transit signal prioritization (tsp) considerations within rts corridors rapid transit system...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Transit Signal Prioritization (TSP)Considerations within RTS Corridors
Rapid Transit System Steering Committee
Technical Memorandum 2 Existing Conditions Signal Systems & Corridor Operations
December 17th, 2013
2
Key Findings• 10 Route RTS network has 116 stations overlaying 284 existing
traffic signals and 820 existing bus stops• Implementing advanced TSP within RTS requires close
coordination of existing agencies and systems. Cannot be done in isolation.
• Existing signal controllers/ central software currently does not support all advanced TSP functions
• Would require time and cost to upgrade, cost TBD• Primary traffic control system function is to monitor signal
performance for roadway safety and mobility• TSP is a secondary function within overall operations• Incorporating WMATA buses into RTS would require additional
hardware and software, cost TBD• Council resolution shifts TSP decisions based on ROW
treatment to Facility Planning stage
Priority Transit Corridors and Montgomery County Signals
Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan Planning Board Draft (MNCPPC, July 2013)
Summary Table
From To
Stati
ons
(RTS
& M
etro
)
Sign
als
Sign
als w
ith V
/C >
0.
95
Bus S
tops
Leng
th (M
iles)
Mix
ed F
low
Mix
ed F
low
w Q
ueue
Jum
p
Dedi
cate
d Cu
rb La
nes
Man
aged
Lane
(d
edica
ted
1 w
ay P
k)
1 La
ne M
edan
Bu
sway
(bi-d
ir)
1 La
ne M
edia
n Bu
sway
(1 w
ay)
2 La
ne S
ide
Busw
ay (2
way
)
2 La
ne M
edia
n Bu
sway
(2 w
ay)
2 La
ne N
ew R
OW
Bu
sway
(2 w
ay)
1 Georgia Avenue North
Montgomery General Hospital
Wheaton Metrorail station
13 30 5 114 9.6 1.0 8.6
2 Georgia Avenue South
Wheaton Metrorail Station
District of Columbia line
8 24 3 48 3.9 2.2 1.7
3 MD 355 NorthCorridor Cities Transitway
Rockville Metrorail station
20 37 23 120 14.1 3.5 10.6
4 MD 355 SouthRockville Metrorail Station
District of Columbia line
14 47 22 106 9.3 0.0 1.2 8.2
5 New Hampshire Avenue
Colesville Park & Ride
District of Columbia line
12 34 4 89 8.5 2.8 3.8 1.8
6 North Bethesda Transitway
White Flint Metrorail Station
Montgomery Mall Transit Center
7 14 1 23 2.7 0.3 1.5 0.9
7 Randolph Road US 29White Flint Metrorail Station
11 30 7 105 10.1 10.1
8 University Boulevard
Wheaton Metrorail Station
Takoma/Langley Transit Center
9 21 5 76 5.5 2.7 2.8
9 US 29Burtonsville Park & Ride
District of Columbia line
11 22 7 70 11.0 3.4 1.1 0.9 5.6
10 Veirs Mill RoadRockville Metrorail Station
Wheaton Metrorail Station
11 18 5 69 6.2 6.2
Totals 116 277 82 820 81.0 25.9 0.0 4.0 0.9 6.2 16.8 0.9 26.2 0.0
Miles
Corridor
MNCPPC Funtional Master Plan Planning Board Draft
Traffic Signals in Montgomery County by Ownership/Operation & Potential TSP Corridors
Traffic Signals in Montgomery County by Ownership & Operation
• 63% Owned by the State of Maryland• 31% Owned by Montgomery County• 5% Owned by the City of Rockville• 91% Operated by Montgomery County• Approximately 30 of the MDSHA signals in and around Takoma Park & New
Hampshire are not operated by the County– 10 will migrate to County operations in the near future– 15 are along New Hampshire Avenue (4 outside the County)
• Majority of the Signals along the RTS routes are owned by MDSHA
County MDSHA Rockville TotalCounty 274 0 0 274 31%MDSHA 522 29 6 557 63%Rockville 6 0 42 48 5%Total 802 29 48 879 100%
91% 3% 5% 100%
OperatesO
wns
Montgomery County Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS)
• Traffic signal operations key component of ATMS• Traffic Signal System Modernization Completed in 2012
– New computer and servers– Custom traffic operations and ATMS Software– Upgrade of all MDSHA and County traffic signal controllers to
modern Econolite ASC/3 controllers– High speed communications network for real time operations– Distributed signal control system (using the ASC/3 controllers)
• Each ASC/3 controller is TSP ready (with $400 TSP data key)• Developed/tested recommended TSP Architecture:
– Econolite ASC/3 controllers– GTT Opticom GPS Spread Spectrum TSP system– ORBCAD Transit Automated Vehicle Location/Computer Aided
Dispatch
8
ATMS Operations Center
Montgomery County Recommended TSP Architecture
ASC/3 Signal Controller
Traffic SIGNAL
Transit Management
Traffic Management
GPS
Priority Request
Generator
Vehicle Tracking & Detection
1
2 Priority Request Server
3
4
Monitoring and logging data
AVL
& C
ompu
ter A
ided
Dis
patc
h
I Am HERE
I Want Priority
Vehicle is in rangeWho gets PrioritySignal Strategy to use
Adjusted phasesIn cycle
ATMS Central OperationsSoftware
ORBCAD CentralSoftware
ORBCAD Veh. Components:
I am LateGTT Opticom
GPS TSP System
Recommended Countywide TSP Concept of Operations
• Assumes Current Service– Transit vehicles in mixed flow without other priority
measures– No differentiation between types of transit service
• TSP Request when bus is more than 5 minutes late• TSP Granted on first come first served basis• TSP Signal Strategies
– Green Extension– Early Green
• Signal coordination allowed to “recover” between instances of signal priority – 3 cycles between granting requests)
Issues of Concern to RTS from Current Systems Review (1)
• Current Montgomery County System can implement:– Early green,– Extended green – Leading green for queue jumps
• Other TSP Signal Strategies will be costly and require changes to the overall system (beyond firmware v 2.50)
• GTT Opticom GPS TSP System– Recommended for Montgomery County and WMATA – WMATA's recommended system uses different
communications. – WMATA System in Montgomery County
• Need cellular modems at the roadside (cabinet) for each signal location • Tests to make sure inputs from Ride On and WMATA can work together
Issues of Concern to RTS from Current Systems Review (2)
• Automatic Vehicle Location/Computer Aided Dispatch– Ride On ORBCAD AVL/CAD system tested for TSP in Montgomery
County– Not Used by WMATA (Clever Devices) – AVL/CAD for RTS needs to be determined.
• City of Rockville – No signals operated by Rockville directly on the RTS corridors – Two signals on CCT right of way – Potential for TSP at Rockville signals with diversions to reach special
destinations (e.g. Community College) – Any integration with the Rockville system will require upgrades to its
controllers and/or central software.
• Integrating Current MTA Commuter Service (provided by contractors with no AVL/CAD) requires added technology
• RTS will need to integrate/coordinate with CCT and Purple line.
RTS ROW Priority Treatments versus TSP Signal Operations
ROW Treatments Passive Extend Green Red Truncate Insert Transit
PhasePhase Rotation
/SwapPhase
Suppression
Non-RTS Corridor ~ 595 Mixed Flow 84 Mixed Flow w Queue Jump 0 Transit only
Early Green
Dedicated Curb Lanes 19 Managed Lane (dedicated 1 way Pk) 4 1 Lane Medan Busway (bi-dir) 18 1 Lane Median Busway (1 way) 57
2 Lane Side Busway (2 way) 4 2 Lane Median Busway (2 way) 98 LRT ROW (Purple Line) ~14
Potential Signal Treatments*CurrentSignals
* Insert Transit Phase, Phase Rotation, & Phase Suppression would require upgrade of Signal System Software
Other Characteristics impacting TSP (Turns, Other Service)
ROW Treatments Right Left LRT RTS Express LocalNon-RTS Corridor Y Y Y N Y YMixed Flow Y Y Y Y Y YMixed Flow w Queue Jump Y Y Right Trn Y Y YDedicated Curb Lanes Fac Plng Y Right Trn* Y Y YManaged Lane (dedicated 1 way Pk) Fac Plng Y Right Trn* Y Y Y1 Lane Medan Busway (bi-dir) Fac Plng Fac Plng N Y Fac Plng N1 Lane Median Busway (1 way) Y Fac Plng N Y Fac Plng N2 Lane Side Busway (2 way) Y Y N Y Fac Plng N2 Lane Median Busway (2 way) Y N N Y Fac Plng NLRT ROW (Purple Line) Fac Plng Fac Plng N Y Fac Plng N N
* If permitted
Turns Permitted Traffic Lane Use
Transit Service in Priority ROW
Factors influencing TSP Strategiesat Specific Intersections
• Roadway:– Intersection Level of Service– Available green time (slack) – Cross street facility type – Bicycle & Pedestrian treatments and priority areas,
• Transit:– Other Transit Service in the Corridor– Cross street transit service– Bus stop/station locations – Service frequency – Time between priority requests– Ridership
Overall System and Policy Decisions Needed• Can’t determine TSP at specific intersections until facility
planning for each corridor• Can/Should decide:
– Integrated or separate • Operations centers• Communications• TSP systems and equipment
– TSP Architecture (centralized, distributed, communications, etc.)– Recommended TSP by ROW Priority Treatment
• Types of transit service receiving TSP in corridor• Decision strategy for enabling TSP and each intersection• Conditional parameters (direction, time of day, schedule, passengers,
frequency of granting requests)• Types of TSP signal strategies to provide for
– RTS and Purple Line integration
Technical Memorandum 3,RTS & TSP Findings & Recommendations:
• What do we have today, what do we want to have in the future?
• Cost to deploy all add-on TSP configurations within the current signal system
• Concept of operations – defined scenarios with– RTS vehicles only– RTS and other transit providers in RTS ROW– RTS and conflicting local transit outside RTS ROW– RTS and conflicting LRV outside RTS ROW
• What needs to happen for each type of strategy/ ROW– Technology, agency agreements, etc.
Back up Slides
Econolite ASC/3 Controller• Controls signal phasing, TSP
strategy length of priority, lock out periods (16 phases max)
• Current advanced controller offered by Econonlite• Compatible with Standards (NEMA TS2, NTCIP 2011)• 1 TSP request addressed per cycle (check in/out or continuous monitoring)• TSP ready (with $400 TSP data key)• TSP Strategies with current firmware (v 2.45, planned 2.49)
– Extended green– Early green– Leading green for queue jump
• Additional features/strategies dependent on firmware v 2.50 and above
• Firmware v 2.50 and above incompatible with ATMS Central Operations Software. Very costly to upgrade
GTT Opticom GPS TSP System
• Recommended forMontgomery County existing system
• Also selected by WMATA (with differences) and MDSHA in other areas (for preemption). On MDSHA procurement schedule.
• Components/functions– On-vehicle (PRG: sends request when criteria are met)– Wayside antennae (spread spectrum) to receive vehicle location– Phase selector (PRS: validate position, in range ?, prioritize/resolve conflicts,
send request to controller)
• Additional central software to provide monitoring and logging data also recommended
• Proved technically feasible in Route 55 MD 355 TSP test• How to integrate across operating agencies / services
remains to be seen
ORBCAD AVL/CAD System• Automatic Vehicle Location and Computer Aided
Dispatch system implemented by Ride On• Currently provided by ACS Systems/Xerox (has gone
through several transitions)• Functions
– Real time vehicle location and monitoring– Schedule and route adherence– Data and voice communications (mobile data terminal)– Voice annunciation for stops along routes– Silent alarm– Automatic Passenger Counts– TSP integration to identify late vehicles, passengers, etc.
• Integration with TSP proven technically feasible in Route 55/MD 355 TSP test.
City of Rockville Signal System• 143 signals within or near
Rockville Boarders• City owns 48 signals• City operates:
– 42 of its own signals– 6 of the MDSHA signals
• Econolite ASC/2 Controllers with limited TSP capability
• Aires Closed Loop traffic system with dial up connection (not real time)
• No City Signals directly on RTS Routes
• 2 City Signals on the CCT corridor
Ride On Montgomery County Transit (Ride On)• Weekday service:
– 78 routes– 289 peak vehicles
• Provides service in every proposed RTS corridor• Operations colocated with traffic but not integrated• Trapeze bus scheduling and run-cutting software• Smart Traveler Customer Information • Regional Smart Card Fare Payment• Implementing Automatic Passenger Counters (~ 55%)• ORBCAD Avl/Cad system
– Will allow Conditional TSP on Schedule Adherence and Passenger Loads
• Only Route 55 TSP vehicles for TSP Test equipped with GTT Opticom GPS TSP systems
Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA)
From: A. Young Leveraging the WMATA CoABE Project Technology for TSP Implementation (ITS Maryland, October 2013)
• Consolidated onboard & fixed end equipment in 2012/2013
• Clever Devices AVL/CAD
• GTT Opticom TSP software/hardware
• Cellular communications with the Intelligent Vehicle Network (IVN) Unit
• Roadside (cabinet) cellular modem with GPS• Econolite ASC3 controller through GTT Phase Selector
Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA)
• Service– 140 Metrobuses in peak periods within Montgomery County– Primarily regional service along major corridors– WMATA service in every proposed RTS corridor
• Issues– Installation, recurring costs, maintenance of cellular modems
within Montgomery County signal cabinets– Reconciliation/integration between WMATA Cellular and
Montgomery County Spread Spectrum vehicle to roadside communication (can inputs be received and integrate from both)
– Resolving competing priority requests between Montgomery County and WMATA vehicles
– Communication/coordination between operation centers
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA)• Current Service
– Route 201 Gaithersburg to BWI Marshall Airport– Route 202 Metropolitan Grove to DOD/Ft. Meade– Route 203 Columbia to Bethesda– Route 204 Frederick to College Park– Route 915 Columbia/Silver Spring to Washington, DC– Route 929 Columbia/Silver Spring to Washington, DC– Route 991 Hagerstown/Frederick to Shady Grove/Rock Spring
Business Park– Route 995 Clarksville/Ellicott City/Columbia to Washington, DC
• Contract Service with no AVL/CAD or other technology requirements
• Future Systems (will need to coordinate)– Purple Line– Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)