year5. These labor requirements reflect all agency participation in the regional ITS program, includingoperations, project management and participation in regional deployment committees, as describedbelow.

MOVING TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION

Development of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan has required significantcooperation and coordination between all agencies within the region. These strong institutionalrelationships will need to continue as the program plan proceeds into the deployment stage.



Sum

mar

y of

Yea

r 1

- 5 M

iam

i Val

ley

ITS

- Con

cept

ual I

mpl

emen

tatio

n C

osts

by

Prog

ram

Are

aro

gram

Are

a &

Proj

ects

Y

ear

1

Y

ear

2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Y

ear

5

T

otal

Prog

ram

Are

a 1.

0 Fr

eew

ay/In

cide

nt M

anag

emen

t Sy

stem

sD

esig

n/St

udy

& C

onst

ruct

ion

$934

,400

$3

,177

,000

$2

,465

,000

$2

,975

,000

$4

,6 1

0,00

0 $1

4,16

1,40

0O

pera

tions

and

Mai

nten

ance

$1

5,00

0 $4

0,40

0 $2

61,8

00

$361

,900

$

519,

900

$1,1

99,0

00To

tal

Costs

$9

49,4

00

$3,2

17,4

00

$2,7

26,8

00

$3,3

36,9

00

$5,1

29,9

00

$15,

360,

400

Prog

ram

Are

a 2.

0 A

dvan

ced

Traf

fic S

igna

l Con

trol

Sys

tem

sD

esig

n/St

udy

& C

onst

ruct

ion

$1,0

82,5

00

$1,1

32,5

00

$1,2

45,0

00

$1,1

20,0

00

$1,1

33,0

00O

pera

tions

and

Mai

nten

ance

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Tota

l Cos

ts $1

,082

,500

$1

,132

,500

$1

,245

,000

$1

,120

,000

$1

.133

,000

$5,7

13,0

00 $0$5

,7 1

3,00

0

Prog

ram

Are

a 3.

0 Pu

blic

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Syst

ems

Des

ign/

Stud

y &

Con

stru

ctio

n $1

,006

,250

$2

,381

,250

$5

,815

,800

$5

,515

,800

$4

,457

,550

$1

9,17

6,65

0O

pera

tions

and

Mai

nten

ance

$0

$9

5,62

5 $3

15,0

00

$871

,580

$1,

410,

660

$2,6

92,8

65To

tal C

osts

$1,

006,

250

$2

,476

,875

$6,1

30,8

00

$6,3

87,3

80

$5,8

68,2

10$2

1,86

9,51

5

rogr

am A

rea

4.0

Mul

timod

al T

rave

ler

Info

rmat

ion

Syst

emD

esig

n/St

udy

& C

onst

ruct

ion

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd M

aint

enan

ceTo

tal

Costs

$600

,000

$5

95,0

00

$854

,000

$9

48,0

00

$538

,000

$3

,535

,000

$47,

760

$53,

940

$74,

040

$99,

840

$99,

840

$375

,420

$647

,760

$6

48,9

40

$928

,040

$

1,04

7,84

0 $6

37,8

40$3

,910

,420

rogr

am A

rea

5.0

Publ

ic -

Priv

ate

Part

ners

hips

Tota

l Co

stsNo

te:

All

costs

sho

wn f

or P

rogr

am A

rea

5 ar

e fo

r St

udy/

Des

ign

rogr

am A

rea

6.0

Tech

nica

l and

Pla

nnin

g Su

ppor

tTo

tal

Costs

$2

50,0

00

$375

,000

$350

,000

$3

50,0

00

$350

,000

$1,6

75,0

00ot

e:Al

l co

sts s

hown

for

Pro

gram

Are

a 6

are

for

Stud

y/D

esig

n

LAN

TO

TAL

Des

ign/

Stud

y &

Con

stru

ctio

n $3

,623

,150

$7

,285

,750

$1

0,37

9,80

0

$10,

558,

800

$10

,738

,550

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd M

aint

enan

ce

$62,

760

$189

,965

$6

50,8

40

$

1,33

3,32

0 $2

,030

,400

Tota

l Cos

ts

$4

,005

,910

$7

,920

,715

$1

1,45

0,64

0

$12,

312,

120

$13,

188,

950

$42,

586,

050

$4,2

67,2

85$4

8,87

8,33

5

Sour

ce: B

RW, I

nc.,

Sept

embe

r 199

7 All

Cos

ts A

ssum

e 10

0% P

ublic

Fun

ding

(Ass

umes

No

Priv

ate

Sec

tor C

ontri

butio

ns)

P/

, ?

‘-1

~

”

j 4

:-I

~

I

I i

bI

,-

I :

-1

\ i

i 1

-1

,

1 I

1 ’

; _

ice

, ‘_)

1

_~

( ~

/ I

~ !

~_

/

8.

-1

-i

1 _

Figu

re S

-2

Prop

osed

ITS

Pro

gram

Man

agem

ent

Stru

ctur

e

Mia

mi V

alle

y

ITS

Polic

y Co

mm

ittee

EDP

Dep

loym

ent C

omm

ittee

Prog

ram

Are

a 5:

Tech

nica

l and

Pla

nnin

g Su

ppor

t

Traf

fic/T

rans

it W

ork

Gro

upA

rchi

tect

ure/

Com

mun

icat

ions

/Info

rmat

ion

Wor

k G

roup

In

ciden

t M

anag

emen

t W

ork

Gro

upPr

ogra

m A

rea

2: A

dvan

ced

Traf

fic S

igna

l Con

trol

Pr

ogra

m A

rea

4: M

ultim

odal

Trav

eler

Inf

orm

atio

n Pr

ogra

tn A

rea

1: F

reew

ay/In

cide

nt M

anag

emen

t

Prog

ratn

Are

a 3:

Publ

ic T

rans

port

atio

n Sy

stem

s

1.0 INTRODICTION

The problems of urban traffic congestion and air quality are of national concern. The IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 established national goals for thedevelopment and implementation of advanced technologies to address these problems throughcoordinated programs. The term IVHS has since been renamed to Intelligent Transportation Systems(ITS) to reflect the multi-modal nature of the program. This report presents an integrated, multi-modal, phased strategic deployment plan to address the surface transportation needs and problemsof Clark, Greene, Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio, through the use of IntelligentTransportation Systems. A map of the study area is presented in Figure l-l.

1.1 ORIGIN OF THE PLAN

The process which has culminated in the publication of this ITS Strategic Deployment Plan (SDP)began March 9, 1993 with the Federal Register publication of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) announcement of procedures for implementing the Strategic Deployment Program. In July1994, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) submitted to the FHWA an“Expression of Interest in the FHWA IVHS Strategic Deployment Program for theDayton/Springfield Area,” a request for funding under the FHWA IVHS Strategic DeploymentProgram.

The request for funding was approved by the FHWA. On January 12,1996 the MVRPC issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct the Dayton/Springfield Area ITS Strategic DeploymentProgram study. Proposals to conduct the study were submitted from several teams of privateplanning and engineering consultants on February 13, 1996. The most qualified consultants, asdetermined by the written proposals, were identified and in person interviews were conducted onApril 10, 1996.

The BRW, Inc. project team was selected to conduct the study and a contract was executed in May,1996. The study formally began in June 1997. Shortly after the beginning of the study, the workingname of the project was changed from “Dayton-Springfield Area” to “Miami Valley” ITS StrategicDeployment Plan, in recognition of the broader scope of the study.

1.2 SDP TEAM

The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission led the Miami Valley ITS Strategic DeploymentPlan team. The team included the following groups:

1. Policy Committee2. Technical Committee3. Consultant Team

Miami Valley ITS#24542 l - l


The Policy Committee set the strategic direction for and coordinated all activities of the SDPdevelopment effort. The Policy Committee was composed of 11 individuals representing thefollowing organizations:

Miami Valley Regional Planning CommissionClark County-Springfield Transportation Coordinating CommitteeFederal Highway Administration - Ohio DivisionOhio Department of Transportation - Central OfficeOhio Department of Transportation - District 7Ohio Department of Transportation - District 8City of DaytonCity of KetteringCity of Moraine

The Technical Committee was formed in order to assure broad jurisdictional and multimodalparticipation in the development of the SDP. The Technical Committee participated in all majorSDP planning activities and reviewed all major work products. The Technical Cornmittee includedall of the members of the Policy Committee plus 32 additional individuals representing the followingorganizations:

-

. Butler Township. City of Beavercreek. City of Centerville. Clark County. City of Englewood. City of Fairbom. Greene County. Harrison Township. City of Huber Heights. Jet Express. League of Women Voters. Miami County. Miami County Community Action Council. Miami-Liberty Cab Company. Miami Township. Miami Valley Regional Transit Authority. Montgomery County. Ohio Bicycle Federation. City of Piqua. City of Springfield. Springfield Bus Company. City of Troy. City of Vandalia. Washington Township. City of West Carrollton. City of Xenia

-

.~

--

-

--

-

-

Miami Valley ITS#24542 1-2


-

The private consulting team employed by MVRPC to assist in the preparation of the SDP consistedof:

. BRW, Inc. (prime consultant). Battelle Memorial Institute. CH2M Hill. Lockwood, Jones & Beals, Inc.. TEC Engineering, Inc.

1.3 FHWA ITS DEPLOYMENT PROCESS

Intelligent Transportation Systems represent an approach to serving transportation needs andresolving transportation problems through an inter-modal, strategic approach which applies advancedand emerging technologies. Preparation of the Miami Valley ITS SDP has followed the ten step ITSPlanning Process developed by the Federal Highway Administration. This process is illustrated inFigure 1-2.

The federal ITS planning and deployment process emphasizes the significance of a strategicapproach, a user-needs perspective and a strong institutional coalition. The deployment of ITSshould be structured and strategic in order to protect against the inefficient allocation of resourcesand to ensure that ITS potential can be fully realized. Deployment should be based upon solvinglocal user needs rather than simply looking for opportunities to utilize new technologies. Finally,successful deployment depends upon the development of an institutional framework and coalitionof transportation agencies and other stakeholders. Such a coalition and the cooperation it fosters

help ensure that each agency’s needs, constraints, opportunities and responsibilities are addressedand that the resulting system meets the needs and expectations of each agency and the public.

1.4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE SDP

The development of the Miami Valley SDP closely followed the ten step FHWA deploymentplanning process. The major activities of the planning effort are summarized in the sections whichfollow.

1.4.1 Agency and Stakeholder Coordination and Outreach

The Policy and Technical Committees developed the Miami Valley ITS SDP in a coordinatedmanner with multi-jurisdictional and multimodal involvement. During the course of the SDP study,the two committees met 11 times to develop goals and objectives, review needs and problems,discuss proposed program areas and priorities, and approve the SDP.

A broad range of transportation stakeholders in the region were kept informed of and involved inthe SDP development through workshops and newsletters. Workshops were held to inform andsolicit input and workshop participants were provided an opportunity to review draft SDP productsand identify and-discuss information specific to their concerns.

Miami Valley ITS#24542 l-5


Two outreach workshops were held, one on November 7,1996 and one on May 1, 1997. The firstworkshop described the study to participants and elicited their comments on needs, problems andpotential solutions. The second workshop focused on the draft projects developed by the consultantteam in conjunction with the Policy and Technical Committees. Both workshops were held at theMVRPC in Dayton.

Three newsletters were published during the course of the study. The first newsletter was publishedin October 1996. It announced the study, a schedule of activities, and provided a brief introductionto ITS services. The second newsletter was published in April of 1997. This newsletter summarizedthe conclusions of the needs assessment and user service prioritization activities and presented thedraft program areas which have been used to organize specific projects.

The third newsletter was published in August of 1997. This newsletter provided an executivesummary of the report and an outline of the next steps for Miami Valley ITS deployment. Fivehundred copies of each newsletter were printed and distributed using a list of area transportationstakeholders as identified by the MVRPC. Invitations to the outreach workshops were distributedvia the newsletters.

1.4.2 Transportation Systems and Facilities Inventory

Prior to the assessment of specific transportation needs and deficiencies and the identification of ITSopportunities, an inventory was made of the elements of the transportation system that are mostrelevant to ITS, including existing methods of traveler information dissemination, incidentmanagement, traffic signal control and freeway management. This inventory focused on identifying

. existing technological components and architectures which can form the foundation for regional ITSdeployment. The results of the inventory are presented in the User Service Plan (July 1997).

1.4.3 Opportunities and Deficiencies Assessment

The opportunities and deficiencies identification process was two-pronged, featuring both qualitativeand quantitative activities. The qualitative assessment of regional problems, issues and perspectivesincluded a widely distributed project newsletter, interviews with local transportation agency staff,a regional survey of transportation stakeholders, and a public Outreach Workshop. The quantitativeassessment of regional transportation conditions centered on the development of maps and tablessummarizing area freeway/interstate and major arterial street deficiencies and issues. The followingdata was collected and mapped for all area freeway segments and important arterial streets:

. existing congestion (daily level of service);

. forecasted congestion;

. safety (accident rates); and

. roadway design deficiencies.



Each type of data was added as a layer to a single map, yielding a composite map where themagnitude of deficiencies was established based on the presence or absence of the various layers.The deficiencies assessment process is summarized in Section 2.0 of this report and presented indetail in the User Service Plan (July 1997).

1.4.4 Assessment of Technologies and Development of a System Architecture

Separate Working Papers were prepared which assessed ITS technologies and developed a systemarchitecture for the recommended Miami Valley ITS. The technology assessment identifiedcandidate technologies to perform required ITS functions and compared the technologies in termsof cost and performance. The technology assessment is presented in detail in the TechnologiesAnalysis Working Paper (March 1997). The system architecture is summarized in Section 5.0 ofthis report and is documented in detail in the Functional Needs, Requirements and PreliminarySystem Architecture Working Paper (January 1997) and in the Recommended System Architectureand Technologies Working Paper (August 1997).

1.4.5 Development of Projects

The central element of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan is the programs andprojects that will be deployed to deliver ITS user services. An iterative and interactive approach wasused to identify and develop programs and projects for the SDP.

The first step in the development of specific program areas and projects began with a special two-day workshop with the Policy and Technical Committees. The purpose of the workshop was to

. identify and prioritize the specific user services appropriate for early deployment in the MiamiValley and to preliminarily rank the effectiveness/attractiveness of specific ITS projects andapplications. This prioritization was based upon the results of the qualitative and quantitativeopportunities and deficiencies assessment process. The workshop included many presentations andinteractive voting and discussion activities. These activities yielded the following:

. a prioritized list of the most significant transportation problems in the Miami Valley;

. a prioritized ranking of the ITS user services most appropriate to address those problems;

. a list of overriding factors to guide the development of all of the specific programs andprojects included in the SDP; and

. a prioritized list of potential ITS projects/strategies for further investigation and development.

In the months following the workshop, several drafts of potential projects were developed andrefined based on Policy and Technical Committee input, resulting in the program area and projectdescriptions presented in Section 6.0 of this report.



1.4.6 Development of the Strategic Depoyment Plan

The final step in the development of the Strategic Deployment Plan was the production of this finalreport and the elements necessary to move the plan into the deployment stages. In the fmal stagesof the study, strategies were established for the implementation of the plan, including arecommended ITS program management structure, roles and responsibilities (Section 9.0 of thisreport).

1.5 ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS

Several documents were produced which support this ITS Strategic Deployment Plan. Thesedocuments consist of the following:

. Functional Needs, Requirements and Preliminary System Architecture Working Paper(January 1997)

. Technologies Analysis Working Paper (March 1997)

. Recommended System Architecture and Technologies Working Paper (August 1997)

1.6 VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

One of the initial steps in the development of the Miami Valley ITS Strategic Deployment Plan wasto identify a vision of eventual ITS deployment, a destination to be reached via the road map represented by the Strategic Deployment Plan. Along with the development of this vision a list ofgoals and associated objectives were developed to help guide the preparation of the plan.

1.6.1 Vision Statement

The vision for the Miami Valley is one of enhanced transportation productivity, mobility, efficiencyand safety within the region with a reduction in energy use and improvement in the environmentthrough the use of cost effective ITS technologies and systems.

The vision starts with mutual cooperation between agencies and jurisdictions within the region toplan and implement advanced ITS technologies. The vision is an integrated approach to solvetransportation problems. The vision seeks to improve the use of existing infrastructure and thechoices of users and operators. The vision approaches problems that can be effectively addressedwith the resources available within the region.

The vision for the Miami Valley applies to all single and multimodal users who travel within andthose who travel through the area. The vision is also for transportation operators and agencies, andthe surrounding community. The vision for the region includes the following elements:



. EvolutionThe implementation of ITS technologies within the Miami Valley will occur in anevolutionary manner. They will be introduced gradually as the costs and benefits of thetechnologies are demonstrated and justified for the region.

. Travel InformationInformation regarding the transportation system within the Miami Valley will be immediatelyavailable to users and operators through a variety of devices such as television, radio, personalcomputers at home and at work, public kiosks, handheld mobile devices, roadway signage andother interactive communication devices. Users and operators will be able to inquire andreceive information about current and expected traffic conditions, travel times, incidents andalternative routes. Users and operators will be also able to inquire and receive informationabout transit status and schedules. This information will allow users to make informeddecisions about when to leave, how to travel, and what route to take.

. Traffic ManagementThe traffic on selected Miami Valley routes will be monitored and controlled through anintegrated system. Integrated systems will control arterial and freeway operations, monitorand make adjustments to lane usage, speed limits, ramp access and traffic signals. The goalof an area-wide system is to maximize the efficiency of the overall network based on actualconditions. In cooperation with travel information systems, traffic control operators can notifyusers of current or changing conditions and thereby redirect traffic or set drivers’ expectationsfor safer more efficient flow. An incident management system will identify incidents,dispatch the appropriate response services, and serve to remove and mitigate the effects ofincidents throughout the area.

. Commercial OperationsIn coordination with national and regional initiatives, commercial carriers will be able to drivethrough the region with minimal delays. Commercial carriers will have access to travelerinformation systems that can assist with routing, scheduling and dispatching optimization.

. Electronic Payment ServicesDevices will allow users to electronically pay fares and fees with a minimum amount of delay.Payment systems will collect fares and fees from users and operators in an integrated mannerwith other collection systems.

. Travel DemandUsers who wish to ride share can immediately determine potential candidates and dynamicallycreate car pools. Devices such as smart cards, public kiosks and personal digital assistantswill allow users to communicate with each other and work together to reduce the number ofvehicles on the roadway. ITS technologies will allow for detailed traffic data collection andanalysis. This information can support demand management techniques such as congestionpricing and large employer travel management.

Miami Valley ITS#24542 l-10


. Transit SystemsPublic transportation will be more attractive by offering faster service resulting from trafficsignal priority at selected locations and control of special ramps or lanes. Service will alsobe improved through the use of technology to track vehicles, accurately maintain schedules,predict demand and operate fleets more efficiently with a minimum of downtime and delay.Users of transit systems can be informed immediately on the status of their chosen route usinga variety of devices such as telephones with services such as audiotext, public kiosks, personalcomputers and personal digital assistants. Users will be encouraged to use transit systemsthrough improved information and easier access to information. Fare collection will be madeeasier and more accessible through addressing policies and barriers.

. Vehicle TrackingSystems will monitor and track the status of commercial carriers, transit operators, emergencyand service vehicles, and hazardous material carriers. These systems will allow operators toefficiently schedule their services, monitor on-time performance, and quickly respond to userneeds.

. Emergency ManagementDevices will notify authorities of the need for dispatching emergency vehicles to the site ofa collision or incident. Systems will coordinate the response from fire, police and medicalagencies resulting in fast response in the most appropriate manner. Other systems willcoordinate the removal of incidents to promote the timely return of the travel network to peakperformance.

. NavigationSystems and on-board devices will assist drivers with planning and following safe andefficient routes throughout the Miami Valley. These devices will also provide localinformation such as services and attractions.

. PollutionAir pollution will be reduced through improved efficiency and use of transportation systemsincluding demand management strategies. Dynamic ride-sharing systems will encourage theuse of high occupancy vehicles. Traveler information systems will decrease the number ofvehicle miles traveled through better planning. Public transportation systems will improveinformation available to users which will increase the use of public transit services. . Trafficmanagement systems will improve the flow of vehicles and reduce the level of pollution.Detection systems will monitor vehicle emissions and support enforcement efforts.

. CooperationThe future of transportation in the Miami Valley starts with the mutual cooperation amongtransportation agencies within the region. All agencies from the Ohio Department ofTransportation (ODOT) to city traffic agencies to local fire, police and medical serviceproviders will work together to promote and encourage the most productive and safestoperation of the transportation network. These agencies will work together to plan, design,implement and operate ITS systems in a cooperative and mutual manner.



. Institutional Issues and BarriersBarriers to deploying ITS technologies and arrangements will be researched and identified.Legislative initiatives will be developed and submitted where appropriate to reduce barriers,resolve privacy concerns and encourage arrangements such as public/private partnerships.

1.6.2 Goals and Objectives

Table 1.l presents the goals and associated objectives for the Miami Valley ITS StrategicDeployment Plan.

TABLE 1.1GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Goal

1. To create a state-of-the-art ITStransportation system

Objectives

l To establish an ITS architecture that:- Is open, receptive and adaptable to meet future area

architecture and field test needs.- Is consistent to the maximum degree possible with developing

national standards.l To develop and integrate the following systems throughout the area

as appropriate:- Travel and Traffic Management- Public Transportation Management- Electronic Payment Services- Commercial Vehicle Operations- Emergency Management

2. To enhance productivity l To reduce the travel delay and increase the reliability andpredictability of moving people and goods for all transportationusers.

l To improve the ability of users and operators to perform travelplanning using real-time travel information.

l To reduce the operational costs to operators incurred from poorlyoperating transportation facilities.

l To reduce the scheduling and processing delays and costs to usersand operators associated with the regulation of vehicles.

l To reduce the costs and improve the quality of data collection fortransportation system planning, use, operations, maintenance andinstallations.

3. To improve safety l To reduce the number and severity of motor vehicle collisions andassociated injuries and fatalities.

l To improve the average response time of emergency services.. To improve the ability to identify, respond, remove and/or mitigatethe effects of incidents.

l To improve the tracking of hazardous material movements, and theresponse to and mitigation of the effects due to loss of containmentsituations.

l To enhance personal security on all modes of transportation.

Miami Valley ITSii24542 l-12


Goal Objectives

4. To reduce energy consumption and l To increase the use of public transit and other shared rideimprove the environment alternatives.

l To reduce harmful emissions per unit of travel for all transportationmodes.

l To maintain and improve air quality standards.l To reduce the energy consumption per unit of travel for all

transportation modes.l To reduce the need for new right-of-way requirements and related

community disruption associated with transportation facilityimprovements.

5. To enhance mobility andaccessibility

. To improve the accessibility and availability of travel optionsinformation to users of all transportation facilities.

l To reduce the variability and to simplify the use of publictransportation.

l To improve the predictability of travel time for all transportationmodes.

l To reduce the complexity of scheduling and fee collectionprocedures for operators and users of intermodal facilities.

6. To increase efficiency . To reduce congestion and associated costs.l To optimize the operational efficiency of goods and people

movement on existing facilities.l To increase average vehicle occupancy.l To reduce time lost in intermodal interchange.l To increase capacity of existing infrastructure through ITS

Deployment.

- Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997

Miami Valley ITS# 2 4 5 4 2 1-13


Opportunities and Deficiencies

2.0 OPPORTUNITIES ANDDEFICIENCIES ASSESSMENT

2.1 OVERVIEW

This section summarizes the results of the Opportunities and Deficiencies Assessment. Detailedresults are presented in the User Service Plan (July 1997).

The opportunities and deficiencies identification process was two-pronged, featuring both qualitativeand quantitative activities. The qualitative assessment of regional problems, issues and perspectivesincluded a widely distributed project newsletter, interviews with local transportation agency staff,a regional survey of transportation stakeholders, and a public Outreach Workshop. The quantitativeassessment of regional transportation conditions centered on the development of maps and tablessummarizing area freeway/interstate and major arterial street deficiencies and issues.

2.2 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

2.2.1 Newsletters

Three project newsletters were mailed to approximately 400 study area transportation stakeholdersrepresenting a wide range of interests. The newsletters educate and solicit input and represent oneof the tools of the qualitative deficiencies assessment. In October 1996 the first Miami Valley ITS

Newsletter was sent out to inform potential stakeholders of the ITS Strategic Deployment Plandevelopment process and to invite them to the first of two Outreach Workshops, described below.A second newsletter was distributed in April 1997 which included updates on the status of theproject and summaries of recommended program areas. The final project newsletter was distributedin October 1997 and summarized this Strategic Deployment Plan.

2.2.2 User Needs Survey

Over 200 surveys were distributed to transportation systems users and operators. Individualsreceiving the survey represent motorized modes of transportation including transit, highways,trucking, aviation, and intercity bus. Thirty-seven (37) returned surveys resulted in a 19 percentresponse rate.

The survey addressed problem areas, problem area suggestions, user needs, and ITS project ideas.Survey results are presented in Tables 2.1 through 2.4. Table 2.1 shows the results of the problemarea ranking exercise. As shown in Table 2.1, when asked to rank a pre-defined list of potentialproblems, highway congestion, highway safety and commercial vehicle hazardous materials routingwere ranked as the most significant.



Table 2.2 shows the results of the “fill in the blank” problem identification portion of the survey.As indicated, highway congestion, inadequate/unsafe roadway design, and lack of signal timingcoordination were the most frequently reported problems. Lack of traveler information was alsoidentified as a problem.

Table 2.3 shows the results of the user needs portion of the survey, where respondents were askedto rate the priority of the 30 ITS User Services identified by the United States Department ofTransportation. As shown in Table 2.3, hazardous materials incident response, traffic control andincident management scored highest.

Table 2.4 lists the ITS project suggestions which were identified by survey respondents. Asindicated, the suggestions covered a wide range of ITS services and include many of the specificapplications which are being deployed successfully nationally.

2.2.3 Stakeholder Interviews

Representatives of the following 23 area public and private transportation organizations wereinterviewed between October 2, 1996 and October 30, 1996:

l City of Beavercreekl Clark County Engineeringl CCSTCCl Dayton International Airportl City of Dayton Fire Department

l City of Dayton Police Departmentl City of Dayton Traffic Engineeringl Federal Highway Administrationl Greene County Engineeringl Jet Expressl City of Ketteringl Miami Valley Regional Transit. Authority

l Montgomery Countyl City of Morainel ODOT (Central). ODOT (District 7)l ODOT (District 8)l ODOT (CVO)l Ohio Trucking Associationl Ohio Public Utilities Commissionl City of Springfieldl Springfield Bus Companyl Wright State University

The purpose of the interviews was to identify agency goals and responsibilities, transportationproblems in the Miami Valley, ITS technologies already in use, ITS funded projects, and to-discussprojects or suggestions that might improve the Miami Valley transportation system. Interviewsprovided an opportunity to solicit detailed comments from agency representatives that might not beexpressed through the other outreach efforts such as the surveys and workshops.



TABLE 2.1USER NEEDS SURVEY

PROBLEM AREA RATINGS

ProblemArea Problem

Average Number ofRating Responses

HighwayHighwayCommercial VehiclesLocal Bus SystemsCommercial VehiclesIntercity Bus/RailHighwayHighwayLocal Bus SystemsCommercial VehiclesCommercial VehiclesCommercial VehiclesHighwayLocal Bus SystemsIntercity Bus/RailLocal Bus SystemsHighwayHighwayHighwayLocal Bus SystemsIntercity Bus/Rail

Intercity Bus/RailHighwayCommercial VehiclesIntercity Bus/RailHighwayHighwayIntercity Bus/RailIntercity Bus/RailLocal Bus SystemsLocal Bus SystemsLocal Bus Systems

Safety 2.9Congestion 2.9Hazardous Material Routing 2.8Status Information 2.7Hazardous Material Response 2.6Safety/Security 2.6Air Pollution 2.5Access 2.5Travel Time 2.5Weight Checking 2.5Regulations 2.4Safety Inspections 2.4Emergency Response 2.4Safety/Security 2.4Travel Time 2.4Scheduling and Route Information 2.3Road and Weather Condition Info. 2.3Travel Time Information 2.3Travel Time 2.2Scheduling 2.2Status Information 2.2Scheduling 2.2Car Pooling Coordination 2.1Fleet Routing 2.1Schedule and Route Information 2.1Personal Security 1.9Noise 1.9Operations 1.8Fleet Management 1.8Operations 1.6Fleet Management 1.5Fare Collection 1.2

1 Out of 37 surveys returned

Rating Categories:1 = Not a Problem2 = Occasional Problem3 = General Problem4 = Significant Problem5 = Very Significant Problem

Source: BRW; Inc., May 1997

3434191119

732331115161628107

123231331265

2515

82731

4488

10




TOP FIVE PROBLEMS FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE

Area Problem FrequencyHighway Congestion 20Highway Inadequate/Unsafe Roadway Design 12Highway Lack of Signal Timing Coordination 7Highway Traveler Information 6Highway Incident Management/Emergency Response 6Highway Access Control 5Transit Insufficient Transit Service 5Highway Excessive Speed 4Highway Road Construction Management/Coordination 3Highway Additional Width/Lanes Needed 3Highway Inadequate Snow Removal 2Highway No Park and Ride Options 2Institution Overdependence on Automobiles, Subsidized Automobile Use 2Highway Construction Caused Congestion and Accidents 2Transit Alternative Transportation Option (foot, Bicycle or Transit) 2Institution Licensing Standards for Drivers Are Too Low, More Education Needed 2Highway Capacity Constraints 2Highway Lack of Alternative Routes 2Commercial Truck Traffic 2Highway Interchange Needed 1Highway Lack of Traffic Signals 1Transit Lack of Options for Intercity Commercial Aviation Service 1Highway Lack of Protected Left Turns 1Transit Lack of Light Rail to Airport 1Highway Lack of Routes to West Dayton 1Commercial Safe and Efficient Movement of Trucks 1Highway Too Many Traffic Signals 1Highway Police Pursuits, Technology to shut Engines of fleeing Cars 1Highway Weather Advisory for Motorist 1Highway Varying Speed Limits 1Highway Cruising on Main Street 1Transit Alternative Transportation Information 1Institution Intermodal Coordination 1Highway Manintaining Ozone Attainment Status 1Highway Frequent Lane Changes Required to Go Downtown 1Highway Identification of High Hazard Crash Locations 1Institution Need to Plan Ahead of Development 1Highway Maintaining Existing Infrastructure 1Highway Lack of emergency (Incident) Information System 1Transit Lack of Public Transit Ridership, Need a Safer Transit Environment 1Transit Intercity Rail 1Highway congestion Pricing 1Highway Problem Areas on Interstate 75 1Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997

Miami Valley ITS Final ITS Strategic Deployment24542 2-4 September 1997


USER NEED PRIORITIES

User Need Area User NeedAveragePriority

Number ofResponses 1

Commercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traffic ManagementTravel and Traffic ManagementEmergency Management ServicesEmergency Management ServicesAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsTravel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation ManagementAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsAdvanced Vehicle Safety SystemsCommercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traflic ManagementTravel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation Management

Travel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation ManagementCommercial Vehicle ServicesCommercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traffic ManagementTravel and Traffic ManagementPublic Transportation Management

Commercial Vehicle ServicesTravel and Traflic ManagementCommercial Vehicle ServicesElectronic Payment ServicesAdvanced Vehicle Safety Systems

Out of 37 surveys returned

Rating Categories:1 = Very Low Priority2 = Low Priority3 = Average Priority4 = High Priority5 = Very High Priority

Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997

Hazardous Material Incident Response 4.3 32Traflic Control 4.2 33Incident Management 4.1 33Emergency Vehicle Management 4.0 34Emergency Notification and Personal Security 3.9 35Intersection Collision Avoidance 3.5 29Vision Enhancement for Crash Avoidance 3.5 30Longitudinal Collision Avoidance 3.4 29Safety Readiness 3.4 30Travel Demand Management 3.3 35Public Travel Safety 3.3 33Pre-Crash Restraint Deployment 3.3 29Lateral Collision Avoidance 3.3 29On-Board Safety Monitoring 3.1 27Route Guidance 3.1 33En-Route Driver Information 3.0 33Public Transportation Management 3.0 31Highway-Railroad Intersection 3.0 26Emissions Testing and Mitigation 2.9 34Personalized Public Transit 2.9 32Automated Roadside Safety Inspections 2.9 28Freight Mobility 2.9 27Pre-Trip Travel Information 2.7 34Ride Matching and Reservation 2.6 34En-Route Transit Information 2.5 31Commercial Vehicle Administrative Processes 2.5 27Traveler Services Information 2.3 34Commercial Vehicle Electronic Clearance 2.3 27Electronic Payment Services 2.2 28Automated Vehicle Operations 2.1 30




ITS PROJECT/PROGRAM IDEAS

Category Idea/Suggestion

System Congestion Traffic Signal CoordinationFreeway Management SystemMotorist InformationFreeway SurveillanceVariable Message SignsAlternate Route MessagesCongestion ManagementEstablish Park and RideEn-route Incident InformationHighway Advisory Radio-Real Time InformationClosed Circuit Television and Vehicle Detection EquipmentAdditional LanesRemote Monitoring of Traffic Signal Operation

Incident Management

Transit

Aviation

Highway Engineering

Commercial Vehicle Operations

Trip Planning

Standards


Incident Management SystemAccident Avoidance Systems in VehiclesVideo Surveillance (Photo radar) at Frequent Crash AreasMore Emergency Response Staff TrainingFreeway Incident Information SystemCellular Caller IdentificationEnhance Area-Wide Snow Removal Capability

Develop Suburban TransitExpand Transit to out of County SuburbsExploration of Commuter Rail SystemITS Transit ProjectsITS Demand-Responsive Transit ProjectsImprove Multi-ModalismSafer Transit Environment

Expand/Market Dayton Airport Operations

Additional protected left turn lanesImprove I-75/SR 4 IntersectionAccess ManagementReconstruction of Accident Prone Sections of HighwayBridge Deicing System

Use ITS for CVO ManagementHazardous Material Identification

Traveler Information via Radio and ComputerRoad Construction Information

Adopt State Standards for Location IdentificationEnsure Connectability with other State/Local Systems



As shown in Table 2.5, the three (3) most frequently reported problems included traffic congestion,accidents/incidents and inadequate/poor roadway design. Funding and Interagency/ inter-jurisdictional issues were also identified as important. Table 2.6 identifies the transportationsolutions proposed by interviewees.

2.2.4 Outreach Workshop #1

Thirty-eight (38) people attended the Outreach Workshop held on November 7, 1996. Workshopattendees included the members of the project Policy and Technical Committees as well as interestedarea transportation stakeholders. Over 20 different organizations were represented at the workshop,including state, regional and local governments as well as several private sector organizations,including trucking, taxi cab and real estate firms. The purpose of the workshop was to explain theStrategic Deployment Plan project and to solicit input on transportation problems and potential ITSsolutions.

In an effort to identity problems and potential solutions, workshop attendees were divided into fourdiscussion groups based on their transportation interests and backgrounds: Transit, Highway,Incident Management/Institutional Issues and Commercial Vehicle Operations. In the breakoutsession the groups listed obstacles, problems, and trends interfering with the Miami Valley ITSvision and proposed solutions to overcome those obstacles. A high level summary of the problemsand potential solutions identified at the workshop are shown in Tables 2.7 and 2.8.

2.3 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

The quantitative assessment of regional transportation conditions centered on the development ofmaps and tables summarizing area freeway/interstate and major arterial street deficiencies and issues.Issues in non-highway areas, such as traveler information and transit, were addressed through thequalitative activities described in Section 2.2. The quantitative roadway assessment described in thissection was used in conjunction with the results of the qualitative assessment activities described inSection 2.2 to guide the development of recommended projects.

2.3.1 Freeway/Interstate Issues

The freeway/interstate facilities that were considered in this analysis are shown in Figure 2-l. Thefollowing data was collected and mapped for each facility:

. existing congestion (daily level of service);

. forecasted congestion;

. safety (accident rates); and

. roadway design deficiencies.

Miami Valley ITSS24542 2-7


TABLE 2.5 AGENCY INTERVIEWS

REPORTED PROBLEM AREAS

FrequencyCited

Problem Area

11 Traffic Congestion8 Accidents/Incidents7 Inadequate/poor Roadway Design5 Funding4 Inadequate Signage/Traveler Information4 Conflicting Agency/Jurisdictional Priorities & "Turf" Isssues4 Lack of Detour/Rerouting Traffic4 Impacts of Detouring Traffic2 Low Transit Ridership 2 Driver Behavior2 Railroad Crossing Delays2 Access to Incidents/Emergency Vehicle Regulatory & Enforcement Agencies2 Transit Not Suburb-Oriented2 Coordination Among Commercial Vehicle Regulatory & Enforcement Agencies1 Coordination on Construction/Detours1 Road Construction1 Inadequate Rest Trop/Sleeping Locations for Commercial Vehicle Drivers1 Commercial Vehicle Safety Inspections (Delays, Inadequate Facilities)1 Accidents1 Interstate On-Ramps/Merging & Weaving Areas1 Inadequate Staff Resources1 Access Control (too many driveways)1 Inadequate Commercial Vehicle airport Access1 Heavy Volume and Unrealibility of Cellular Incident Phone Calls1 Work Zone Safety1 Abundant Parking (Deterrent to Transit)1 Room for Bicycles Packages, Etc. on Transit Vehicles1 Transit Equipment Procurement (Dwindling Number of Suppliers)1 Difficulty in Implementing Non-Mandated Commercial Vehicle Programs1 Inadequate Regional Coordination/Cooperation of Traffic Signal Efforts1 Institutional Issues in Integrating ODOT Interstate Signals into Local Systems1 Lack of Support for Fixed Route Transit in Greene County1 Lack of Enthusiasm Among Commercial Vehicle Participants1 Lack of Qualified Commercial Vehicle Operators1 High Commercial Vehicle Fuel Taxes1 Size and Complexity of Commercial Vehicle Regulatory Databases


Miami Valley ITS Final ITS Strategic Deployment24542 2-4 September 1997

TABLE 2.6AGENCY INTERVIEWS

SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

Commercial Vehicle Operations

l Separate, grade-separated facilities for commercial vehiclesl Coordination of commercial vehicle databasesl Automated hazardous materials enforcementl Tie-ins with the Advantage I-75 project

Traveler Information

l Highway advisory radiol Traffic information on existing agency Internet sites. Traveler information for construction and detoursl Traveler information at park-n-ride lotsl Improved s&age/traveler information for the Nutter Centerl Changeable message signs

Freeway Management

l Pre-arranged incident detour plansl Dedicated incident reporting hotlinel A regional traffic management centerl Regional emergency communications center and common communications systeml Pavement/weather sensing stations

Traffic Signal Systems

. Improve traffic flow along arterial street detour routesl Regional traffic signal coordination/cooperation efforts

Transit

. “Smart” transit to better serve suburban/neighborhood tripsl Automatic vehicle location for transit vehiclesl Active transit station signs

Other

l Advanced warning for the presence of trains at at-grade rail crossingsl Automation of existing permanent traffic countersl Transponders on taxi cabs to allow automating counting and billing for airport usel Electronic debit card system for airport parking




TABLE 2.7OUTREACH WORKSHOP

REPORTED PROBLEM AREAS

Highest Frequency ..

Medium Frequency

Low Frequency


.

Inadequate Cooperation and Coordination(among modes, organizations and services)

Legal/Institutional Issues (liability, legislatedresponsibilities, etc.)

Inadequate Information (travelers andoperators)

Funding

Congestion

Incidents

Standardization/Compatibility

Private Sector Costs

Driver Resistance

Inefficiency

Senior/Disabled Access

Emergency Vehicle Access



TABLE 2.8OUTREACH WORKSHOPSUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

Incidents . Incident Response. Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control. Freeway Management

Coordination/Cooperation ... Training

EducationPolitical/Legislative Action

Traveler Information KiosksAutomated Phone SystemsReal-Time Data

Funding .. Identify Dedicated Source(s)State Participation


Each type of data was added as a layer to a single map, yielding a composite map where themagnitude of deficiencies was established based on the presence or absence of the various layers.The methodology for each type of data and the resulting deficiencies and priorities summary mapsare briefly described below.

Congestion

Freeway/interstate roadway segments with existing and forecasted average daily Levels of ServiceE or F were identified. This information was taken from the Ohio Department of Transportation's1990 and 2020 “Existing Plus Committed Roadway Projects” regional travel forecasts.

Freeway/interstate accident data was obtained from the Ohio Department of Transportation for the1993 to 1995 time period for each of the freeway/interstate segments within the four county MiamiValley ITS study area. Some of the segments included accident rates and some did not. For thosesegments that did not include accident rates, accident rates were calculated based on the segmentlength and a generalized segment average daily traffic volume. The freeway segments within thestudy area and the documented accident rates are shown in Table 2.9. The data indicate that accident



rates on the various segments range from 0.6 accidents per million vehicle miles (Acc/MVM) to 1.6Acc/MVM.

The accident rates for each of the freeway segments were compared to a typical average urbanfreeway accident rate (1.7 accidents per million vehicle miles) to identify problem areas, based onthe assumption that Miami Valley freeway/ interstate segments with rates above the typical averagerate represent problem areas. As shown in Table 2.9, none of the segments analyzed have accidentrates above the typical average rate.

Although the accident rates analysis does not indicate higher accident rates than are typical, therelative accident rates of different freeway/interstate segments are useful in identifying theappropriate geographic phasing of ITS projects which address accidents or their effects. Formapping purposes, the accident rates were stratified into high, medium and low categoriescorresponding to the upper, middle and lower thirds of the accident rate distribution. Segmentswithin the two highest categories were mapped.

Design Deficiencies

The following six regional freeway/interstate segments were assessed for design deficiencies basedon a subjective “windshield survey”:

. I-75 from I-675 to I-70. I-70 from the Airport Access Road to I-675. I-675 from I-75 to I-70l US 35 from Third Street to Xenia. SR 4 from I-75 to I-70. SR 444 from SR 4 to I-675.

The assessment considered the following design features:

. Substandard Horizontal and Vertical Curvature. Short or Difficult Weaves. Short Merge Areas. Left Side On/Off Rampsl Loop Ramps. Features which Limit Capacity During Peaks



1 ‘_

1

I I

I N._

I_

i I

_’I

I I

j 1

-l

I :

I ‘-

5

~.I

’

11

‘TA

BLE

2.9

FREE

WA

Y/IN

TER

STA

TE A

CC

IDEN

T A

NA

LYSI

S

Segm

ent

Mon

tgom

ery

Cou

nty

Ave

rage

Dai

ly

Leng

thV

olum

e (2)

(mi.)

Avg

. #A

cc./Y

r. (1

)A

cc. R

ate

(Acc

./mvm

)A

vg. R

ate

(Acc

./mvm

)Is

Rat

e >

Avg

. Rat

e

I-75

(I-70

to U

S 35

)I-

75 (I

-70

to M

iam

i Cou

nty)

I-75

(US

35 to

War

ren

Cou

nty)

I-70

(I-7

5 to

Cla

rk C

ount

y)I-

70 (I

-75

to P

rebl

e C

ount

y)I-

675

(I-7

5 to

Gre

ene

Cou

nty)

Cla

rk C

ount

y

91,0

00

9 48

0 1.

6 1.

7 N

o63

,000

4

130

1.4

1.7

No

78,0

00

11.4

45

1 1.

4 1.

7 N

o43

,000

11

18

7 1.1

1.

7 N

o34

,000

12

.6

157

1.0

1.7

No

43,0

00

7.4

128

1.1

1.7

No

I-70

Gre

ene

Cou

nty

40,0

00

29.3

40

4 1.

0 1.

7 N

o

I-71

26,0

00

4.1

22

0.6

1.7

No

I-67

5 (M

ontg

omer

y C

ount

y to

SR

444)

54

,000

7.

7 15

0 1.

0 1.

7 N

oI-6

75 (S

R 44

4 to

I-70

) 41

,000

10

13

1 0.

9 1.

7 N

o

Mia

mi

Cou

nty

I-75

45,0

00

20

361

1.1

1.7

No

(1)

Ohi

o D

epar

tmen

t of

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n (1

990)

(2)

Ohi

o D

epar

tmen

t of

Publ

ic S

afet

y (1

995)

(3)

Dai

ly V

olum

es w

ere

aver

aged

ove

r en

tire

segm

ent

leng

th.

Sour

ce: B

RW

, Inc

., A

pril

199

7

For the most part, the detrimental impact of each of these characteristics on capacity and safety areself evident. Curves that are too tight and roads with abrupt crests and valleys reduce sightdistances, slow traffic and create safety problems. Merge and weave sections that are too short donot provide adequate gaps for safe lane changes. Relative to diamond interchanges, loop rampscreate slower and more difficult merges. Left side on/off ramps, which are generally much lesscommon than right side ramps, conflict with driver expectations and compound the negative impactof merging traffic on through lane capacity by introducing merging vehicles directly into what isnormally the fastest moving lane.

For each segment, any specific relevant design deficiencies were identified. Based on thesedeficiencies, the segment was given an overall numeric rating from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good).Table 2.10 presents this information. Segments with a rating of 3 or below were mapped.

Summary of Freeway/Interstate Issues

The information described above was mapped as layers on maps for the four county study area.These maps are shown as Figures 2-2 through 2-5. This information is presented in tabular form inTable 2.11.

Arterial Street Issues

A deficiencies data collection and mapping effort similar to the one performed forfreeways/interstates was conducted for major arterial streets. This exercise considered all majorarterial roadways as well as other roadways which parallel freeways and which represent potentialreliever routes. A map of the roadways which were considered in this analysis is shown in Figure

6-6.

Congestion

Like the freeway/interstate deficiencies analysis, the analysis of regional major arterial streetsmapped existing and forecasted Levels of Service of E or worse. Data was not available for ClarkCounty, which is currently preparing an update to their regional traffic forecasting model.Congestion data for Greene, Miami and Montgomery Counties was supplied by the Miami ValleyRegional Planning Commission.



TABLE 2.10SUMMARY OF REGIONAL FREEWAY/INTERSTATE DESIGN DEFICIENCIES

ASSESSMENT

Route

I-75 (south to north)

Overall Rating(l=very poor;

Segment Design Deficiencies 5=very good)

Montgomery County Line thru None notable 4US 35 interchange

Thru SR 4 interchange Substandard Horizontal CurvatureShort or Difficult WeavesShort Merge AreasLeft Side On/Off RampsCapacity Limiting During Peaks

2

l-70 (west to east)

Thru Needmore Road Substandard Vertical Curvature 3interchange Short or Difficult Weaves

Short Merge AreasCapacity Limiting During Peaks

Little York Road thru I-70 Short or Difficult Weaves 2interchange Short Merge Areas

Loop RampsCapacity Limiting During Peaks

Thru Miami County None notable 4-5

Montgomery County Line to I- Capacity Limiting During Peaks70

I-75 interchange

Thru SR 210

Thru Greene and ClarkCounties

L-675 (south to north) I-75 to I-70

US 35 (west to east) I-75 to Smithville Road

Thrn I-675

SR 4 (south to north) I-75 to SR 444

Source: LJB & BRW, Inc., April 1997.

Short or Difficult WeavesShort Merge AreasLoop RampsCapacity Limiting During Peaks

Short Merge AreasLoop Ramps

‘Capacity Limiting During Peaks

None notable

Minor Difficulties at Fairfield Road

Left Side On/Off Ramps

Includes At Grade Access

2

3

4-5

4-5

3-4

3-4

3



TABLE 2.11SUMMARY OF FREEWAY/INTERSTATE ISSUES

“High” “Moderate”

CountyClark

Greene

Miami

Montgomery

Existing Forecasted Accident AccidentRoadway Segment (1)

DesignCongestion (2) Congestion (3) Rate (4)

I-70 (west to east)Rate (5)

Montgomery County line to SR 235Deficiencies (6)

interchange (or Mud Creek crossing) X X XSR 235 overpass to l-675 interchange X X

/

l-675 interchange X X X

l-675 interchange to SR 4 interchange X XSR 4 interchange through Enon Roadoverpass X X XEnon Road overpass to SR 72 X XSR 72 to Old Selma Road X X XOld Selma Road to east Clark Countyline X X

I-675 (south to north) Montgomery County line to US 35 X XUS 35 to Grange Hall Road XGrange Hall Road to Beavercreekborder X XBeavercreek Corporate Limit to NorthFairfield Road X X XNorth Fairfield Road to west of BeaverValley Road X XWest of Beaver Valley Road toDayton-Yellow Springs Road X

I-75 (south to north) Montgomery County line to SR 571 X XSR 571 through Tipp City border northcrossing . XTipp City border north crossing tonorth Miami County line X X

I-75 (south to north) Montgomery County Line through US35 interchange X X XUS 35 interchange through NeedmoreRoad interchange X X X XNeedmore Road interchange throughLittle York Road X X XLittle York Road through l-70interchange X X X Xl-70 interchange through US 40interchange X X XUS 40 interchange through Vandaliaborder north crossing X XVandalia border north crossing tosouth Miami County line X

I-70 (west to east) Montgomery County Line through SR49 west interchange XSR 49 west interchange to SR 49 east

I-675 (west to east)

crossingSR 49 east crossinn tn SR AR SR 48 to l-75l-75 interchange to SR 201SR 201 to Cl& fhmtv I ine

l-75 to Greene

X XX

X. . X XX XX XX x. .

X County line

(1) All locations are approximate(2) 1990 Daily Level of Service E or F(3) 2020 Daily Level of Service E or F(4) Locations with accident rates within the upper one-third of all segments analyzed(5) Locations with accident rates within the middle one-third of all segments analyzed(6) A subjective assessment based on a field review considering factors such as weaving/merging distances, interchange spacing,

horizontal and vertical curvature, left side on/off ramps and loop ramps

Source: BRW, Inc., May 1997.

Traffic accident rates were calculated for a sampling of 20 area arterial street intersections. Thesample was selected based two “most dangerous intersection” news articles published in the DaytonDaily News, as well as information collected from the Cities of Dayton, Kettering and Springfieldand the Ohio Department of Public Safety (1995 Highway Accidents by County).

The “critical rate” accident analysis methodology was used. This approach identifies problemlocations based on the difference between site specific accident rates and areawide average rates forsimilar locations. Some variation from the average is expected and does not necessarily suggest alocalized safety problem. However, if a rate sufficiently exceeds the average, i.e., exceeds a “criticalrate”, the difference is statistically valid and suggests that there may be a localized safety problem.

An average accident rate was calculated using a sample of ten intersections considered to berepresentative of Miami Valley urban arterial street intersections in terms of traffic volumes, designand traffic control. Using a typical average accident rate of 1.5 accidents per million enteringvehicles for urban signalized intersections, a critical rate was calculated at each of the 20 “problem”locations. The accident rates at each locations were then compared to their respective critical rates.

As shown in Table 2.12, sixteen (16) of the “problem” locations exceeded their critical rates,indicating that localized safety problems may be present. Additionally, although not reflected inTable 2.12, two of the “typical” intersections also exceeded their critical rates. The roadways thatinclude at least one of the sixteen (16) problem locations were identified and mapped. Theseroadways are:

. Gettysburg Avenue. Dorothy Lane. Brandt Pike. SR 725l Woodman Drivel Spring Street

Local Priorities

A meeting was held with agency traffic engineering staff throughout the four county study area,including municipal, county and Ohio Department of Transportation personnel. The purpose of themeeting was to identify arterial street segments which are considered high priorities for ITS projectsfrom the perspectives of the traffic engineers responsible for these facilities. The meeting generateda list of priority locations for each of the four counties, shown in Table 2.13.

Summ ary of Arterial Issues

The information data described above was mapped as layers on individual county maps. These mapsare shown as Figures 2-7 through 2-10. This information is presented in tabular form in Table 2.14.



TABL

E 2.

12A

RTE

RIA

L ST

REE

T IN

TER

SEC

TIO

N A

CC

IDEN

T A

LY

SIS

Inte

rsec

tion

1) B

rand

t Pi

ke/C

ham

bers

burg

Rd.

2) G

etty

sbur

g/H

oove

r A

ve.

3) B

rand

t Pi

ke/F

ishbu

rg R

d.

4) G

etty

sbur

g Av

e./3r

d S

t.

5) O

ld T

roy

Pike

/Tay

lors

ville

Rd.

6) C

ol. G

lenn

Hw

y./N

atio

nal

Rd.

7) D

ayto

n-Xe

nia/

Nor

th F

airf

ield

8)

Get

tysb

urg

Ave

./Ja

mes

McG

ee B

lvd.

9) D

orot

hy L

ane/

Wilm

ingt

on P

ike

10) H

elen

a St

./Ri

vers

ide

Dr.

11)

Keow

ee S

t./3r

d S

t.

12) N

eedm

ore

Rd.

/N. D

ixie

Dr.

13) D

orot

hy L

ane/

Woo

dman

Dr.

14) O

hio

725/

Ohi

o 74

1

15) O

hio

725/

Byer

s R

d.

16)

Patte

rson

/Woo

dman

17)

Forre

r/Sm

ithvi

lle

18) N

. Spr

ing

St./

E. N

orth

St.

Sign

al

28,70

0 32

3.0

9 1.5

2.08

Yes

19) S

. Spr

ing

St./

E. H

igh

St.

Sign

al

17,80

0 26

4.

00

1.52.2

1 Ye

s

20) E

. Mai

n St

./N

. Bur

nett

Rd.

Sign

al

21,70

0 26

3.

32

1.52.1

5 Ye

s

Exis

ting

Traf

fic

Con

trol

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Sign

al

Ente

ring

Dai

ly

Ave

rage

#V

olum

e”’

Acc

iden

ts/Y

r.

39,60

0 49

37,30

0 43

37,10

0 38

38,95

0 36

36,75

0 36

41,35

0 34

33,75

0 33

37,10

0 33

65,80

0 32

33,70

0 31

50,15

0 31

(199

4)

Acc

iden

t A

vera

ge A

reaw

ide

Criti

cal

Is R

ate

>R

ate

Rat

e R

ate

Criti

cal

Rate

3.39

1.5

2.0

Yes

3.16

1.5

2.0

Yes

2.81

1.5

2.0

Yes

2.53

1.5

2.0

Ye

s

2.68

1.5

2.0

Ye

s

2.25

1.5

2.0

Yes

2.68

1.5

2.0

Ye

s

2.44

1.5

2.0

Ye

s

2.03

1.5

1.89

Yes

2.52

1.5

2.0

Ye

s

1.69

1.5

1.94

No

(1) “

Hig

h A

ccid

ent L

ocat

ions

,” C

ity o

f Ket

terin

g (1

995)

(2) D

aily

Ent

erin

g Vo

lum

es O

btai

ned

from

Tra

ffic

Flow

Map

s.So

urce

: BRW

, Inc

., A

pril

1997

TABLE 2.13LOCAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ARTERIAL STREET PRIORITIES

Montgomery County

l SR 202 in Huber Heights from south to north corporation line. SR 201 in Huber Heights from south to north corporation line. Woodman Drive US 35 to SR 201l National Road (US 40) from Brown School House Road to Dogleg Roadl SR 48 from US 40 to Garver Road. Philadelphia Drive from Siebenthaler to Turner

Greene County

. Dayton-Yellow Springs Road in Fairborn from Southlawn Drive to Trebein Road. SR 444 from SR 844 to I-675l Dayton-Xenia Road in Beavercreek from west corporation line to Fairfield Roadl US 35 from Fairfield Road to Valley Road

Miami County

l SR 41 from Washington Road to Market Streetl South Market Street from Main Street to West Market Street. SR 571 from just west of I-75 to Hyattsville Roadl SR 55 from I-75 to Nashville Road. SR 55 from SR 718 to South Market Street

Clark County

. SR 72 North from North Street to Eagle City Road. SR 72 South from Main South to Leffel Lanel East Main Street/US 40 East from Limestone Street to East Corporate Linel SR 235 between SR 41 and US 40. Selma Road from SR 72 to Leffel Lane. Leffel Lane: Springfield - Xenia Road to Burnett Road

Source: Local, County and State Traffic Engineering Staff, April 21, 1997 Meeting


Final ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember I997

TAB

LE 2

.14

SU

MM

AR

Y O

F A

RTE

RIA

L S

TRE

ET

ISS

UE

S

Exis

ting

Fore

cast

ed“C

ritic

al”

Acc

iden

t R

ate

Loca

lC

ount

yCl

ark

Roa

dway

1 US

40 (

wes

t to

east

)Se

gmen

t (1

)M

iam

i Cou

nty

Line

to S

iC

onge

stio

n (2

) C

onge

stio

n (3

) In

ters

ectio

n(s)

(4)

R 23

5 X

X

Prio

rity

(5)

SR 3

34 (w

est t

o ea

st)

US

68

to S

R 4

SR 7

2 (s

outh

to

north

) Le

ffell

Lane

to J

ohn

Stre

etJo

hn S

treet

to M

ain

Stre

etN

orth

Stre

et to

McC

reig

ht A

venu

eM

cCre

ight

Ave

nue

to E

agle

City

Roa

dU

S 40

/Eas

t Mai

n St

reet

(wes

t to

east

) Li

mes

tone

Stre

et to

Eas

t Cor

pora

te

X

XX

XX

X

SR 2

35 (

sout

h to

nor

th)

Selm

a R

oad

(sou

th t

o no

rth)

Leffe

l Lan

e (w

est

to e

ast)

SR 5

6SR

444

(wes

t to

eas

t)

Line

US

40 to

SR

41

Leffe

l Lan

e to

SR

72

Sprin

gfie

ld-X

enia

Roa

d to

Bur

nett

Roa

dTh

roug

h C

lark

Cou

nty

Mon

tgom

ery

Cou

nty

Line

to Z

ink

X X X XX

Gree

ne

Line

Xeni

a N

orth

Cor

pora

te L

ine

to S

RX

X

SR 7

2 (s

outh

to

north

)

SR 3

43 (w

est t

o ea

st)

SR 7

34 (w

est t

o ea

st)

235

Yello

w S

prin

gs S

outh

Cor

pora

te L

ine

to

Cla

rk C

ount

y Li

neI-7

1 in

terc

hang

e to

Clif

ton

Sout

hC

orpo

rate

Lin

eEn

tire

leng

thSR

72

to e

ast G

reen

e C

ount

y Li

ne

X

X

X X X

TAB

LE 2

.14

SU

MM

AR

Y O

F A

RTE

RIA

L S

TRE

ET

ISS

UE

S

Exis

ting

Fore

cast

ed“C

ritic

al”

Acc

iden

t R

ate

Loca

lC

ount

y R

oadw

ay

Segm

ent

(1)

Con

gest

ion

(2)

Con

gest

ion

(3)

Inte

rsec

tion(

s) (

4)M

iam

i SR

721

(so

uth

to n

orth

) Ju

st n

orth

of r

ight

ang

le tu

rn to

SR

185

XSR

66

(sou

th t

ono

rth)

Piqu

aaN

orth

Cor

pora

teLi

ne to

Mia

mi

Mon

tgom

ery

SR

571

(wes

t to

east

) Ju

st w

est o

fl-7

5to

Hy

SR 7

41(s

outh

to n

orth

)

SR

201

to M

iam

i Cou

nty

East

Lin

e

War

ren

Cou

nty

Line

to7

25

SR

SRR

48 (

sout

h to

nor

th)

Cen

terv

illee

Sout

h C

orpo

rate

Lin

e to

I

SR 4

9 (s

outh

to n

orth

)

Get

tysb

urg

Aven

ue (

sout

hto

SR 7

25SR

725

to U

S 35

X XX

l-75

to B

urge

ss A

venu

e X

XBu

rges

s Av

enue

to W

oole

ry L

ane

XG

arbe

r R

oad

to l-

70l-7

0 to

div

erge

nce

from

US

40

Xl-7

5 to

Wol

f R

oad

X X

Wol

f Roa

d to

l-70

X

north

) H

ome

Aven

ue t

o O

akrid

ge D

rive

XO

akrid

ge D

rive

to H

oove

r Av

enue

X

X.

--

-H

oove

r Av

enue

to W

olf C

reek

Pik

e X

X X

----

Wol

f Cre

ek P

ike

to L

ittle

Ric

hmon

d

US

35 (

wes

t to

east

) .

Nor

th D

ixie

Driv

e (s

outh

to n

orth

)

Roa

dLi

ttle

Ric

hmon

d R

oad

to S

R 4

9W

este

rn p

art o

f New

Leb

anon

toU

nion

Roa

dW

ilmin

gton

Pik

e to

Sm

ithvi

lle R

oad

Gre

at M

iam

i Riv

er C

ross

ing

to L

ittle

York

Roa

dLi

ne

X X

X

XX X

X

.X

I -

I ,

1: n

~

TAB

LE 2

.14

SU

MM

AR

Y O

F A

RTE

RIA

L S

TRE

ET

ISS

UE

S

Cou

nty

Exis

ting

Fore

cast

ed“C

ritic

al”

Acc

iden

t Rat

e Lo

cal

Roa

dway

Need

mor

e R

oad

(wes

t to

east

)S

R 2

02 (s

outh

to n

orth

)

SR 2

01 (

sout

h to

nor

th)

Con

gest

ion

(2)

Con

gest

ion

(3)

Inte

rsec

tion(

s) (

4)

Prio

rity

(5)

XSe

gmen

t (1

)II-

75 to

SR

201

ISR

4 to

Hub

er H

eigh

ts S

outh

Cor

pora

te L

imits

H

uber

Hei

ghts

Sou

th C

orpo

rate

Lim

its to

Cha

mbe

rsbu

rg R

oad

Cha

mbe

rsbu

rg R

oad

to M

iam

iC

ount

y Li

neSR

4 to

Kitr

idge

Roa

dKi

tridg

e R

oad/

Hub

er H

eigh

ts S

outh

Cor

pora

te L

imits

to P

owel

l Roa

dPo

wel

l Roa

d/ H

uber

Hei

ghts

Sou

thC

orpo

rate

Lim

its to

Mia

mi C

ount

y

X X

X

X X

X

X X

x

X X

X X

X

Line

X

XW

oodm

an D

rive/

Har

shm

an R

oad

Lin

den

Aven

ue to

SR

4

XX

A(s

outh

to n

orth

) S

R 4

to S

R 2

01

X X

XW

oodm

an D

rive

(sou

th to

nor

th)

Wilm

into

n Pi

ke to

US

35

XX

Wilm

ingt

on P

ike (

sout

h to

nor

th)

Woo

dman

Driv

e to

Dor

othy

Lan

eD

orot

hv L

ane

to S

mith

ville

Roa

d X

XIrv

ing

Aven

ue to

Day

ton

CBD

X

Dor

othy

Lan

e (w

est

to e

ast)

SR 7

41 to

Pat

ters

on B

lvd.

X

Patte

rson

Blv

d. to

La

Plat

a D

rive

X X

XN

atio

nal R

oad/

US

40 (

wes

t to

eas

t) D

ogle

g R

oad

to B

row

n Sc

hool

Hou

se R

oad

X .Ph

ilade

lphi

a D

rive

(sou

th t

o no

rth)

Sieb

enth

aler

Ave

nue

to T

urne

r R

oad

x --

SR 4

(sou

th to

nor

th)

l-75

thro

ugh

SR 4

44 in

terc

hang

e

XG

reen

e C

ount

y Li

ne to

l-70

X

(1)

All l

ocat

ions

are

app

roxi

mat

e(2

) 199

0 D

aily

Lev

el o

f Ser

vice

E o

r F(3

) 202

0 D

aily

Lev

el o

f Ser

vice

(4)

Roa

dway

seg

men

t inc

lude

s at

leas

t one

inte

rsec

tion

with

a “c

ritic

al” a

ccid

ent r

ate

(a ra

te s

igni

fican

tly h

ighe

r, st

atis

tical

ly, t

han

the

area

ave

rage

rate

)(5

) Ide

ntifi

ed a

s hi

gh p

riorit

y lo

catio

ns b

y ci

ty, c

ount

y an

d/or

sta

te tr

affic

eng

inee

ring

staf

f

Sour

ce: B

RW

, Inc

., M

ay 1

997.

U S E R S E R V I C E S

%

;

-

\

-

-i-

L,1

y’

-1

L%

-

r-.

i--

L,

-7

--..

I7

-

\I

I~

IXT

--I

-

-<

-

L

-.

3.0 USER SERVICE PRIORITIZATION

3.1 OVERVIEW

The final prioritization of Miami Valley transportation problems and ITS User Services occurred atthe Workshop Intensive held on January 28 and 29, 1997. The workshop represented theculmination of the qualitative portion of the deficiencies assessment. The Workshop was attendedby the project Policy and Technical Committees. The results of all of the previous qualitativeassessment activities were summarized and a number of interactive activities were conducted toidentify a final, subjective assessment of regional problems and ITS priorities.

The final activities of the Workshop Intensive focused on the discussion and preliminaryprioritization of potential ITS projects/strategies. This exercise was based upon the problems andUser Services prioritization and provided critical direction to the development of the program areasand projects presented in Section 6.0 of this report.

Thirty-five (35) people attended one or both days of the two-day workshop. Organizationsrepresented at the workshop include the following:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

..

..

...

.

City of BeavercreekButler TownshipCity of CentervilleClark County Transportation Coordinating CommitteeCity of DaytonCity of FairbomCity of Huber HeightsCity of KetteringFederal Highway AdministrationMiami Valley Regional Planning CommissionMiami CountyMontgomery CountyOhio Department of Transportation - Central OfficeOhio Department of Transportation - District 7Miami Valley Regional Transit AuthorityCity of SpringfieldCity of TroyCity XeniaThe project consulting team:

- BRW,Inc.- Battelle Memorial Institute- CH2MHill- LJB

Miami Valley ITS#24542 3-l


- TEC- Dick Braun (Expert Panelist)- Ron Fisher (Expert Panelist)- Jerry Pittenger (Expert Panelist)

3.2 PROBLEM PRIORITIES

Utilizing the same list of predefined problem areas that was included in the User Needs Survey,Workshop participants individually scored area transportation problems. The individual scores werereviewed and a second round of voting was conducted. Table 3.1 presents the results of both votes.

3.3 USER SERVICE PRIORITIZATION

Workshop attendees performed a similar ranking of the 30 ITS User Services. The results are shownin Table 3.2.

3.4 OVERRIDING FACTORS

Before turning to the consideration of potential ITS projects to address identified problems and toimplement the high priority user services, workshop participants developed a list of OverridingFactors. These factors loosely define the characteristics of preferred projects and will help guideall subsequent project development activities. The following working list was identified:

. Reflects a Region-Wide Perspective. Addresses Safety. Funding/Sponsorship Available. Serves Many. Highly Visibility. “Early Winner”. Accepted by Users. Acceptable Risk-to-Benefit Ratio. Ease of Deployment. Maximizes Resources. Acceptable Operating/Maintenance Costs. Marketable. Recognizes and Takes Advantage of the Unique Features of the Region

Miami Valley ITS1124542 3-2


--

TABLE 3.1PROBLEM PRIORITIES

WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28 - 29,1997

Final Score Problem First Score

272121161413106632211111

Highway CongestionHighway SafetyCooperation & CoordinationHighway Emergency ResponseFundingHighway Road & Weather Info.Highway AccessHighway Travel TimeLocal Bus Intersystem ConnectionsLegal/InstitutionalHighway Special EventsLocal Bus Status Info.Highway Air PollutionHighway Lack of Bypass (Alternate RoCVO Safety InspectionRailroad CrossingsTransit OperationsLocal Bus Travel TimesCVO HAZMAT ResponseLocal Bus SchedulingLocal Bus Safety/SecurityCVO HAZMAT RoutingIntercity Bus/Rail ConnectionsHighway Travel Time Info.CVO Weight CheckingIntercity Bus Scheduling/Route Info.CVO RegulationsCVO Fleet RoutingHighway NoiseIntercity Bus/Rail Travel TimeCar-pooling CoordinationPersonal SecurityCVO CDL LicensingADA Compliance/Special PopulationsIntercity Bus/Rail Safety/SecurityLocal Bus Fleet ManagementIntercity Bus OperationsLocal Bus Fare CollectionIntercity Bus Status Info.Intercity Bus SchedulingIntercity Bus Fleet ManagementIntercity Bus ADA Compliance

lutes)

Source: BRW Inc.. May 1997

144816653595841634532362842513918

8413734332825242419151187665443100000


Find ITS Strategic Deployment PlanSeptember 1997

TABLE 3.2USER SERVICE PRIORITIES

WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28 - 29, 1997

Service Service Bundle Score

1. Traffic Control2. Incident Management3. En-Route Driver Information4. Route Guidance5. Traveler Services Info.6. Public Transportation Management7. Pre-Trip Travel Information8. Highway-Railroad Intersection9. HAZMAT Incident Response10. Emergency Vehicle Notification &

Personal Security11. Emergency Vehicle Management12. On-Board Safety Monitoring13. Demand Management & Operations14. En-Route Transit Information15. Pre-Crash Restraint Deployment16. Safety Readiness17. Intersection Collision Avoidance18. Automated Roadside Safety

Inspection19. Personalized Public Transit20. Automated Highway System21. Freight Mobility22. Electronic Payment Services23. Public Travel Security24. Emissions Testing & Mitigation 25. CV Electronic Clearance26. CV Administrative Processes27. Ride Matching & Reservation28. Vision Enhancement for Crash

Avoidance29. Longitudinal Collision Avoidance30. Lateral Collision Avoidance


Travel & Transportation Management 146Travel & Transportation Management 101Travel & Transportation Management 71Travel & Transportation Management 67Travel & Transportation Management 52Public Transportation Operations 49Travel Demand Management 43(Not yet assigned) 38Commercial Vehicle Operations 36Emergency Management 35

Emergency Management 35Commercial Vehicle Operations 34Travel Demand Management 34Public Transportation Operations 23Advanced Vehicle Control 18Advanced Vehicle Control 17Advanced Vehicle Control 16Commercial Vehicle Operations 14

Public Transportation Management 14Advanced Vehicle Control 13Commercial Vehicle Operations 11Electronic Payment Services 11Public Transportation Operations 10Travel & Transportation Management 10Commercial Vehicle Operations 9Commercial Vehicle Operations 8Travel Demand Management 6Advanced Vehicle Control 6

Advanced Vehicle ControlAdvanced Vehicle Control

40



3.5 ITS STRATEGIES/PROJECT CONCEPTS

Potential ITS strategies were discussed in each of the following four areas:

l Freeway/Incident Managementl Advanced Traffic Signal Controll Public Transportation Management. Commercial Vehicle Operations

In terms of specificity, “strategies” f a l l between User Services and individual projects. For example,“changeable message signs” is an example of an ITS strategy within the User Service “En-RouteDriver Information”. Each discussion centered around a comparison of suggested ITS solutionsfrom the outreach process (User Needs Survey, Local Agency Interviews and the November 1996Outreach Workshop) with a “master list” of potential strategies. Potential strategies, their benefitsand their relationship to suggested ITS solutions were discussed. Traveler information strategieswere not discussed separately but were included throughout the other strategy areas.

Following the discussion, participants rated the strategies based on their ability to address highpriority transportation problems, implement high priority User Services and address OverridingFactors. The results of that rating are shown in Table 6.3.



Rank

1

2

3

12

13

14

15

16

17

17

17

20

TABLE 3.3ITS STRATEGIES/PROJECT CONCEPTS PRIORITIZATION

WORKSHOP INTENSIVE: JANUARY 28-29,1997

Strategy/Proiect Concept

Changeable Message Signs

Multi-Jurisdictional Signal System Coordination

Advanced Traffic Control Systeml Closed Loopl Central Systemsl Adaptive Signal Control (SCOOT)

Detection System

Signal Timing and Synchronization Programs

Highway Advisory Radio Broadcasts

Special Event Traffic Control Plans

Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control

Emergency Vehicle Pre-Empt (EVP)

Railroad Grade Crossing Advanced Safety Systems

Mobility Management System - a central phone numberprovides access to integrated transit information,including personalized public transit

Surveillance Cameras

Service Patrols

Surveillance:l Vehicle Detectionl Visual, Manuall Visual Automated

Integrated Freeway Ramp Signals

Traffic Signal Preemption

Interactive Traveler Information Kiosks at TravelInformation Centers and Other Major Transfer Points

Transit Incident Alerts

Response and Clearance Procedures/Protocol

Traffic Management Center

Area Score

Freeway Management 84

Traffic Control 73

Traffic Control 71

Freeway Management

Traffic Control

Freeway Management

Traffic Control

CVO, Incident Management andHAZMAT

Traffic Control

Traffic Control

67

63

41

36

33

26

26

Transit 26

Freeway Management


25

22

Traffic Control 20

Traffic Control 19

Transit 16

Transit

Transit


Freeway Management

14

14

14

13



Rank20

22

22

24

Strategy/project Concept

Smart Card Fare collection/Passenger Counting System

En-route Driver-Base Communications to Correct forSchedule Problems (AVL required)

Coordination of Enforcement Databases (Weight,Licensing, Driver Inspections)

Automated Transfer Coordinator Connection Protection(AVL required)

24 High Speed Weigh-In-Motion

26

27

Ramp Meters

27

27

Automated Collection of Bus Passenger Loading, Run-Time, and Mileage Data

Interactive Traveler Information Kiosks at TravelInformation Centers and Other Major Transfer Points

Electronic Clearance for Safety and OperationsInspection

27 l/10 Mile Route Markers

31 Diversionary Timing Plans and Procedures for CVO, Incident Management andAlternative Arterial Routes HAZMAT

32 Automated Schedule Adherence Monitoring (AVLrequired)

32 Incident Recording System/Database

32 Regional Emergency Communications Center andCommon Communications System


32

36

37

Database of Scheduled Incidents (Maintenance,Construction and Events)

Traffic Signal Priority

Provide real-time traffic condition information todispatch centers of public transit agencies from TOCs

37 On-Board HAZMAT Incident Response Information



Area Score

Transit 13

Transit 12


12

Transit 11


11


Transit 9

Transit


9

9


9

8

Transit 7


7

7


7

Traffic Control 6

Transit


5

5



Rank

39

39

39

39

39

39

39

46

46

46

46

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

57



Strategy/Project Concept

Express Bus/Park and Ride

HOV Bypass

Computer Record Keeping of Telephone CustomerService Unserved Trips

Active Transit Station Signs

Random-Route (Dial-A-Ride) Transit

Integrated Operations Between Arterial, RampTerminals and Ramp Meters

Towing Rotational List

Automated Updating of Telephone Customer ServiceSchedule Database

Automated Origin-Destination Driven TelephoneCustomer Service Database

Evaluation of Driver Fitness for Duty (OOSDeterminations)

Special Access Points for Maintenance and EmergencyVehicles

Automated Identification and Billing System (AIBS) forParatransit

Single Trip Ridesharing (using both advance and real-time reservations)

Use of Remote Sensors and Cameras

Innovative Measures to respond to Incidents

On-Board Safety System Monitoring

Total Stationing Equipment

List of Key Equipment in Region

Enhanced Computerized Driver Scheduling (RunCutting) System

Area Score



Transit 4

Transit

Transit



Transit

Transit



Transit

Transit

Transit

Transit




Transit

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1





Rank Strategy/Project concept Area Score

57 On-Board Electronic Destination Signs Transit 1

57 On-Board Automated Bus Stop Annunciators Transit 1

57 Post Incident Debrief Sessions CVO, Incident Management and 1HAZMAT

61 Central DB for HAZMAT Incident Response CVO, Incident Management and 1HAZMAT




4.0 TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

4.1 OVERVIEW

Current technologies available to perform the functions associated with the highest priority ITS UserServices for the Miami Valley were assessed in terms of a number of criteria, including cost andperformance. The results of the assessment are presented in the Technologies Analysis WorkingPaper (March 1997).

Given the evolutionary nature of ITS technologies and the long, twenty year time frame consideredin this plan, specific technologies were not recommended for each specific projects. Rather, thetechnology assessment focused on providing the descriptive and comparative information necessaryto support the selection of specific technologies during the design phase of recommended projects.

4.2 SUMMARY OF SELECTED FINDINGS

The Technologies Analysis Working Paper (March 1997) includes findings regarding the relativecost and performance of a number of technologies. Selected findings for key technologies arepresented here in Tables 4.1 through 4.6.

Miami Valley ITS#24542 4-l


SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FOR NON-INTRUSIVE TRAFFIC DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES

842: volume (up to 45 mph),

software to receive serial data

G-l: volume, occupancy, presence, temp.

PODDDoppler Microwave Whelen Engineering Co. volume, occupancy, speed $995 PC for serial data (optional)

TDW 10/TD 30 (TOW is wide beam) (TDN is narrow beam)Passive Acoustic AT&T I IRD volume, occupancy, speed $1,450 Mounting brackets

SmartSonic TSS-1 PC for serial data (optional)Pulse Ultrasonic Microwave Sensors, Inc. volume, occupancy, presence $560

TC-30CPulse Ultrasonic Sumitomo Electric USA, Inc. volume, occupancy, presence $1

SDU 420Video Tracking CRS, Inc. volume, occupancy, density, headway speed, $15,000-$18,000 Camera

TAS 2 classification, dwell, presence, queue length,incident detection

Video Tracking Condition Monitoring Systems volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed VME: $10,000-$30,000 VME: camerasMobilizer (VME, Wide Area, classification, delay, turn moves, headway WAS: $7,000-$25,0000 WAS: (includes cameras)and PC systems) acceleration, O/D studies, ped/bike detection PC: $5,000 PC: 586 PC, cameras

Video Tracking EM $1 CameraCruise

Video Tracking ELIOP Trafico S.A. (Spain) volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed, $7,000-$17,000 386 PC, camera, softwareEva 2000 S classification, headway

(Price varies with features)Video Tripline Econolite volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed, $17,000(1 camera unit) 486 PC (cameras included)

Autoscope 2004 classifications, headway, turning movements $24,000(4 camera unit)Video Tracking Peek Transyt volume, occupancy, density, presence, speed, $18,000(4 camera unit) 486 PC, cameras

Video Trak-900 classifications, headway, turning movements,incident detection

Video Tripline Rockwell International volume, occupancy, speed, presence $3,800 386 PC (camera included)TraffiCam

Video Sumitomo Electric USA, Inc. volume, occupancy, speed, classification, $15,000 (1)IDET 100 presence

Video Eagle Signal/Odetics volume, occupancy, speed, presence, $1VTDS headway

(1) Price is estimated or was not available.(2) Collection of relay data requires additional equipment.(3) Contact vendors for a full description of all device features, cost and additional equipment. Table updated February, 1996.

SOURCE: Minnesota DOT/FHWA

TABLE 4.2

DETECTOR TYPES, PRIMARY DATA TYPES AND MOUNTING OPTIONS

DETECTOR PRIMARY

TYPE DATA TYPE

Inductive Loop Presence

MOUNTING

OPTIONS

In Roadway(Per Lane)

Piezoelectric Strip

Radar(Continuous Wave)

Radar(Multi-Zone)

Active infrared(Non-Image)

Passive Infrared(Non-Image)

Passive Infrared

(Image)

Acoustic(Passive)

Ultrasonic(Pulsed)

Ultrasonic(Continuous Wave)

Magnetometer or Microloop

Axle Count,Weight

Speed

Presence

Presence

Presence

Presence

Presence

Presence

Presence

Presence


Overhead(Per Lane)

Overhead or Side-Fired(Multi-Lane)

Overhead(Per Lane)

Overhead(Per Lane)

Overhead or Side-Fired(Multi-Lane)

Overhead(Per Lane)

Overhead(Per Lane)

Overhead(Per Lane)


Video Image Detection Tracking Overhead or Side-Fired(Multi-Lane)

TABLE 4.3

COMPARISON OF DETECTOR TECHNOLOGIES ANALYZED

Microwave Doppler

Side-Fire

Infrared Passive

(Non-Image):

Infrared Active

(Non-Image):

Infrared Passive

(Image):

Acoustic Passive

4, 14, 15,17

4

4

7 (side-fire), 17

15

I,12

1, 2, 8, 16

1, 12, 8, 16

8 (overhead)

2, 8, 14, 16

Ultrasonic Pulse 7 (SF), 14, 4, 7 (side-fire), 14 8 (overhead)

Video 7 (side-fire), 15 8 (overhead), 17

1 History

2 Initial Cost (including support)

3 Life Cycle Cost

4 Calibration (ease)

5 Accuracy

6 Ability To Send Data

7 Pole Support

8 Structure Support or Mast Arm

9 Bridge Intrusive

10 Lane Closure for Installation

11 Lane Closure for Maintenance

12 Occlusion

13 Initial Cost

14 Envioronmental Performance

15 Ease of Installation

16 Single Lane Detection

177 Multi Lane Detection

TAB

LE 4

.4

SU

MM

AR

Y O

F C

AB

LE T

YP

E C

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

S S

YS

TEM

S

Syst

em O

wne

rshi

p

Tele

phon

eC

ompa

nyFa

cilit

ies

Tech

nolo

gy

Voic

e G

rade

Cha

nnel

Dig

ital

Cha

nnel

Com

mun

icat

ions

Max

Ban

dwid

th

App

licab

leor

Dat

a Ra

te

Info

rmat

ion

Per C

ircui

t

9600

bps

D

ata,

Voi

ce a

ndSl

ow S

can

TV(S

STV)

1.54

mbp

s D

ata,

Voi

ce a

ndSl

ow S

can

TV(S

ST)

Max

imum

Tran

smis

slon

Dist

ance

s

up to

10

mile

s

up to

10

mile

s

App

licab

leSe

rvic

es

Traf

fic C

ontro

l Sy

stem

s

Traf

fic C

ontro

l Sy

stem

san

d IT

S Sy

stem

s us

ing

SS

TV

Tota

l Cos

tPe

r Ba

sis

Incl

udin

g Su

ppor

ting

Hard

ware

& E

quip

men

t

$80

to $

1 00

/mon

thpe

r ci

rcui

t or

chan

nel

up to

$30

0/m

onth

per c

ircui

t or

chan

nel

Twis

ted

Pai

rC

able

9600

bps

Ana

log

Dat

a, V

oice

and

Slow

Sca

n TV

(SST

)

2 to

3 m

iles

Traf

fic S

igna

l an

d $1

5 to

$25

Traf

fic C

ontro

l Sy

stem

pe

r fo

ot

Age

ncy

Ow

ned

Faci

litie

sC

oaxi

al C

able

Dig

ital 3

0 kb

ps

350

MH

z D

ata,

Voi

ce a

ndC

CTV

up to

15

mile

s wi

th

Cap

illary

Cab

ling

ream

plifi

catio

ns

only

in IT

S

up t

o 2

000’

with

out

Traf

fic C

ontro

l Sy

stem

s $2

0 to

$30

ream

plific

atio

ns,

up

Parti

cula

rly C

CTV

and

pe

r fo

otto

4 to

5 m

iles

with

IT

Sre

ampl

ificat

ions

Fibe

r O

ptic

Cab

le2.

5 G

Hz

Dat

a, V

oice

and

CC

TVup

to 5

mile

sm

ultim

ode

fib

erup

to 2

5 m

iles

singl

emod

e fib

er

Traf

fic C

ontro

l an

d IT

SBa

ckbo

ne

Syst

ems

$20

to $

25pe

r fo

ot

. .

No

tes:

All

cabl

e ty

pes

can

be i

nsta

lled

in a

ny c

ondu

it in

clud

ing

unde

rgro

und

can

be a

lread

y bu

ried

whi

ch u

sual

ly re

quire

s sp

ecia

l cab

le ja

cken

ing

or c

an b

e in

stal

led

alon

g an

ove

rhea

d ca

ble

line

(I.e.

sup

porti

ng m

esse

nger

cab

le)

betw

een

pole

s. M

aint

enan

ce r

equi

rem

ents

are

gen

eral

ly no

ne, e

xcep

t if t

he c

able

and

any

con

nect

ions

have

bee

n di

stur

bed

or c

ut b

y ut

ility

exca

vatio

ns.

TAB

LE 4

.5

VAR

IAB

LE M

ESSA

GE

SIG

NPR

OD

UC

T -

CO

ST C

OM

PAR

ISO

N

Flip

Dis

k

HIS

TOR

Y

Rel

iabl

e

PER

FOR

MA

NC

E

Lim

ited

visi

bilit

y un

der

som

e lig

htin

g co

nditi

ons.

Fadi

ng o

f co

lors

.M

echa

nica

l fai

lure

s (d

ots

stic

k).

I I

I I

Bulb

Mat

rix

Unr

elia

ble

Hig

h po

wer

con

sum

ptio

n.H

igh

tem

pera

ture

out

put.

I I

I I

Ligh

t em

ittin

g - D

iode

R

elia

ble

Early

pro

blem

s of

brig

htne

ss d

urin

g da

ylig

ht, v

aria

nce

inbr

ight

ness

, poo

r br

ight

ness

deg

ener

atio

n cu

rve

and

colo

r.Pr

oble

ms

have

bee

n re

solv

ed b

ut o

nly

4 ye

ars

of h

isto

ry a

vaila

ble.

Fibe

r O

ptic

Rel

iabl

e Ea

rly p

robl

ems

of h

alo

effe

ct h

ave

been

res

olve

d.Sc

ored

ver

y hi

gh in

sid

e-by

-sid

e te

sts

in th

e ar

eas

of b

right

ness

unde

r all

light

ing

cond

ition

s, v

isib

ility

and

legi

bilit

y.

I I

Hyb

rid

Rel

iabl

e Tw

o hy

brid

s pr

esen

tly in

use

, LED

and

Fib

er O

ptic

. Eac

h de

liver

sa

brig

hter

mes

sage

. The

Fib

er O

ptic

is c

apab

le o

f del

iver

ing

a do

tm

uch

brig

hter

than

that

del

iver

ed b

y LE

D.

CO

ST

3 ro

w -

21 c

hara

cter

$50,

000

- $1

00,0

003

row

- 8

char

acte

r$2

5,00

0 -

$50,

000

Not

Ap

plica

ble

3 ro

w -

21 c

hara

cter

$60,

000

- $1

30,0

003

row

- 8

char

acte

r$4

0,00

0 -

$60,

000

3 ro

w -

21 c

hara

cter

$50,

000

- $1

10,0

003

row

- 8

char

acte

r$3

0,00

0 -

$50,

000

Add

15%

- 20

%ab

ove

basic

LED

or

Fibe

r O

ptic

sign.

TAB

LE 4

.6

CA

TV C

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

S O

PTI

ON

- C

OM

MER

CIA

LLY

OW

NED

FA

CIL

ITIE

SA

DVA

NTA

GES

/ D

ISA

DVA

NTA

GES

CA

TV a

s a

com

mun

icat

ions

opt

ion

has

som

e ad

vant

ages

.Th

ese

are

sum

mar

ized

as

follo

ws:

1. T

heir

cabl

e ne

twor

k is

alre

ady

in p

lace

Ther

e ar

e al

so s

ome

disa

dvan

tage

s in

usi

ng C

ATV

.’

Thes

e ar

e su

mm

ariz

ed a

s fo

llow

s:

1. M

ost C

ATV

netw

orks

are

des

igne

d w

ith e

mph

asis

on

dow

nstre

amtra

nsm

issi

on o

f vid

eo s

igna

ls to

cab

le s

ubsc

riber

s.

2. T

he d

esig

n ef

fort

and

initi

al in

stal

latio

n co

sts

are

muc

h lo

wer

than

an

agen

cy o

wne

d sy

stem

.

2. V

ideo

cha

nnel

s ta

ke u

p m

ost o

f the

ava

ilabl

e ba

ndw

idth

. The

ban

dwid

thav

aila

ble

for

traffi

c co

ntro

l may

be

very

nar

row

rang

ing

from

a s

ingl

e 6

MH

z ch

anne

l to

4 or

5 c

hann

els.

3. A

fran

chis

e ag

reem

ent m

ay p

rovi

de g

over

nmen

t use

of C

ATV

cabl

e at

3.

Fre

quen

cies

of a

vaila

ble

chan

nels

are

ofte

n th

e le

ast d

esira

ble

and

eith

er r

educ

ed r

ates

or

free

of c

harg

e.

susc

eptib

le to

noi

se a

nd in

terfe

renc

e.

4. A

sec

ond

sepa

rate

cab

le, r

efer

red

to a

s an

inst

itutio

nal n

etw

ork

(I-N

et),

may

exi

st fo

r the

pur

pose

of p

rovi

ding

ser

vice

s to

gov

ernm

ent a

ndco

mm

erci

al s

ubsc

riber

s.

4. C

ATV

faci

litie

s ar

e of

ten

conc

entra

ted

in r

esid

entia

l are

as. S

ervi

ces

near

freew

ays

and

in c

entra

l bus

ines

s di

stric

ts a

re fe

w o

r no

nexi

sten

t.

S Y S T E M A R C H I T E C T U R E

5.0 SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE ANDCOMMUNICATIONS CONCEPT PLAN

5.1 OVERVIEW

This section summarizes portions of the recommended system architecture that was developed tosupport the ITS program areas and projects presented in Section 6.0 of this report. The effort todevelop the system architecture included two reports, the Functional Needs, Requirements andPreliminary System Architecture Working Paper (January 1997) and the Recommended SystemArchitecture and Technologies Working Paper (August 1997). The latter report includes the finalrecommendations for system architecture, including high-level architecture diagrams for programareas 1 through 4 of the recommended ITS (program areas are discussed in Section 6.0 of thisreport), and summary architectures for each of the implementation time frames: Immediate Term(years l-2), Short Term (years 3-5), Mid-Term (years 6-10) and Long-Term (years 1 l-20). Thesummary presented here includes only the summary architectures.

5.2 BACKGROUND CONCEPTS

Architecture, as it pertains to Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), refers to the technicalblueprint by which integrated systems are designed, built, and deployed. Typically, an architecturecomprises three major components: the processing system, the communications, and a dataarchitecture. The architecture is the strategy, not the applications or services built within that

architecture. It defines “what” components and systems must talk to each other but not necessarily“how” they communicate. These “how” decisions are typically defined on the project or processlevel.

For ITS deployment in the Miami Valley, some architectural components are already in place.Whether by design or not, agencies and organizations around the Miami Valley region have deployedsystems that will become a part (either in part or in their entirety) of the overall ITS deployment inthe region. The challenge facing those involved in guiding ITS deployment in the area is toimplement an architecture that is flexible enough to respond to changing needs and technologies butrobust enough to handle the volume of data and information that must be processed and distributedthroughout the region.

5.3 COMMUNICATION PROFILES

One of the most important components of an architecture is the communications infrastructure. Thetype of communication methods and technologies selected must support the collection anddissemination of transportation information throughout the Miami Valley Area. The RecommendedSystem Architecture and Technologies Working Paper (August 1997) identifies candidatecommunication technologies that are applicable for the various program areas but does notrecommend specific types of communications for a specific interface.



Each program area can be successfully implemented with a variety of communicationsmethodologies. The type of communication ultimately selected will depend on many factors suchas existing communication infrastructure, resources available, data communication requirements,and the long-range plan for the systems involved. In order to simplify the multitude ofcommunications options available for each program area, “profiles” have been identified thatrepresent the type of communications and data transmission requirements necessary in each programarea rather than a particular communication medium. These profiles (A, B, and C) vary dependingon the amount of data (which could be voice, video, or electronic data) that must be transmitted(volume) and how often this transmission takes place (frequency). The three profiles are definedbelow and are used in the architecture diagrams in Section 5.3.

5.3.1 Profile A

. Low volume data. Manual data. Updates only when required

Systems using this profile of communications typically do not have large amounts of data to transferto the central data server, which receives raw data and processes it for dissemination to variousindependent service providers and traveler information systems. The data to be transferred typicallyis not available electronically and most data is manually processed through hardcopy, voice,facsimile, or pager networks. Typical sources of this information would be transit agencies that havestatic schedules or special event information. Some examples of communication technologies thatfall under this category are public switched networks, cellular networks, pager networks, etc.

5.3.2 Profile B

. Electronic data. Low and high volumes of data. Static and dynamic data. Updated regularly, but not real-time

Systems using this profile of communications typically have large amounts of data to transfer thatare available electronically. The data is not updated frequently and could be either static or dynamicin nature. The frequency of data received and transmitted using these profile ranges from one updatedaily to more than one update (usually if updates occur during peak morning and evening hours).A transit agency would be a typical source of this type of information where they have their routeschedules in an electronic format that can be transmitted to a central data server. While not static,this transit information is not frequently updated and thus does not require a real-timecommunications link to the central data server. This profile could also be used to disseminateinformation out to changeable message signs, highway advisory radio, and electronic station signs.Some examples of communication technologies that fall under this category are analog telephonelines, digital modem lines, packet radio networks, etc.



5.3.3 Profile C

. Low and high volume data. Continuous update of information - real-time. Primarily dynamic information

Systems using this profile typically have large amounts of data that are available by electronic mediaand/or updated frequently or almost continuously. Typically, the data is dynamic, supplemented bysome static information. The frequency of data received and transmitted in this category is in real-tune. While this may not constitute a continuous open communication link between two systems,it is necessary that this profile support frequent updating of the information. Sources of suchinformation include real-tune incident detection, speed data, CCTV images, and video detectionsystems. Types of dissemination techniques which use this type of communications are travelerinformation services like the Internet, Cable TV, in-vehicle navigation devices, and planningorganization like Emergency Management, Incident Rescue Operations, etc. Some examples ofcommunication technologies that fall under this category are fiber optic network, FM Subcarriersystems, coaxial cable systems, etc.

5.4 RECOMMENDED ARCHITECTURES BY TIME FRAME

The architectures described below relate to specific projects described in detail in Section 6.0 of thisreport. For the purposes of system architecture, the Mid- and Long-Term time frames have beencombined.

The architectures presented on the next several pages reflect a distributed architecture for the MiamiValley. A distributed architecture relies heavily on local storing and processing of data and thencommunicating that data between systems using the various communications means discussed inSection 5.3. In a distributed architecture, each site receives separate data inputs, then processes thedata into the appropriate information content and stores it for retrieval. Each user (or data terminal)makes a request of the “system” for information. The type of information requested will determinewhich “server” or processor will respond to the request.

The primary disadvantage of a distributed architecture is that data is not resident in a single“location,” which generally makes maintenance, consistency and standardization of data formateasier. However, a strong advantage of distributed architectures is that it can be more easilyexpanded incrementally and control can be maintained at the local level.

5.4.1 Immediate Time Frame Near l-2 Projects

Projects recommended for immediate implementation focus on establishing “early winners.” Theseprojects are relatively autonomous systems that can be useful to travelers even if there is not a large,installed base of traffic detection and reporting devices. In later phases, as more traffic data andsurveillance systems become available, more data intensive projects are recommended forimplementation.



For the Freeway/Incident Management Systems program area, projects recommended fordeployment in the immediate time frame include vehicle detection, changeable message signs andclosed-circuit television surveillance. These systems can provide immediate benefits to agenciesresponsible for monitoring freeway flow and responding to incidents on the freeway system.

The projects recommended for implementation in the Advanced Traffic Control Systems programarea are scheduled timing updates, microprocessor controller conversions, and phase 1 of thecoordinated traffic signal system improvements.

For the Public Transportation Systems program area, the immediate time frame includes projectsin the automatic vehicle location systems for MVRTA buses, automated on-board fare and datacollection, and transit traveler information through electronic displays on MVRTA buses.

The five projects recommended for implementation in the Multimodal Traveler Information Systemsprogram area during this time frame include media reports, Internet, pagers, automated telephone,and the central data server. The central data server is the most complex of these projects and isimplemented in the immediate time frame to establish a foundation on which future projects can beimplemented. Without the central data server, many of these systems would not be able to takeadvantage of traffic information that will be collected.

The remaining four projects in the Multimodal Traveler Information Systems program area can beestablished as autonomous systems, not necessarily connected into the central data server. Theirdeployment can parallel the development and deployment of the central data server. While thesesystems can provide functionality without connection to the central data server, it is highlyrecommended that this connection be designed into each system so when the central data server comes “on line,” each system can take advantage of the extended information that is available.

Figure 5-1 presents the recommended high level system architecture for the Immediate (years l-2)deployment time frame.



B

C

B BCC

A

FIG

UR

E 5-

1

HIG

H L

EV

EL

AR

CH

ITE

CTU

RE

: IM

ME

DIA

TE T

IME

FR

AM

E

A

A

A

FRE

EW

AY

&IN

CID

EN

TM

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Auto

mate

dTe

lepho

ne

Page

rs

Inter

net

Media

Repo

rts

Traf

ficSi

gnal

Coor

d.

MVRT

AAV

L

MVRT

AEle

ctro

nicDi

splay

s

MVRT

AAu

toma

ted

Collec

tion

CMS

CCTV

LOC

AL

CO

NTR

OL

CEN

TER

CEN

TRA

L D

ATA

SER

VER

PU

BLI

CTR

AN

SIT

SY

STE

MS

AD

VA

NC

ED

TRA

FFIC

CO

NTR

OL

TRA

VE

LER

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

SY

STE

MS

LEG

EN

D

PRO

FIL

E A

PRO

FIL

E B

PRO

FIL

E C

5.4.2 Short Term Time Frame Near 3-5 Projects

Projects recommended for the short term time frame typically, though not always, rely more on anestablished infrastructure and are more complex with respect to the implementation and deploymentrequirements.

For the Freeway/Incident Management Systems program area, it is recommended that a cellularhotline be established for callers to use from their vehicles to report traffic incidents and otherfreeway problems as well as gain information regarding current traffic situations. HighwayAdvisory Radio is the second project in this area to be deployed in the short time frame. Thisproject allows broadcast of traffic and travel related information to all motorists.

Deployment of ITS technologies at highway rail intersections, and phase 2 of the coordinated trafficsignal system improvements are the projects recommended in the Advanced Traffic Control Systemsprogram area for this time frame.

For the Public Transportation Systems program area, inclusion of on-board annunciators,announcing critical bus stops and major intersections is the project recommended forimplementation in the short time frame.

Multimodal Traveler Information Systems program area has three projects recommended forimplementation in this time frame. These are a cable television traffic system, traveler informationkiosks, and in-vehicle devices. These projects typically rely more heavily on receipt of data and aredependent on the previous development and deployment of the central data server. Continuedupdating of the central data server would also be required as additional systems are brought “on-

* line.”

Figure 5-2 presents the recommended high-level system architecture for the Short Term (years 3-5)deployment time frame.



B

CB BCC

A

C

C

B

B

AB

C

FIG

UR

E 5-

2

HIG

H L

EV

EL

AR

CH

ITE

CTU

RE

: SH

OR

T-TE

RM

TIM

E F

RA

ME

A

A

A

FRE

EW

AY

&IN

CID

EN

TM

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Auto

mate

dTe

lepho

ne

Page

rs

Inter

net

Media

Repo

rts

Traf

ficSi

gnal

Coor

d.

MVRT

AAV

L

MVRT

AEle

ctro

nicDi

splay

s

MVRT

AAu

toma

ted

Collec

tion

CMS

CCTV

LOC

AL

CO

NTR

OL

CEN

TER

CEN

TRA

L D

ATA

SER

VER

PU

BLI

CTR

AN

SIT

SY

STE

MS

AD

VA

NC

ED

TRA

FFIC

CO

NTR

OL

TRA

VE

LER

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

SY

STE

MS

LEG

EN

D

PRO

FIL

E A

PRO

FIL

E B

PRO

FIL

E C

Kiosk

s

In-ve

hicle

Devic

es

MVRT

AOn

-boa

rdAn

nunc

iator

s

ITS D

evice

s@H

RI

HAR

Cellul

arHo

tline

Cable TV

PA

VE

ME

NT

& W

EA

THE

RS

EN

SO

RS

5.4.3 Mid-Term/Low-Term Time Frame Near 6-20 Projects

Projects recommended for implementation in the mid- to long-term time frames are typicallyheavily dependent on established infrastructure or are recommended based on anticipated growthin the previous 5-10 years that would then make these additional systems a necessity.

Ramp Metering is the only project in the Freeway/Incident Management Systems program areaimplemented in this area. It was felt that ramp metering was not needed in the immediate or shortterm periods and a study would be initiated to determine the feasibility and necessity of rampmetering before any implementation.

In the Advanced Traffic Signal Control Systems program area, projects include phase 3 & 4 of thecoordinated traffic signal system improvements, and ITS strategies at Highway/RailroadIntersections.

In the Public Transportation Systems program area, projects include implementation of AVL,electronic display, and automated fare collection on SCAT buses.

Figure 5-3 presents the recommended high-level system architecture for the combined Mid- andLong-Term (years 6-20) deployment time frames.



B

CB BCC

A

C

C

B

B

AB

C

B

C

FIG

UR

E 5-

3

HIG

H L

EV

EL

AR

CH

ITE

CTU

RE

: MID

-LO

NG

TE

RM

TIM

E F

RA

ME

A

A

A

FRE

EW

AY

&IN

CID

EN

TM

AN

AG

EM

EN

T

Auto

mate

dTe

lepho

ne

Page

rs

Inter

net

Media

Repo

rts

Traf

ficSi

gnal

Coor

d.

MVRT

AAV

L

MVRT

AEle

ctro

nicDi

splay

s

MVRT

AAu

toma

ted

Collec

tion

CMS

CCTV

LOC

AL

CO

NTR

OL

CEN

TER

CEN

TRA

L D

ATA

SER

VER

PU

BLI

CTR

AN

SIT

SY

STE

MS

AD

VA

NC

ED

TRA

FFIC

CO

NTR

OL

TRA

VE

LER

INFO

RM

ATI

ON

SY

STE

MS

LEG

EN

D

PRO

FIL

E A

PRO

FIL

E B

PRO

FIL

E C

Kiosk

s

In-ve

hicle

Devic

es

MVRT

AOn

-boa

rdAn

nunc

iator

s

ITS D

evice

s@H

RI

HAR

Cellul

arHo

tline

Cable TV

Ramp

Mete

rs

ALL S

CAT

PROJ

ECTS

PA

VE

ME

NT

& W

EA

THE

RS

EN

SO

RS

xjpu

addy

APPENDIXTYPICAL ITS SYSTEM FEATURE

Miami Valley ITS#24542
