TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY - trafficconf.com · What is Transit Signal Priority? “Traffic signal priority is simply the idea of giving special treatment to transit vehicles at signalized
33
TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY UNTANGLING THE INTERAGENCY WEB October 18 th , 2017 Presented by Josh Zvolanek, P.E., PTOE
TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITYUNTANGLING THE INTERAGENCY WEB
October 18th, 2017Presented by Josh Zvolanek, P.E., PTOE
Outline
• Transit Signal Priority Primer• Project Overview (Pace Bus TSP)• Untangling the Web
– Key Stakeholders– Roles and Responsibilities– Coordination Efforts
• Next Steps– Proof-of-Concept– System Deployment
What is Transit Signal Priority?
“Traffic signal priority is simply the idea of giving special treatment to transit vehicles at signalized intersections” - Federal Transit Authority
“Special Treatments”:
1. Green Extension
2. Early side street green termination
3. Queue Jump
Presenter
Presentation Notes
TSP will activate when a bus is behind schedule
TSP is not Preemption• TSP will not turn lights green instantly• TSP will not function all the time
- Lockout Period- Intersection at Capacity
• Following a TSP enabled bus in your car is not advisable (looking at you, traffic engineers…)
TSP Architecture Types
• Central– Priority Request Server at Traffic Management Center– Requires network connection to each signal to be
reliable• Distributed
– Priority Request Server housed in controller cabinets– Requires bus to intersection communication
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Distribued was determined to be the preferred method due to the need for an interoperable TSP solution between CTA and Pace.
Distributed System Communication Options
• Optical – IR emitter• WiFi (802.11a through 802.11 ag)
– 2.4 Ghz• Deployed successfully across the country• Wireless range sufficient for TSP• Signal interference can be a problem
– 5.0 GHz• Lower interference than 2.4 GHz• Shorter range than 2.4 GHz• Not currently used for TSP
Presenter
Presentation Notes
This is about as Techy as this presentation will get. 2.4 becomes more congested band 5.0 Ghz needs antenna with high gain RTA undertook a study of available technologies and settled on 5.0 GHz for it Regional Interoperability Standard
Pace Bus TSP – Project Overview
• About Pace– Pace currently operates 200+ routes– Serves ~40,000,000 people a year– Service Area is ~3,500 square miles and covers 6
counties• Need for TSP
– Increased reliability and on-time service– Decreased variability in wait times for customers
• Scope– Pace intends to deploy TSP at nearly 300 intersections
on 10 corridors in Northeastern Illinois
Milwaukee Avenue CorridorLimits: Maryland St. to Gale St.
Total Intersections: 52TSP Intersections: 12
Coordinated Systems: 7
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: Flagship Corridor Jurisdiction is split between CDOT and IDOT CTA will also operate TSP at Gale Street for the first combined location.
Dempster Street Corridor
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Limits: Mannheim Rd. to Dodge Ave.
Total Intersections: 87TSP Intersections: 55
Coordinated Systems: 9
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: Largest Corridor in terms of area and number of signals. Will be combined with ART. Serves the primary East-West bus route between O’Hare from to Evanston IDOT owns all signals, but Village of Morton Grove and City of Evanston maintain interconnects in their city limits. Potential future interaction with CTA TSP at the Skokie Swift Yellow Line Terminal – CTA TSP outside of Chicago.
Grand Avenue Corridor
Limits: Dilleys Rd. to Sheridan Rd.
Total Intersections: 10TSP Intersections: 10
Coordinated Systems: 2 (Centralized Control)
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: IDOT owns all signals, but Lake County maintains and operates interconnects. All signals are on the Passage Network or in the process of being added. Will potentially serve as the pilot corridor for Internal PRS on Cobalt signal controllers.
Roosevelt Road Corridor
Limits: Warrenville Rd. to Harlem Ave.
Total Intersections: 61TSP Intersections: 31
Coordinated Systems: 6
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: Corridor is split between DuPage County and Cook County; however neither County maintains or owns any of the signals.
Cermak Road Corridor
Limits: Fairfield Ave. to 54th Ave.
Total Intersections: 79TSP Intersections: 55
Coordinated Systems: 7
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: Rivals Depmester Corridor for most TSP enabled signals. Village of Oak Brook owns and maintains two signals that are part of a TSP enabled interconnect, but do not have TSP operations.
Cicero Avenue CorridorLimits: 87th St. to 159th St.
Total Intersections: 71TSP Intersections: 33
Coordinated Systems: 6
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Special Notes: Ridgeland Avenue Signals Owned and Maintained by Cook County, but part of IDOT interconnect system. Contractor will have to assume maintenance responsibility for 95th Street Corridor during project. Cicero Corridor Intersects with 3 other TSP Corridors.
95th Street Corridor
Limits: Roberts Rd. to Western Ave.
Total Intersections: 43TSP Intersections: 23
Coordinated Systems: 4
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: 1. Potential future interaction with CTA on Eastern end of corridor.
147th Street Corridor
Limits: Halsted St. to IL Rte 83
Total Intersections: 26TSP Intersections: 14
Coordinated Systems: 2
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: Over half of the intersections in interconnect Eagle 3J will not have TSP, but will need to be under Contractor Maintenance during project. Highlights unexpected outcome of deploying TSP based upon route selection.
159th Street Corridor
Limits: Harlem Ave. to IL Rte 83
Total Intersections: 46TSP Intersections: 38
Coordinated Systems: 6
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Rand Road CorridorLimits: Wolf Rd. to Winslow Dr.
Total Intersections: 11TSP Intersections: 9
Coordinated Systems: 2
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NO TSP
MASTER TRAFFIC SIGNAL – NOT IN SCOPE
COORDINATED SYSTEM
TSP CORRIDOR
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Notes: Rand Road corridor was has the potential to expand TSP up to a total of 45 more intersections based upon future bus routes. Village of Mount Prospect maintains signal at Business Center drive (10), but is own by IDOT.
Identification of Key Stakeholders
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Key Stakeholders on the first wave of Pace TSP corridors are shown here and have a large vested interest in the operations of TSP. Local Municipalities such as the City of Evanston and Village of Morton Grove are also stakeholders with who coordination has taken place.
Northeastern Illinois Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The Key Stakeholders identified are interconnected in various ways, be it operations, planning, maintenance, construction, or funding. The web depicted here illustrates possible interactions between agencies based upon various projects or day-to-day operations. As can be seen, these connections are deeply nested and untangling them is essential to successfully delivering an infrastructure project.
Pace Bus TSP Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The best way to start untangling the web is to focus on the primary agency driving the project, in this case that would be Pace. Focusing on how Pace interacts with each Key Stakeholder is essential to beginning coordination for TSP. RTA – Provided the construction grant for TSP and developed the System Requirements for Northeastern Illinois TSP CTA – Operates routes that overlap with Pace and has begun deploying its own TSP corridors. The agencies must be interoperable. OEMC – Networks the City of Chicago interconnects and has vested interest in traffic operations. CDOT – Owns and maintains signals in the Chicago and will be constructing the Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Chicago Section. IDOT – Maintains and operates vast majority of signals and interconnects on which TSP will be deployed and grants construction permits. Lake County DOT – Operates and maintains signals in an advanced capacity that allows for dynamic changes in signal timing using a centralized system.
Pace Bus TSP Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
RTA – Provided the construction grant for TSP and developed the System Requirements for Northeastern Illinois TSP
Pace Bus TSP Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
CTA – Operates routes that overlap with Pace and has begun deploying its own TSP corridors. The agencies must be interoperable.
Pace Bus TSP Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
OEMC – Administers communications networks for the City of Chicago interconnects and has vested interest in traffic operations.
Pace Bus TSP Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
CDOT – Owns and maintains signals in the Chicago and will be constructing the Milwaukee Avenue Corridor Chicago Section.
Pace Bus TSP Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
IDOT – Maintains and operates vast majority of signals and interconnects on which TSP will be deployed and grants construction permits.
Pace Bus TSP Interagency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Lake County DOT – Operates and maintains signals in an advanced capacity that allows for dynamic changes in signal timing using a centralized system.
Transit Agency Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Impacting one strand of the coordination web invariable has ramifications with other connected portions. The RTA helps coordinates, provides funding, and plan projects for transit sub-transit agencies in Illinois. The RTA developed the System Requirements for TSP and has helped facilitate coordination between Pace and CTA. The CTA has begun deploying TSP with the Ashland Avenue corridor with a secure and reliable system, but is looking into moving to a interoperable solution with Pace as defined by RTA. Numerous meetings on network architecture and physical infrastructure requirements have occurred with all three agencies. Message Set - http://www.rtams.org/rtams/transitSignalPriority.jsp
CDOT Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The other two major players in Chicago impacted by TSP are OEMC and CDOT. CDOT granted Pace the permission to deploy TSP infrastructure at City owned and maintained intersections. In Exchange, Pace will provided network access to signal controllers to CDOT so that intersection can be brought on MIST. Controller access via network connection is run by OEMC and so they will need to be involved in integration. Physical access to the controller cabinet is provide by DEO (part of CDOT). In order for pace to access its own equipment at intersection jurisdictional maintenance boundaries needed to be established. CDOT intersection improvements will be constructed by DEO and a funds transfer between agencies was coordinate.
Lake County Coordination
Presenter
Presentation Notes
IDOT owns almost all the intersections that will have Pace TSP equipment. IDOT’s interconnects are all closed loop dial-up systems, except in Lake County. Lake County DOT utilizes centralized Traffic Management Software that can allow TSP data to be transferred via hardline connections instead of over cellular links. Connections can be established between Pace HQ and the Lake County TMC. Lake County is interested in deploying Cobalt controllers running the new EOS operating system which will allow the cobalt to utilize an internal PRS. Since the intersections are owned by IDOT decisions on which types of controller software can be deployed are dependent upon IDOT approval. Bench testing of the new operating system and operations with TSP are being tested by IDOT to allow for the first deployment of the new controller system on Grand Avenue.
Next Steps
• Proof-of-Concept– Milwaukee Corridor– PRS development currently ongoing– March timeframe for construction
• Wide Scale System Deployment– Will commence after successful Proof-of-Concept– Dempster will follow Milwaukee and be in conjunction
with BRT improvements.– Other corridors to follow in a priority order to be
determined by Pace
Lessons Learned in Design
1. Coordinate early and often
2. Apply for permits when the all pieces are in place
3. Not all issues are resolved in a single meeting
4. Be flexible, but continue moving forward
Acknowledgements
• Pace– Taqhi Mohammad– David Tomzik
• RTA– Kevin Stanciel– Mark Pitstick
• CDOT– Abraham Emmanuel– Yadollah Montezery
• Lake County DOT– Jon Nelson
• IDOT District 1– Kristen Micheff– Daryle Drew– Lukasz Pociecha
