S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT-FPI: 408419-1-32-01
ro
"'0
.-
s....
o
-
u.
...
s....
Q)
+""
ro
~
ro
Q)
-
o
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
Final Report
Prepared for
Florida Department of Transportation
District 7
Financial Project ID: 408419-1-32-01
October 2000
Prepared By
PBSl
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 AIMS Feasibility Study
Final Report
Prepared for
Florida Department of Transportation
District 7
Financial Project 10: 408419-1-32-01
Prepared By
PBSJ
October 2000
. S.R. 60/U.S. 19 AIMS Feasibility Study
.
.
Final Report
September 2000
Prepared for:
Florida Department of Transportation
District 7
Financial Project 10: 408419-1-32-01
Concurrence - District ITS Engineer
Florida Department of Transportation
Name: Bill Wilshire, P.E.
Signature:
Date:
Concurrence- Public Works Administrator
City of Clearwater
Name: Mahshid Arasteh, PE.
Signature:
Date:
Concurrence - District Traffic Design Engineer
Project Manager
Florida Department of Transportation
Name: Bijan Behzadi, PE.
Signature:
Date:
S.R. 60/U.S.19 A TMS Feasibility Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.
The City of Clearwater overlooks a watery region that can bring to the city's doorstep
what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls "nature's greatest
storms" hurricanes.
The first advice included in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's fact sheet on
Hurricanes is - plan an evacuation route. "Be ready to drive 20 to 50 miles inland to
locate a safe place," the agency advises.
The fiscal year 2000 U.S. Department of Transportation Appropriations bill allocated
approximately $2.7 million for the S.R. 60 Corridor Enhancement Project. Cooperative
financing through federal, state and municipal resources will enable the City of
Clearwater to use advanced traffic management systems (A TMS) - which include a
variety of technologies that help monitor, control and speed the flow of traffic - to move
traffic safely along this evacuation route.
There is a strong desire to ensure that any proposed deployment be fully integrated with
previously deployed systems as well as future Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
deployments on or near the study corridors.
.
Also, any successful ATMS deployment on the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 corridors must fit
within a regional Intelligent Transportation Systems ITS framework for the longer-term
deployment of ITS along these corridors.
A systems engineering approach guided by the "What - How Cycle" was used to
develop the advanced traffic management framework and specific projects.
Traffic ManaQement Needs
Traffic management needs were identified through various activities, including a
requirement workshop.
The following needs provide the underlying foundation for the development of an A TMS
framework:
· Reduce Recurring Congestion
· Reduce Non-Recurring Congestion
· Improve Parking Management
· Ensure Regional Coordination
. · Reduce Response Time to Incidents
.
· Create Emergency Evacuation Timing Plans
· Provide Data for Planning
· Improve Pedestrian Safety
· Provide Additional Staffing and Training
Also, converting local needs to the structured language of user services, identified in the
National ITS Architecture, will promote consistency and compatibility between ITS
systems deployed along S.R. 60 and others in the region, and throughout the nation.
User Services
Based on a user needs to user services mapping analysis, the following user services
will be addressed by the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS:
.
· En-Route Driver Information
· Traffic Control
· Incident Management
· Pre-Trip Travel Information
· Demand Management and Operations
· Public Transportation Management
· Parking Management
· Emergency Vehicle Management
· Pedestrian Safety and Access
· Archive Data User Service
Furthermore, the National ITS Architecture and Tampa Bay Regional Architecture
provide a direct relationship to the national ITS standards needed to specify how ITS
components are to be interconnected, and to provide uniform data definitions.
Therefore, the National ITS Architecture provides the input required for the development
of a standards plan.
Standards are critical to the success of implementing ITS. Well-defined standards help
agencies prepare procurement specifications, and requests for information and requests
for proposals. Open standards allow technology and products from different
manufacturers to be added to a project, and encourage interoperability and
interchangeability of products from different manufacturers. This reduces costs,
increases flexibility and facilitates upgrades.
Distributed Architecture
Based upon an assessment of the requirements of the S. R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors, a
distributed architecture is recommended.
.
II
.
interchangeability of products from different manufacturers. This reduces costs,
increases flexibility and facilitates upgrades.
Distributed Architecture
Based upon an assessment of the requirements of the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors, a
distributed architecture is recommended.
This approach provides the autonomy localities and agencies need to operate their
systems. All command and control processes remain at the individual agencies. Yet,
by establishing an information network, a distributed architecture also provides the data
and information sharing and inter-agency coordination/cooperation processes
necessary to meet transportation needs of the future. With respect to the control of the
traffic management system, Pinellas County will house the database in a central
location.
Deployment Timeframe
In order to maximize the benefits of the synergies and dependencies identified above, a
deployment period was developed for the implementation of market packages and
equipment packages. A focus was placed on near-term problems and the early
deployments best suited to address those problems on a local and regional basis.
.
The recommended migration plan consists of three stages of deployment. The
deployment timeframes were broken into three categories: short-term, mid-term, and
long-term. The following criteria was established:
· Short-term priorities have available funding for Stage 1, meet current
needs, expand on legacy system and provide measurable benefits.
· Mid-term priorities (Stage 2) continue to address current needs by
expanding Stage 1 deployments that require additional planning and funding.
· Long-term priorities (Stage 3) address the less critical needs, require
additional planning and funding, and require substantial institutional
arrangements.
Deployment of Market Packages
.
Package Number Market Package Stage
AD2 ITS Data Warehouse 1
ATIS2 Interactive Traveler Information 2
APTS7 Multi-modal Coordination 2
ATMS01 Network Surveillance 1
A TMS03 Surface Street Control 1
ATMS06 Traffic Information Dissemination 1
III
.
A TMS07 Regional Traffic Control 1
A TMS08 Incident Management System 1
A TMS09 Traffic Prediction and Demand Management 3
ATMS13 Standard Railroad Grade Crossing 1
ATMS19 Regional Parking Management 2
EM1 Emergency Response 1
EM2 Emergency Routing 1
Stage 1 construction is estimated at $3.204 million. The available funding for Stage 1
deployment, however, will not cover complete geographic coverage of SR. 60 and U.S.
19 with the selected market packages and equipment packages identified in the short-
term deployment.
Therefore, each stage must provide quantifiable benefits that are visible to the public
and must be operable independent of future stages.
.
Field Components
The market packages, equipment packages and process specifications selected from
the National ITS Architecture to meet the user needs/services for S.R. 60 and U.S. 19
Corridors were used as a basis for selecting the field components.
The field component locations were selected based upon the available information
analyzed in section 2.0. The field components and their locations were designed for
future conditions and provide a full-build scenario. They include:
.
· Traffic Controllers - Update the existing traffic controllers to perform adaptive
control. There are 58 intersections along S.R. 60, U.S. 19, Drew, Chestnut
and Cleveland Streets.
· Vehicle Detectors - Install non-intrusive system detectors along S.R. 60 for
monitoring traffic flows and support coordinated adaptive control. It is
recommended to deploy 348 stations, which are made up of one detector per
approach lane for each leg of each intersection (6 average per intersection x
58 intersections = 348). It should be noted that these detectors are in
addition to the existing local intersection detectors.
· Closed-Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) - Install 19 CCTV cameras for
video monitoring and incident verification. CCTV cameras should be installed
to provide full coverage of S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 and at key intersections along
Drew Street.
· Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) - Install eight DMS in advance of decision
points for route diversion. Install dynamic message signs in advance of key
diversion points along S.R. 60, U.S. 19, Drew Street and McMullen Booth
Road.
· Dynamic Trailblazer Signs - Install 21 dynamic trailblazer signs in advance of
decision points for route diversion from S.R. 60 to the parallel routes.
IV
.
.
.
. Pedestrian Safety Units - Install two pedestrian safety units at the bike trail
crossings on Court and Chestnut Streets to enhance pedestrian and bicycle
movements.
Communications
The design of the communications architecture should accommodate these
technologies and yet remain flexible enough to accommodate growth beyond these
initial technologies.
As a result, it is recommended to install a fiber optic backbone along S.R. 60 and U.S.
19 with a fiber optic run from S.R. 60 to the Traffic Control Center. There will also be an
underground fiber optic link across Myrtle Avenue from the Traffic Control Center to the
City of Clearwater Police Dispatch. This will interconnect with the communications link
between the City of Clearwater Police Dispatch and the Pinellas County 911
Communications Center. This link is being upgraded with the relocation of the 911
Communications Center to Ulmerton Road. This fiber optic communications network will
carry all data and video transmissions for the system and serve as the communications
backbone in the future.
Some Stage 1 Benefits
A Federal Highway Administration publication, which summarizes the benefits
associated with ITS deployments, reports between 15% and 20% reductions in delay
when using adaptive traffic control compared to optimized time-of-day plans. The results
from this study show a 23% decrease in delays during the high-volume, PM-peak hour
and a much higher 38% decrease in delays during the lower-volume and more variable
off-peak hour period.
The incident management system was assumed to reduce the incident duration time of
80 incidents per year, assuming that each of the four CCTV cameras proposed for
Stage 1 deployment is installed at a location with 20 incidents per year.
Also, the California Department of Transportation estimates that for each one-minute
reduction in incident duration, there is a reduction of four to five minutes in individual
vehicle delay.
In this study, we assumed that each one-minute reduction in incident duration reduces
individual vehicle delay by two minutes. This results in approximately 40 minutes of
savings per vehicle per incident.
v
.
.
.
And Keep In Mind
The existing traffic control center has enough room to accommodate the new system.
The center will house the traffic management hardware/software, control center console
and communication equipment.
Additional training and staffing will be required for the new system, however. The
existing maintenance personnel will need to be trained in fiber optics communications.
. Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) should be developed with other
agencies that outline the information shared, interfaces used to communicate
information, and policies/procedures that support the concept of operation for
the system. These agencies include local and regional enforcement, local and
regional emergency services, maintenance and construction departments,
transit agencies, information service providers, media, and regional traffic
management centers.
An area of special emphasis in the evaluation effort will be the institutional, or non-
technical, factors that influence the project performance both before and after the
deployment. Institutional factors that will be evaluated include: procurement practices,
contracting policy and relationships among major participants. Of particular interest is
how the wide range of non-technical factors affect project performance factors such as
cost, schedule and functionality.
VI
.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EX E C UTIVE SUM MA RY ............................................................................................................................... I
TAB LE OF CONTE NTS ............................................................................................................................. VII
LI ST 0 F FIG U RES...................................................................................................................................... IX
LIST 0 F TAB LES......................................................................................................................................... X
SECTION 1.0: INTRODUCTION ...... .................... ..................... ................................................................ 1-1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.... ........ ...... ..... ......... .... ........ .... ....... ...... .... ....... ....... ...... ......... .... ................... 1-1
1.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA/ZONE OF INFLUENCE.......................................................................................1-1
1.3 OBJECTIVES ... .............. ... ... .... .... ... ....... .................. ... ...... .... ... ........... .................... ....... ............. ........ 1-1
SECTION 2.0: REQUIREMENTS MODEL ............................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 LEGACY SYSTEMS ............ ... .... ......... .......... ..... ....... ......... .... ..... ................... ........ ....... ...... .................2-2
2.1.1 City of Clearwater Traffic Signal System ................................................................................. 2-2
2.1.2 Pinel/as County / St. Petersburg Traffic Signal Systems......................................................... 2-5
2.1.3 Interagency Agreements.......................................................................................................... 2-5
2.1.4 City of Clearwater Fire/Rescue Preemption System ............................................................... 2-9
2.1.5 City of Clearwater Parking Systems ......................................................................................2-10
2.1.6 Pinel/as Sun coast Transit Authority ........................... ............................................................ 2-10
2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .... ..... ....... ... ... ...... .... ..................... ............................ .... ........... .... ..... ............2-13
2.2.1 Roadway Network.................................................................................................................. 2-13
2.2.2 Traffic and Accident Data................................................. .... .................................................. 2-14
2.3 USER NEEDS......................................................................................................................... .......... 2-17
2.4 USER SERVICES ....................... .... ...... ..... ...... ........ ......... ........ .... ....... ....... ... ............. ..... ..... ............. 2-18
2.4.1 Needs to User Services Mapping ..........................................................................................2-19
2.5 S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS MISSION ......................................................................................................2-22
2.6 S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS VISION .........................................................................................................2-22
2.6.1 Concept of Operations........................................................................................................... 2-22
2.6.2 Commuter............................................................................................................................ .. 2-23
2.6.3 Traffic Management System Operator...................................................................................2-23
2.6.4 Tourists and Retired Senior Citizens ..................................................................................... 2-24
2.6.5 Police / Emergency Medical Services....................................................................................2-24
2.6.6 Public Transportation Users / Operators ...............................................................................2-24
SECTION 3.0: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS FRAMEWORK............................................................................. 3-1
3.1 NATIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE ...........................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 User Services and User Service Requirements ...................................................................... 3-2
3. 1.2 Logical Architecture...................... ........................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.3 Physical Architecture ... ............. .......... ....................... ...... .... ..................... .... ........ .............. ..... 3-5
3.1.4 Technical Layer........................................................................................................................ 3-7
3.1.5 Institutional Layer................................................................................................................... 3-10
3. 1.6 Market Packages................................................................................................................... 3-13
3.1.7 Equipment Packages ... ....... ............ .... .... ...... ............. ............ ........ ... ...... ... ...... ..... ...... ........ ... 3-14
3.2 S. R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS FRAMEWORK............ ........ ........ .......... ............ ......................... ... ... ... ..... ..... 3-16
3.2.1 SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Process Specifications ..................................................................... 3-32
3.2.2 Standards Application Plan.................................................................................................... 3-34
SECTION 4.0: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 ATMS SYNERGIES AND DEPENDENCIES ............................................................................................. 4-1
VII
e
.
.
4.2 DEPLOYMENT TIMEFRAME................................... ............................................................................... 4-3
SECTION 5.0: SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ANALySiS............................................................................ 5-1
SECTION 6.0: CO N C E PTUAL 0 ESI G N................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 GENERAL REQUiREMENTS.................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 FIELD COMPONENTS.................................................................................................................... ...... 6-1
6.3 COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... .............. ..................................... .......... ............... ..........6-4
6.4 TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER............................................................................................................... 6-4
6.4.1 MTCS Computer Replacement................................................................................................ 6-4
6.4.2 Traffic Control Center Equipment ............................................................................................ 6-5
6.4.3 Staffing........................................................................................................................... .......... 6-5
6.5 AGENCY COORDINATION................................................................................................................. ... 6-6
SECTION 7 .0: MIGRATION PLAN ........................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 STAGE 1 DEPLOYMENT ......................................................................................................................7-6
7.1.1 Traffic Control Center (TCC)....................... ........................................ ....................... .............. 7-7
7.1.2 Field Equipment....................................... ................................................................................ 7-7
7.1.3 Communications.......................................... ............................................................................ 7-8
7.2 STAGE 2 DEPLOYMENT ................... ............ ..... ...... .............. ........ ....................... ....... ...................... 7-14
7.2.1 Traffic Control Center (TCC).................................................................................................. 7-15
7.2.2 Field Equipment..................................................................................................................... 7-15
7.2.3 Communications.................................................................................................................... 7-15
7.3 STAGE 3 DEPLOYMENT ....................................................................................................................7-20
7.3.1 Traffic Control Center (TCC)........................................................................................ .......... 7-20
7.3.2 Field Equipment... .................................................................................................................. 7-20
7.3.3 Communications ......... ..................................... ...................................................................... 7-20
7.4 PROJECT DEPLOYMENT AND COSTS ................................................................................................. 7-25
7.5 ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM DETECTION ...............:....................................................................................7-28
7.6 MARKET PACKAGE DEPLOYMENT ................. ........................................................ ............. ............... 7-29
7.7 PROCUREMENT ALTERNATIVES. .......... ....................... .................... ................... ............. ....... ...... ...... 7-29
SECTION 8.0: BENEFIT I COST ANALYSIS FOR STAGE 1.................................................................. 8-1
8.1 ADAPTIVE CONTROL BENEFITS ........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT BENEFITS .....................................................................................................8-2
8.3 BENEFIT/COST RATIO........................................................................................................................ 8-3
SECTION 9.0: EVALUATION PLAN ........................................................................................................ 9-1
9.1 EVALUATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................... 9-1
9. 1. 1 Safety........................................................... ............................................................................ 9-1
9.1.2 Mobility..................................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.1.3 Efficiency.................................................................................................................................. 9-2
9. 1.4 Productivity.............................................................................................................................. 9-2
9.1.5 Energy and Environment .............. ............... ............................................................................ 9-2
9.2 TEST HyPOTHESES..................................................................................................................... ....... 9-2
9.2.1 Safety....................................................................................................................................... 9-2
9.2.2 Mobility..................................................................................................................................... 9-3
9.2.3 Efficiency.................................................................................................................................. 9-3
9.2.4 Productivity................................................................................................................... ........... 9-4
9.2.5 Energy and Environment .........................................................................................................9-4
9.3 TESTING PLAN...... ........... .......................................... ............................................... .................. ....... 9-4
9.3.1 Quantitative Studies.......... .............. ....... ..................... ......... .................. ........... ........ .......... ..... 9-4
9.3.2 Qualitative Studies................................................................................................................... 9-6
SECTION 10.0: REFERENCES ............................................ ....... ..................... ........ .............................. 10-1
viii
e
.
.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Study Area .......... .............. ........ .............................. ................................. ..... ................................... 1-3
Figure 2.1: What - How Cycle ............................................................................................................................2-1
Figure 2.2: City of Clearwater Traffic Signal System Field Components ...........................................................2-6
Figure 2.3: City of Clearwater Traffic Signal System Communications Plant ....................................................2-7
Figure 2.4: City of Clearwater Public Works Organizational Chart ....................................................................2-8
Figure 2.5: Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Bus Routes ...........................................................................2-12
Figure 2.6: Proposed Improvements and Alternative Routes for S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors ....................2-15
Figure 2.7: Traffic Data and Accident Data for S.R. 60....................................................................................2-16
Figure 3.1: Processes and Data Flows to Support Project Architecture ............................................................ 3-5
Figure 3.2: Three Layer Concept for National ITS Architecture ......................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3.3: High-level Technical Layer of National ITS Architecture .................................................................3-8
Figure 3.4: High-Level Technical Layer of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS ....................................................................3-9
Figure 3.5: Tampa Bay Regional Institutional Architecture..............................................................................3-11
Figure 3.6: SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Institutional Layer......................................................................................3-12
Figure 3.7a: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATIS2) ................................................................................3-19
Figure 3.7b: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (AD2) ...................................................................................3-20
Figure 3.7c: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS01).............................................................................3_21
Figure 3.7d: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS03) ............................................................................3-22
Figure 3.7e: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (APTS7) ...............................................................................3-23
Figure 3.7f: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS06) .............................................................................3-24
Figure 3.7g: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS07) ............................................................................3-25
Figure 3.7h: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS08) ............................................................................3-26
Figure 3.7i: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS09)..............................................................................3_27
Figure 3.7j: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS13).............................................................................. 3-28
Figure 3.7k: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS19).............................................................................3_29
Figure 3.71: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (EM1) .................................................................................... 3-30
Figure 3.7m: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (EM2) ..................................................................................3-31
Figure 4.1: Relationships of Market Packages .................................................................................................4-6
Figure 6.1: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Full-Build Scenario......................................................................................6-3
Figure 7.1: S. R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Staged Deployment ................. ....................................................... ............ 7-5
Figure 7.2: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Stage 1 Deployment .................................................................................7-13
Figure 7.3: S. R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Stage 2 Deployment ........... .......... ............................. ..... ..........................7-19
Figure 7.4: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Stage 3 Deployment .................................................................................7-24
IX
e
.
.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: User Needs to User Services Mapping...........................................................................................2-21
Table 3.1: Mapping S.R. 60 User Services to ITS Processes ........................................................................... 3-4
Table 3.2: SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS User Service to Market Package Mapping................................................. 3-15
Table 3.3: Mapping of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Market Packages, Subsystems and Equipment Packages .....3-17
Table 3.4a: Relationship between S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Pspecs and User Services ...................................3-33
Table 3.4b: Relationship between S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Pspecs and User Services (cont.) ........................3-34
Table 3.5: Status of ITS Standards Applicable to S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Project...........................................3-36
Table 4.1: Proposed Deployment Timeframe for S.R. 60 Market Packages and Equipment Packages ...........4-5
Table 5.1: Utility Analysis for Control System Alternatives ................................................................................5-2
Table 7.1a: Phased Geographic Deployment of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Technologies..................................... 7-2
Table 7.1 b: Phased Geographic Deployment of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Technologies (cont.) .........................7-3
Table 7.1c: Phased Geographic Deployment of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Technologies (cont.).......................... 7-4
Table 7.2: Estimated Cost for Stage 1 Deployment......................................................................................... 7-10
Table 7.3: Capital Cost Assumptions for Stage 1 Deployment........................................................................ 7-11
Table 7.3: Capital Cost Assumptions for Stage 1 Deployment........................................................................ 7-12
Table 7.4: Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions for Stage 1 Deployment..................................... 7-12
Table 7.5: Estimated Cost for Stage 2 Deployment.........................................................................................7-17
Table 7.6: Capital Cost Assumptions for Stage 2 Deployment........................................................................ 7-18
Table 7.7: Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions for Stage 2 Deployment..................................... 7-18
Table 7.8: Estimated Cost for Stage 3 Deployment......................................................................................... 7-22
Table 7.9: Capital Cost Assumptions for Stage 3 Deployment ........................................................................ 7-23
Table 7.10: Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions for Stage 3 Deployment................................... 7-23
Table 7.11: Estimated Capital Cost for Full Deployment ................................................................................. 7-26
Table 7.12: Estimated Operations and Maintenance Cost for Full Deployment .............................................. 7-27
Table: 7.13: RTMS Non-Intrusive Detection Life-Cycle Costs ......................................................................... 7-28
Table: 7.14: Inductive Loop Detection Life-Cycle Costs .................................................................................. 7-28
Table 7.15: Deployment of Market Packages .............. .................... .......... ........................... ........................... 7-29
Table 8.1: Stage 1 Benefit-Cost Analysis ..........................................................................................................8-5
x
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S.19 A TMS Feasibility Study
SECTION 1.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
The fiscal year 2000 U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) appropriation
allocated approximately $2.7 million for the S.R. 60 Corridor Enhancement Project.
Cooperative financing through federal, state and municipal resources will enable the
City of Clearwater to implement technology designed to move traffic safely along this
evacuation route. Therefore, the City of Clearwater staff is considering the application
of advanced traffic management systems (ATMS) techniques along the S.R. 60 and
U.S. 19 corridors. There is also a strong desire to ensure that any proposed
deployment will be fully integrated with previously deployed systems as well as any
future ITS deployment on or near the study corridors. This will require consideration of
the plans and objectives of adjacent jurisdictions, FOOT, and U.S. DOT, in addition to
future plans for Pinellas County. Therefore, any successful approach to the
development and definition of an ATMS deployment on the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19
corridors must also fit within regional Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
framework for the longer-term deployment of ITS along the corridors.
1.2 Project Study Area/Zone of Influence
This feasibility study is limited to deploying ATMS along S.R. 60 and U.S. 19. However,
the deployment of A TMS along both of these corridors will affect the deployment of
ATMS within Pinellas County. Figure 1.1 shows the study corridors and project limits.
The Gulf of Mexico bounds the project from the west, Tampa Bay on the east, Drew
Street on the north and S.R. 60 I Court Street on the south. In addition, the portion of
U.S. 19 from S.R. 60 to Haines Bayshore Road was included in the project area. This
feasibility study considers the proposed new bridge alignment for S.R. 60.
The Tampa Bay Regional Architecture recommends that ITS should be developed as
an integrated and interoperable infrastructure. To accomplish this, the study needs to
incorporate an open architecture approach and consider regional coordination with
Pinellas, Hillsborough and Pasco Counties.
1.3 Objectives
The study objectives are:
· Develop an A TMS Framework using the National ITS Architecture.
· Identify, outline and provide the general contents of institutional agreements
needed to support integrated operation of the system.
· Develop a plan or phasing sequence of potential projects.
1-1
.
.
.
· Develop a conceptual design for Stage 1 deployment with a construction
budget limit of approximately $3,204,948.
· Identify ITS improvements for inclusion in the MPO, LRTP and TIP
1-2
~
.a
CI)
~
....
=--
:S
II)
C\'I
.t
CI)
~
OC(
Q)
,..
en
~
Q
cg
0:
uj
m
m~
- ..
'"
~
gj
...1II1i1
III
'"
"'~
;Ii:i
'If
lil
'lli ill!
tl
~
It;
~
..
~ rm ~
\ '" Ill!' ~
III II! lj VI! IlIll< .""
.. ~ .. '1<"",, III \Ii ~nfi;
II
~ ." "'
;d RM ,,1;1
'lr~ ~1!!Ei m1~..Il
.'
~
"
b~
Ill' ~ ~ ~
" !A ill
~ [I -
~ ~,& ~-
~ II ~
~ ",\
:1I ~
co
!
<(
~
"
~
- ('t)
en I
T"""
-
-
!
~
C)
LL
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S.19 A TMS Feasibility Study
SECTION 2.0: REQUIREMENTS MODEL
This section addresses various elements of the project, which establish a foundation for
future tasks. A structured system engineering approach guided the development of an
advanced traffic management framework and specific projects. Figure 2.1 illustrates the
"What - How Cycle" which is the thought process we are following. The User Needs
triangle is the focus of this section and it will drive the development of the ATMS
framework in Section 3.0.
Figure 2.1: What - How Cycle
'What do you want?'
.
'How can it be done?'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
User Needs As We
Know them
In developing the Requirements Model the following objectives must be fulfilled:
. Determine legacy systems, roadway network and traffic/accident data.
. Determine user needs, issues, problems and objectives
. Determine User Services which will need to be satisfied
. Develop a concept of operations
. Develop A TMS Mission for traffic management
. Develop vision of traffic management along the corridors
2-1
-
.
.
2.1 LEGACY SYSTEMS
The following subsections outline inventory surveys of existing and planned
transportation facilities and initiatives within the study area. Also included is a
subsection on existing conditions, which summarizes available traffic and accident data.
The data contained in this section will be used to support the development of proposed
technical, commercial and institutional/organizational solutions that maximize the use of
existing systems and infrastructure.
2.1.1 City of Clearwater Traffic Signal System
The City of Clearwater controls 126 of the 140 signalized intersections with the Modern
Traffic Control System (MTCS) package, which was installed and supplied by
Computran Systems in 1989. The system is capable of controlling up to 350
intersections.
The major components of the Clearwater Traffic Signal System (TS8) are summarized
below.
Signal System Software
The MTCS software package was based on the Urban Traffic Control System (UTCS)
Software that was developed by the FHWA. The MTCS allows real-time monitoring and
provides central management of the local controller's database. The system
communicates with the intersections once-per-second to collect real-time data including
communications statistics, traffic status and equipment status. The timing plans are run
locally with timing plans downloaded and updated from the central computer. Time-of-
day and traffic responsive control plans have been generated for the system. In
addition, the traffic control center has the capability for off-line automatic generation of
timing plans based on data collected from system detectors using the FORCAST
softwa re.
Traffic Operations Center
The City of Clearwater controls the signalized intersections from the Traffic Operations
Center (TOC), which is located in the City of Clearwater Municipal Building at 100 South
Myrtle Avenue in Clearwater.
Central System Hardware
The central computer is a Concurrent Computer 3212 mini-computer. The traffic control
center includes a map display that uses LED technology and provides an overall view of
traffic conditions. The center also includes control consoles for operator interface. The
2-2
system does not allow direct interaction between the traffic control center and other
transportation center software in the region.
.
Field Components
The Clearwater TSS field components are highlighted below and are shown in Figure
2.2. The traffic controllers are Transyt 1880 E/EL housed in NEMA Standard Traffic
Controller Cabinets. The Peek/Transyt 1880E and 1880EL controllers/cabinets are
based on NEMA TS-1 standards and not compatible with NTCIP or the current NEMA
TS-2 standards. The following intersections have mast arms or proposed mast arms:
.
. Old Coachman and SR. 60
. Arcturas and S.R. 60
(Proposed for 2000/01)
. Keene Road and S.R. 60
(Proposed for 2000/01) Keene
Road widening
· Duncan Avenue and S.R. 60
(Proposed for 2000/01)
. Lake Drive and S.R. 60
(Proposed for 2000/01)
. Court Street and Hillcrest
Avenue
. Court Street and Greenwood
Avenue
. Court Street and Myrtle
Avenue
. Court Street and Alternate
U.S. 19 (Proposed for 2002)
. Chestnut Street and Alternate
U.S. 19 (Proposed for 2002)
· Chestnut Street and Myrtle
Avenue
. Cleveland Street and
Alternate U.S. 19 (Proposed
for 2002)
. Cleveland Street and
Highland Avenue
. Cleveland Street and Keene
Road (Proposed for 2000/01
Keene Road widening)
. Drew Street and Myrtle
Avenue
. Drew Street and Missouri
Avenue
. Drew Street and Betty Lane
· Drew Street and Keene Road
(Proposed for 2001/02 Drew
Street widening)
· Drew Street and N.E.
Coachman Road (proposed
for-2001/02 Drew Street
widening)
.
2-3
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) - The City of Clearwater is currently evaluating a
CCTV package (IQinvision web cam) that allows them to connect via a dial-up
connection. The CCTV is located at the new roundabout on Clearwater Beach. It has a
fresh rate that ranges from once every 7 to once every 15 seconds.
Pedestrian Safety Devices - The City of Clearwater is evaluating the use of various
types of enhanced pedestrian safety devices. These include illuminated crosswalks on
the spokes of roundabouts (in-ground lights) as well as the use of audible devices.
Audible devices are also located at Belcher and Nursery.
Dynamic Message Sign - The City of Clearwater has five portable OMS and is
proposing to install a fixed OMS on Memorial Causeway west of Island Way in the
westbound direction. The Florida Department of Transportation has issued a permit for
the installation. The fixed OMS will be a Display Solutions Model number 2488vms or
equivalent and shall have 66 LED modules. Each module shall be eight pixels wide by
four pixels high. The five portable DMSs are from the Winkomatic Traffic Systems
SUNRAY family of trailer-mounted, three line LED matrix signs. They are battery
powered with automatic recharging from an integral solar panel array. The signs are
controlled locally through laptops.
Communications System
The communications systems use 1200 baud asynchronous, Bell 202 compatible, FSK
(1200Hz/2200Hz) modems (analog) configured for multi-drop operation with up to 10
controllers on a single communication channel, although most channels run fewer than
this number. The communications between the S.R. 60 field devices and the traffic
control center is through a combination of aerial and underground twisted pair cable.
The City of Clearwater owns most of the communication plant. Figure 2.3 shows the
communication plant used to control the signalized intersections within the study area.
Staffing
The City of Clearwater Public Works Department Organization Chart is depicted in
Figure 2.4. The Traffic Operations Division has 18 employees; 1-0perations Manager,
1-Signal Systems Engineer, 1-Field Operations, 7-Electronic Technicians, 5-
Sign/Marking Technicians, 1-Signal System Engineer, and 2-Traffic Engineering
Assistants. The City of Clearwater contracts maintenance for both the central hardware
and software. Maintenance personnel respond to loop failures within a maximum of 72
hours of failure. Typical response time is 48 hours. Figure 2-4 shows the staffing of the
Traffic Engineering Division within the Public Works Department.
2-4
.
.
.
2.1.2 Pinellas County I St. Petersburg Traffic Signal Systems
The Pinellas County and S1. Petersburg Traffic Signal Systems were installed at the
same time as the City of Clearwater Traffic Signal System. They have similar hardware
and software configurations, but the Pinellas County communications are mostly leased
and S1. Petersburg leases all their communications. In addition, the Clearwater TSS
has added a "bulb-out" function that automatically sends an indication to the TOC.
The Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization has a Traffic Signal and
Median Closure Committee (TS&MCC). This committee is an advisory committee to the
MPO. It is charged with recommending intersection signalization and median access
openings on the major roadways in Pinellas County. It is comprised of 9 voting
members: five traffic engineering representatives from the major cities, one Pinellas
County representative, one FOOT representative, one MPO representative, and one
representative from the MPO's Technical Coordinating Committee.
Currently, the TS&MCC is investigating how to provide an interim upgrade of all three
traffic signal systems. This upgrading is intended to extend the life of the computer
equipment, provide data sharing and redundancy of the central computers. The focus
of the upgrade will be to integrate the three TOC's into a "virtual control center".
2.1.3 Interagency Agreements
Presently there is an agreement between the Department and the City of Clearwater for
the operation maintenance of the Clearwater traffic signal system by the City.
2-5
.
.
.
Clearwater
Harbor
/~
~
",.(
::::>~/
~ :,:.:::.:::.:'~:..:'::.:::.:..:.'.:,":-. .~:'. '
/SEMIN'i. ' .'. ........ ,
w
Z
~
~
a:I
0(/
c./~ '. ~~.
"q ~~
~ ~~lf'~~)
\~ ~cil
\t"
I
/
Clearwater
v
Harbor
~
BELLEAIR
~
~
COURT ST.
LAKEVlEW
w
Z
~
~
W
a:I
Figure 2.2 City of Clearwater Traffic Sic
.
Q u.i
~
" Z
. " a=:
::>
" : ~ ~JRl
..
6
z
::>
a
.._u ~
< 2
~
::>
~
z
~
~3
u.i
~
Ii;
~
U
...J
='
:::c
. -.' . . - , .
u.i
~
a
z
~
:::c
C>
J:
2
t',
w
>
C2
a
~
~
w
Z
w
w
~
RD.
NURSERY RD.
~
BELLEAIR RD.
LARGO
S.1i. 60fJ.S. 19 ArMS Feasibility Stud}
c.:':.:::.;-:.:.:':::.::e>:) CONTROL SECTION
Y of Clearwater Traffic Signal System Field Components
,
I
is
z
o
~
()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-4 RUTH
~
c_ r:;::::::::::::
-.......-..-..-
~ .:.::J:'l~
8
~ t
. $( .
1 .: : 3 ,. . . . ~ 2DREW ST. : 3
------E...:~~'"t1----------.------+
2~t>~' ~: ~:
0' Zl I
0: ~:
~ t:1 I
bS ~I s: I
~y I : I
~3,f I CD I
~ S.R. 60
'~~.'~~~:~'.~. ----~---
I ~I
o
1<4 Q
z
~
~3
t
2
o
w
0::
o
:c
(/)
~
CD
NURSERY RD.
.........
GTB PLAZA
3~
~
~
UJ
o
UJ
~ CLW MAlL I~
0::
>- ~
CD
. SEVILLE ~
(/)
t
TROPIC HILLS
Tampa
Bay
RD.
lOP.~.. ~
. .' . .' .
2 .
J~ .:-:
T.....
Old
.:..
0-
.....
O:l
~
l/J.
~
~
'6
~
.
~-ev
~
::>
2~
BLVD.
---------
BElLEAIR ~ RD.
\
_11_11-
---------
---------
.........
t
N
~
V4 11.2 314
. . .
SCALE IN MILES
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
. . . . I
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
NUMBER OF lANES FOR
DETECTION STATION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
6 pro AERIAL CABLE
12 pr AERIAL CABLE
24 pr AERIAL CABLE
6 pro UNDERGROUND IN G.T.E. DUCT
12 pro UNDERGROUND IN G.T.E. DUCT
24 pro UNDERGROUND IN G.T.E. DUCT
6 pro UNDERGROUND IN CITY DUCT
12 pro UNDERGROUND IN CITY DUCT
24 pro UNDERGROUND IN CITY DUCT
50 pro UNDERGROUND
Figure 2.2:
City of Clearwater TraHic
Signal System Field Components
2-6
_ __ __L __-----.,---
Figure 2.3: City of Cleaf'l
""'
Clearwater ~/ ,
~
Harbor _,
~.!
1
10..' PALMmO ST.
~ Q
SEMINOLE w u..i
z ~
~ z
CI::
::>
CD ~
-
u..i
---- ~. ~
......----- f: I ClEVElAIlID ST. I
I ~"_. ..- . _u · .--.-_1
: 3 ~ \f .1 6
:M, COURT ST. I ~ (] ~
.
.
. TURNER-fT.
.
.
RD.
w u..i
~. .
. . . ~ u..i
o. WI Ii; ~
O' ~ .
01 W
- . CI:: 0
~. CI:: . U Z
z' ::> . ...J ~
~. ...J
W, I :I:
~. !a . C>
C> ~ . LAKEVlEW I
W
z
~
~
CD
GULF TO BA
BLVD
~ 0
~
ii2
0
W W
~ Z
~ W
W
~
RD.
t
BE LIlEVI EW
NURSERY RD.
BELLEAIR RD.
~
BELLEAIR
LARGO
-~---~-~.- -
S.1l. 60fJ.S. 19 ArMS Feasibility Stud)
,ater Traffic Signal System Communications
I
I
IG\U~ERl
~
. <:
.~..7J
V) ......
~ :::J.
:::J ~I
I-:- w.
U ::I:.
~
<
I
Jr
ij
~ ~~--.--- - ;-------- ---- -------------------------
.
't) ..
~\ ~.
~ z'
~: ~
~~ ~: ~
L::I:. CD
1 · S.R.60
-i--Ti~--1i----\ --+--
CLW MALL ~ 0 _\
::I:
~
V)
V4 Q
.
ci Bay
~ TROPIC HILLS Old Tampa
10p.~..~
O:l
~-ev 0- ~
..... ce
v! ~
CURTIS BLVD. :::J ~
a
~ CURTIS ~
W
::I:
U
.....
W
CD NURSERY RD.
~
o
z
o
~
6
~<J'
. ---~ Q
0-?-~ -
00~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c_~
t
N
~
Figure 2.3:
City 0/ Clearwater TraHie Signal
System Communications
2-7
z
~
::I:
~
. _..-..-u_.._.._.___.___~
u.i
~
DREW ST.
..-
u.i
~
o
.....
o
z
~
GTB PLAZA
LU
.....
~
LU
o
LU
~
o
DRUID RD.
~
>-
cc
I SEVILLE
--
BELLEAIR \ RD.
\
\1;4 ~ 3;'4
SCALE IN MILES
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
, , , , I
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
6 pro AERIAL CABLE
12 pr AERIAL CABLE
24 pr AERIAL CABLE
--------- 6 pro UNDERGROUND IN G.T.E. DUCT
12 pro UNDERGROUND IN G.T.E. DUCT
_11_11_ 24 pro UNDERGROUND IN G.T.E. DUCT
- - - - - - - - - 6 pro UNDERGROUND IN CITY DUCT
--------- 12 pro UNDERGROUND IN CITY DUCT
......... 24 pro UNDERGROUND IN CITY DUCT
......... 50 pro UNDERGROUND
SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
Staff Assist. III
Dina KatsolJ_f.llr!ki:;;_
PROJEC
DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Assistant Director of Engineering!
Project Development and Environmental
Tom Miller
Staff Assist. II
MicheleSmilh
E;~~1ffZ~?i~t
EI~~ti~~~~~g
B~~~ ~~?ker
ENGINEERING
Director of
Engineering
Mike QUI(len
Environmental Advisory
Board
~laleMgr
Earl Barrett
TraffJCCallT)ing Eng
Ken Sides
Eng.lEnv. Permitting
1~?rYd~i~~~ _
Env. Tech
Brett Gardener
Tra~'&i~J~rr
D~t:t::n~
LandT~a~~Ch
PUbhcWOrKsProjecl
Coordinator
John Richter
PRODUCTION
Assistant Director of Engineeringl
Production
Mike Quillen
~~j7X:;a'~'
Engineer ill
~~~wrfhB:r~~,t ___
--~
Drainage
6!.Q~rner
Eng. Tech
Allee Eckman
Engineer ,III
Glen Bahnlck
Engineer II
_~hrls Focsan_
E,ngineer_11
lisaMurnn
Engineer I
I<.~IIY
WATER
POLLUTION
CONTROL
WP.C
Superintendent
Ken Gilmore
See Attachment
"A
Eng Drt~~n~~~g~7isor
Syjre7R~t~~~gnator
Pa~elDembinskl
Design CAD Tech
Rich Novo-Mesky
CAD Techn;cian
Doug King
CAD Techn;cian
Ann Gilsdorf
CAD Technician
Ed Adams
Figure 2.4: City of Clearwater Public Works Organizational Chart
Staff Assist
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Director of
Publ;c
Kevin Becotte
Assit. Director of
Public
Joe Reckenwald
LAB
&IPP
LAB &
Superintendent
Doreen Spano
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
Cust Srv. Rep
~a.!:!!Y'!X(l_u~
WASTEWATER
COlLECTION
See Attachment See Attachment
"E "B
WWC
Superintendent
Dave Sickler
CAD Technician
Bob Van Duyne
CAD Technician
Sarah Gilkerson
CAD Techn;cian
Dave Larremore
Public Works
Administrator
MahshldArasleb
ADMINISTRATION
Staff Assist. III
_Diane Mann1-.__
CONSTRUCTION
WATER
Construction-
$uperintenaent
Ray BolE'r
Controller
Keith Bush
Urban ForestryMgr
Alan Mayberry
----
Tree Trimmer
Crew leader
Edward Davis
Tree Trimmer
Steve Ussery
Forestry Tech
Samuel Flagler
Party Chief
Rich Ramdton
patJChief
Surv.Asstll
Bob Hallett
Surv.Ass\. il
Steve
Surv, Assll
Mark Crellin
Surv,Assl.I
Ab<
Admin. Analyst
MartL~~. __
URBA
FORESTR
- tr~~TL~'J:/
_ _lim Hulburt
Tree Trimmer
Roy Thomen
F~:~:?;~r~h
RT~~:rJcPa~~n
_ ~~7~.~A~~.__
Party Chief
Bob Fernandez
Surv.Assl.lI
__ __ Guy Gallop ___
Surv.Assl.lI
John Richter III
Surv, Asst I
_ _.~~~~a_~a_
PUBLIC SERVICE
Sr. Accountant
Andrea Beane
Staff Assil
Mary Case
ROAD
DRAINAGE
Road & Drainage
Superintendent
Muhammad Abdur-Rahim
See Attachment
"0
PARKING SYSTEM
Director of
Public Services
Gary Johnson
-----
Tradesworker!l
Kenny Anderson
TRAFFIC
OPERATION
parkiTfa~:~i~~:~gr
Water
Superintendent
Andy Neff
See Attachment
"C
Constr,lnsp II Materials Tester
Rick Bennett Mark Petrie
Constr, Insp, II
Mark Carlson
Constr, Insp, II
Bob Sebek
Con.str, Insp, II
Phil
Constr, Insp, I
Jefflu.cas
2-8
Beach Parking
System
Cust Srv, Rep
Kim Espinosa
Admin. Analyst
Stephanie Stefanelli
Electronics Tech
Dane Heatherington
Parking Meter Tech
L~~~ ~~1<eer
Parking Attendant
Lead Worker
_. CindLMaybel"2:..__
Parking Meter Tech
Don Parker
par~~9 ~i~~re~ant
Parking Meter Tech
____Larry~__
Parking Attend,ant
Arleen McGuire
Parking Attendant
Sharon Sadowski
CITY 01-' C] ,L\I-~'.\'_,\TER FLUmD..\
I'CBIX \\"ORI("IIJ'IIl\L'F:IT10l\
]:r-.:G]!\].:!-:h']!\(;
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
. 2.1.4 City of Clearwater Fire/Rescue Preemption System
All Fire/Rescue in Pinellas County is dispatched through the Pinellas County 911
Center. The Pinellas County 911 Center is currently located on Ft. Harrison, but the
Center will relocate to Ulmerton Road and will co-locate operations with other
emergency agencies. As part of that relocation, Pinellas County will acquire a
dedicated communications link between the
911 Center and the City of Clearwater Police _ a _ .. -
Dispatch that will be capable of transmitting ..., _ _ WI'
video to the 911 Center. Pollee Er.S Transit Prabe PubllcWolks
The City of Clearwater Fire/Rescue has plans
to install an emergency preemption system
on select corridors throughout the City. The
system under consideration is the Opticom ™
Priority Control System by 3M TM. This system
uses a coded, infrared signal; the system
gives any authorized vehicle--emergency or
transit--the exclusive advantage of a green
light to get through traffic quickly, smoothly Copvriaht@ 1998 3M. All rights reserved
and safely. Components include emitters, detectors, phase selectors and accessories.
-', .
~;; /'/
~_4-
" I r I
/ I I
I
, :...---
-...---
- y-~-
l
\
I ,
\- '
r :~j
rt, I
.
The approach for Opticom ™ installation was to target corridors instead of individual
intersections. Below is a list of proposed locations.
S. R. 60 Corridor
Chestnut / Ft. Harrison
Court / Ft. Harrison
Court / Greenwood
Court / Hillcrest
Court / Missouri
S. R. 60 / Highland
S.R. 60/ U.S. 19
S. R. 60 / Keene
S.R. 60/ Hercules
S. R. 60 / Belcher
S.R. 60/ U.S. 19
S. R. 60 / West Mall Entrance
S. R. 60 / Park Place
S. R. 60 / Hampton
U.S. 19 Corridor
U.S. 19/ Ham
U.S. 19/ Drew
U.S. 19/ NE Coachman
U.S. 19/ Sunset Point
U.S. 19/ Enterprise
U.S. 19/ Druid
.
2-9
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
2.1.5 City of Clearwater Parking Systems
The City of Clearwater manages a combination of on-street and off-street parking
facilities. Currently, the City of Clearwater plans to build two new parking facilities:
· A public/private venture to construct an 800-space to 1,200-space parking
garage that will be bound b~ Gulfview on the west, Coronado on the east, 1 st
Street on the south, and st Street on the north. It is expected to house an
office for the parking and police subsystems. Anticipated construction date is
2004.
· A public parking lot that will hold approximately SOO to 600 parking spaces. It
will be located at Baymont and Poinsettia.
The City of Clearwater also has public parking lots in the Downtown area. These lots
are typically under-utilized during the weekend and during special events on the beach.
The City of Clearwater is currently investigating new technologies to aid in electronic
payment and managing the existing and proposed parking facilities. Some of these
technologies are reviewed in a separate document produced as part of the S.R. 60/U.S.
19 ATMS Feasibility Study, entitled "SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Technology Review".
. 2.1.6 Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) operates a fixed-route system serving
Pinellas County and downtown Tampa. It has two facilities, Clearwater and St.
Petersburg. PSTA's active fleet for FY 1997 consisted of 1S6 revenue vehicles and an
annual ridership of 9 million passenger trips. PSTA operates on a trunked 800M Hz
Motorola system that is provided and maintained by Pinellas County, which also
services Police, Fire, EMS and Sheriff departments in the County. PSTA plans to
implement an Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system to enhance their information
gathering capabilities. Once in place, PSTA plans to track their vehicles on a real-time
basis and provide this information to the public through information kiosks and at bus
stops equipped for announcements.
Figure 2.S depicts the bus routes along the study corridors. The three primary PSTA
bus routes that serve the SR. 60 and U.S. 19 corridors are highlighted below.
· Route 60 (Downtown Clearwater - Jasmine Courts). This bus route travels
the corridor between Bayview Avenue and the Park Street Terminal in
downtown Clearwater in both directions. The buses operate at 30-minute
.
2-10
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
intervals from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM and one hour interval from 7:15 PM until
9: 15 PM weekdays and Saturday.
· Route 62 (The Shoppes of Boot Ranch - Tyrone Square Mall). This bus route
travels the corridor between Belcher Road and McMullen Booth Road. The
buses operate at about one-hour intervals from 5:30 AM to 6:30 PM
weekdays and 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM Saturdays.
· Route 80 (Downtown Clearwater to Clearwater Beach): This bus route travels
between the Park Street Terminal in downtown Clearwater, North Clearwater
Beach and Sand Key Park.
PSTA offers trip-planning services providing route maps, schedules and information as
needed. In addition, the agency provides an information telephone line, up to 14 hours
a day, seven days a week including holidays. The PSTA Bikes on Buses program
allows travelers to ride their bike to the bus stop then board the bus with their bikes in
tow. A permit is required to participate in this program.
The PSTA systems allows the use of the "GO Card" instead of paying cash. This card
can be purchased for unlimited rides for a week or a month. The PSTA provides
demand response transportation services for people who, because of a disability, are
unable to independently use the generally accessible PST A buses. Reservations for
this service should be made up to one month before the scheduled trip, but not later
than 5:00 PM, the day before the trip.
2-11
S.R. 60IU.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
Figure 2.5: Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Bus Routes
a Df
ill
~
~\
'Ji
~~
~
~
~
!l"
I'l
~
c. Ji!
, ~Jl '~h. ..
" ,-
" -
\:'
~ \,,',
[~
'"
ill
BEU.EAIH'
:~'~
\~
~
"
~
2-12
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing conditions for S.R. 60 were evaluated to help prioritize the geographic
deployment of ATMS. Due to scope limitations, only available data was evaluated. The
two key elements evaluated include:
. Roadway Network
· Traffic and Accident Data
2.2.1 Roadway Network
S.R. 60 is a major thoroughfare between the Tampa Bay Area and Clearwater Beach. It
serves as an artery for Tampa Bay Area and Pinellas County travelers. Therefore, the
roadway network was evaluated to identify viable alternative routes for S.R. 60
motorists who travel within Pinellas County and those who have inter-county travel
patterns. Based upon these routes, key decision points (intersections) were identified
that would provide the maximum benefits for Dynamic Message Signs (OMS).
Roadway improvements are planned for the study corridors. The programmed
improvements will increase capacity for the following roadway segments:
.
· Memorial Causeway Bridge Replacement - This project involves the
replacement of the existing bascule bridge with a high-level, fixed span four-
lane bridge. The proposed bridge will be re-aligned to connect with the
existing one-way pair of Court and Chestnut Streets. In addition, Cleveland
will terminate into a roundabout, thus becoming a local road serving the
downtown Clearwater area. This will result in transferring the designation of
S.R. 60 from Cleveland to Court Streets.
· Widening of Keene Road between Druid Road and Drew Street
· Widening of Drew Street between NE Coachman Road and North Saturn
Avenue.
· Alt. U.S. 19 (Ft. Hairston Avenue) - Resurfacing from Belleair Road to Drew
Street. This project will include conduit for future use for A TMS
communications. This project will be complete before the Stage 1 A TMS
project begins.
In addition, the U.S. 19 and Drew Street intersection will be improved to a Single-Point
Urban Interchange (SPUI). These improvements are in the Transportation
Improvement Program through FY 2001/02, as indicated in the 1999 Transportation
Level of Service Report produced by the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning
Organization on May 12, 1999. Figure 2.6 shows the proposed roadway improvements
and identifies viable alternative routes. Intersections that provide access to these
alternative routes are also shown in Figure 2.6. These locations are candidate locations
.
2-13
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
for OMS and other field components that would inform motorist of non-recurring
congestion along SR. 60.
2.2.2 Traffic and Accident Data
The City of Clearwater provided the available traffic and accident data. This includes
Average Annual Daily Traffic counts and accident reports for 1998. The City of
Clearwater also provided turning movement counts and signal timing plans. Level-of-
Service information was obtained from the 1999 Transportation Level-of-Service Report
produced by the Pinel/as County Metropolitan Organization. Figure 2.7 summarizes the
data.
2-14
Figure 2.6: Proposed Improvements and Alternative Routes Ie
u.i DRUID RD.
Harbor ~ u.i
w ~ u.i
::> u.i
EFFORDS ~ 0 t;; ~ 0
0 ~ w
> ~
~ ~ ii2 ~ 0 ii2
::> u Z 0
....I :5
Z 0 ....I W W
W V) I I ~ Z
w V) :5 w
0:: C>
C> ~ w
LAKEVlEW I ~
RD.
w
Z
:5
E
a:l
BElllEVIEW
NURSERY RD.
-)
TURNER ST.
Clearwater ~/ '\
'f!
Harbor _i
Vii
~'!
il PALMmo ST.
SEMINOLE w
Z
Z :5
0 .~
~
w
~. a:l
~
DREW
GROVE ST
IAURA..$Jj
S~R. 60
IERCE
Z
....I
o
U
Z
::; COURT ST.
HESTISlUT
00
v~)'i
~
BELLEAIR
t-
Q
u.i
~
Z
0::
:::>
~
V)
,'X
;.
;:.'
1<"
~!i.
,
c:
1-
;r. 'to '.,', "" ":., J:. ... _. '. ".' ,~~ r.'" ",_' :'1 .~- '., .
ST.
u.i
>
..
CLEVELAND ST.
ZI
6
Z
::>
o
()
GULF TO BAY BLVD.
BELLEAJR RD.
LARGO
S.N. 601J.S. 19 ArMS Feasibility Stud]
.,. S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors
0
z
0
~
l5
~Q'
~ ~
(,~~
GO~
I'~ z
~
J:
~ DREW ST.
u
ui ui SINGLE POINT t> ci ui
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ioi URBAN INTERCHANGE 0
> ....I Z
f (/) 0 0 ~
w
I) ....I t
~ => z ~
u ~ ~
:> ~
~ w J: en
J:
~ S.R.60
w oi.
GTB PLAZA ......J 0 ~
......J
~ ~ 0
ClW MALL en
w ~
DRUID RD. 0 >- <(
w l:D J:
SEVillE
1<4 ~
SCALE IN MilES
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
. . . . I
SCALE IN FEET
3'4
,
V4 Q
ci ,
~ TROPIC Old Tampa Bay
HillS lOP.~.. ~
cP
~,p'1t 0- ~
r- ~
~ ~
CURTIS BLVD. =>
~
'6
~ CURTIS \~
w
J:
~
w
en NURSERY RD.
BELlEAIR ~ RD.
\
LEGEND
4 LANES DIVIDED
6 LANES DIVIDED
NEW ALIGNMENT
RESURFACING
Figure 2.6:
Proposed Improvements and
Ahernafive Routes lor
s.a. 60 and us. 19 Corridors
2-15
--- -
.
Figure 2.7: Tn
Clearwater
Harbor
'\/
'f!
PALMmO ST.
u..i
~
Z
'"
::>
~
I
.~
~
CLEVELA~D st.
u..i
Harbor w ~ u..i
::> ~ ~
JEFFORDS ~ t;; w
>
~ w 0 Q2
'"
u..i U Z 0 '"
~ PINEUAs ~ -J ~ w
:::! w Z
~ J: J: ~
~ w
C> w
z ~ LAKEVJEW J: ~
0 RD.
t/) w
Q2 0 Z
'"
< ~
J:
t ~
In
BELIlEVIEW
NURSERY RD.
BELLEAJR RD.
~
BELLEAIR
LARGO
S.1i. 6MJ.S. 19 ArMS Feasibilily Study
divc Data and Accident Data for s.H. 60
I
~I '-.J
0
~
l5 ~
~{J. .,., c:::;::::::::::
~
(j-?-~ ~ N
~
(jO~
/
DREW ST.
c:i u.i
ac:: ~
C W
...J ac::
0 ~ 0
:c
~ V)
~
a:l a:l
GTB PLAZA
54,086 c:i
ac:: TROPIC HILLS Old Tampa Bay
d'
~ 0- ~
r- <!J,
~ ~
CURTIS BLVD. => ~
'6
ac:: CURTIS ~
w
:c
u
...J
W
a:l NURSERY RD.
V4
,
Q 1<4 l1 3:'4
SCALE IN MILES
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
, . , , I
SCALE IN FEET
10p.~..~
LEGEND
I 54,751 I 1999 24-Hour Traffic Volume Counts
V///////////l LOS A, B, C
r////////////l LOS D
BELLEAIR ~ RD.
\
Y///////////~ LOS E
V///////////J LOS F
~ 1998 Accidents at Location
Figure 2.7:
Traffic Data and Accident Data
for S.N. 60
2-16
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
2.3 User Needs
This section will summarize the traffic management needs that were identified through
various activities including the requirement workshop, legacy review and other
stakeholder meetings. These needs provide the underlying foundation for the
development of an A TMS framework.
.
· Reduce Recurring Congestion - Congestion occurs at signals during
commute times as well as during the tourist season. There is a need to keep
mainline traffic moving, reduce the number of stops and reduce delay.
· Improve Parking Management - Although parking management is not part of
the Tampa Bay Regional Architecture, it will be addressed in this study.
Stakeholders from both the City of Clearwater Traffic and Parking
Management divisions expressed a need to better manage traffic flow during
peak periods of parking demand.
· Ensure coordination between the SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS system and other
ATMS and ITS systems in the region, including the Emergency Preemption
system, Pinellas A TMS system and the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority
system.
· Reduce Response Time to Incidents - Incidents, once reported may take
excessive time to respond to and clear due to inability of emergency vehicles
to access the site. Coordination among agencies is also required to
maximize the response efforts. Currently, the responding agencies (City of
Clearwater Police and EMS) are given general locations of the incident.
These agencies expressed a need to have more accurate information
regarding the location of the incident to reduce their delays in responding to
an incident.
· Reduce Non-Recurring Congestion - Backups quickly occur following an
accident, which creates delays and impacts intersecting streets. Safety is a
major concern for turning and merging vehicles, stopped vehicles, as well as
is for the potential of secondary accidents.
· Disseminate Traffic Information - Drivers are unaware of accidents, lane
restrictions or alternate routes. Information needed includes location of
incident, anticipated delay, alternate routes and type of incident. In the event
of an incident, the City of Clearwater Police Department expressed a need to
inform motorists of lane closures to improve maintenance of traffic during the
incident and improve safety.
· Improve Signal Timing - The timing plans currently operate as time-of-day
with a few signals timing plans developed for special events. Due to the
changing nature of traffic demands, there is a need to implement operational
strategies that are more real-time in nature (adaptive control). The current
timing plans were developed three years ago. It becomes costly to
continuously update timing plans.
.
2-17
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
· Optimize Roadway Monitoring - By having information regarding the status of
the roadway, operators of the traffic management system are able to adjust
the system to optimize traffic flow. Currently there is little information
provided back to traffic management personnel with which they can manage
the system.
· Improve Reliability of Traffic Information - travelers cannot approximate trip
times accurately due to daily variances in congestion and unpredictability of
traffic conditions.
· Provide Notification of Roadway Construction - Roadway construction and
improvement projects cause disruptions to traffic flow thus creating backups
and delays.
· Provide Special Events Coordination - Events, particularly in Clearwater
Beach, impact traffic along the corridor and parking availability. These events
may require coordination among agencies as well as special traffic
management provisions.
· Create Emergency Evacuation Timing Plans - Evacuation may be needed in
the case of a hurricane. Presently there are no timing plans related to
emergency evacuation. Currently, the City of Clearwater Police Department
places officers at each signalized intersection along S.R. 60 to manually
direct traffic. This creates heavy demand of the officers' time, especially
when incidents occur during the evacuation. Implementing more responsive
timing plans would greatly reduce the demand on the officers and enhance
operations during an evacuation.
· Provide Data for Planning - Planning of future deployments requires current
data to be collected. This data can assist multiple agencies including Pinellas
County MPO and FOOT.
· Improve Pedestrian Safety - consideration should be given to pedestrian
safety along the corridor.
· Provide Additional Staffing and Training - Need proper personnel and have
the commitment from local government. New systems are more advanced
requiring additional resources for both staffing and equipment. As the traffic
management systems are expanded, more staff is needed to operate and
maintain the additional systems. Presently there are not enough resources to
retime the system.
.
2.4 User Services
A User Service is an encapsulation of needs that must be satisfied if the system is going
to be considered successful by the user. The National ITS Architecture contains a
listing of 31 User Services. Current efforts are underway to update this list as new
needs are identified. This effort considered the user services identified in the Tampa
Bay Regional Architecture. The user service "Pedestrian Safety and Access" was
adopted to meet local needs of FOOT District 7. In addition, pedestrian safety was a
need identified in the stakeholder workshops held for this project. Therefore, Pedestrian
Safety and Access was adopted for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS.
.
2-18
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
User needs collected and compiled as part of this study were presented in Section 2.3.
Mapping of local needs into the structured language of User Services is the first critical
step in developing an overall A TMS framework for traffic management and the
development of project concepts. Also, converting local needs to a structured language
of User Services will promote consistency and compatibility between ITS systems
deployed along S.R. 60 and others in the region and throughout the nation.
2.4.1 Needs to User Services Mapping
In order to determine which User Services are appropriate to address the needs of the
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS a mapping of needs to user services was performed. Table 2.1
depicts how all but the need for additional staff can be addressed by the National ITS
Architecture. However, it is strongly recommended that City of Clearwater have
sufficient staff to operate and maintain any deployment of ITS before it is implemented.
Sufficient staff is essential to the success of ITS deployment along S.R. 60 and should
be addressed before the deployment of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS.
The following bullets discuss the thought processes that involved in the final selection of
user services to be addressed by the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS.
.
· The need to increase pedestrian safety can be addressed through the traffic
control user services, but only on a limited basis. Traffic control can improve
pedestrian safety by installing pedestrian signals at signalized intersections,
which is part of the existing infrastructure. Therefore, it is recommended that
this need continue to be addressed through other projects that involve
geometric, signing and pavement marking improvements.
· The user service Public Transportation Management was included to address
the need for event coordination. Although transit needs were not discussed
during the stakeholder workshops, the need to coordinate with other agencies
for events did arise. Therefore, coordination with the Transit Management
Subsystem should be part of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS. In addition, it is
recommended that the S.R. aD/U.S. 19 ATMS consider transit preemption
and traffic information sharing with local and regional transit agencies in the
conceptual design phase to allow for future expandability if the need should
arise in the future.
· The user service Emergency Vehicle Management can support the need to
improve incident management and requires the deployment of technologies
that are not included in A TMS deployment. However, the need for
coordination with the deployment of these technologies and the agencies
responsible for emergency management is important for the success of
incident management. Therefore, this user service was considered in the
development of a high-level architecture.
.
Based on the user needs to user services mapping analysis, the following user services
will be addressed by the SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS:
2-19
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
· En-Route Driver Information
· Traffic Control
· Incident Management
· Pre-Trip Travel Information
· Demand Management and Operations
· Public Transportation Management
· Parking Management
· Emergency Vehicle Management
· Pedestrian Safety and Access
· Archive Data User Service
The user services selected are consistent with the user services selected for Pinellas
County in the Tampa Bay Regional Architecture.
2-20
'"
I
'"
......
&i' m Ul m Ul ~ ~ ::J ~ 1
~ ~, ~ c: S
w < ~ (jj
Q' ~ !l!. ~ ~ CD * ~
Qf =:J, ia
"2- ::J ~ ::J @ III -l
~ ~ ::J ::J ;:, s-
III ~ @ 6' ~
::J I g> :T
::J ~ ~ Q, ~
tB' III ~ 1it ~ 0
& ~ .:< -l 'TI
~ iil cr 0' ~ I
31 ::J
::J
0' S' 0' 0 !l!. ~ ~
::J ~ ::J ~
=f g ~ ::J III -
3, =:J, III -g. "'\J
il il 3, ~' a
g 0 l:T
Jl f ~ iD
III ~ 3
~
~ ~ S'
~r Ul !
to'
~
. . PRE-TRIP TRAVEL INFORMATION
. . . EN-ROUTE DRIVER INFORMATION
ROUTE GUIDANCE
RIDE MATCHING AND RESERVATION
TRAVELER SERVICES INFORMATION
. . . . . TRAFFIC CONTROL
. . . INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
EMISSIONS TESTING AND MITIGATION
H IGHWA Y -RAIL INTERSECTIONS i=
. . PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT cr.
0
EN-ROUTE TRANSIT INFORMATION l
PERSONALIZED PUBLIC TRANSIT ~
PUBLIC TRAVEL SECURITY
)>
ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES a
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ELECTRONIC CLEARANCE i
AUTOMATED ROADSIDE SAFETY INSPECTION
ON-BOARD SAFETY MONITORING a
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES i
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL INCIDENT RESPONSE
...
COMMERCIAL FLEET MANAGEMENT g>
EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION AND PERSONAL SECURITY S.
. EMERGENCY VEHICLE MANAGEMENT S
LONGITUDINAL COLLISION AVOIDANCE
LATERAL COLLISION AVOIDANCE
INTERSECTION COLLISION AVOIDANCE
VISION ENHANCEMENT FOR CRASH AVOIDANCE
SAFETY READINESS
PRE-CRASH RESTRAINT DEPLOYMENT
AUTOMATED VEHICLE OPERATION
. . ARCHIVED DATA FUNCTION
. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS.
>I-
0.
ct>
::J
.-+
31
ct>
0.
::J
.-+
::r
ct>
-i
Q)
3
"0
Q)
lD
Q)
'<
:::0
ct>
co
0' -I
::J
Q) D)
C"
)> CD
...,
(') N
::r ...a.
;:+
ct>
~ c::
c: tn
..., CD
ct> ...
C'" Z
c: CD
.-+ CD
::J C.
a tn
0. S'
ct> c::
<
ct> tn
0 CD
"0 ...
ct> en
0. CD
Q) <
.-+ n'
.-+
::r CD
ct> tn
.-+ 3:
3' D)
ct> "0
.-+ "E.
::r
en' ::s
CD cc
"0 ~
0 ;:0
;:+ 0)
:E ~
Q) !=::
C/) ~
:E ....
..., co
;:+
.-+ l:-
ct>
::J ~
C/)
~
II)
en
5=
-.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
. 2.5 S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Mission
.
.
A mission statement is an overall guiding statement that provides direction for all
actions. In the Context of SR. 60, the Mission Statement will guide the future direction
for managing traffic with ITS along the corridor. The Mission statement for the S.R.
60/U.S. 19 ATMS is as follows:
The City of Clearwater will deploy ITS applications to manage traffic and complement
existing and future infrastructure to:
· Enhance mobility, safety and security of its users.
· Increase the efficiency of the City of Clearwater traffic operations and
equipment maintenance.
· Promote regional mobility through cooperation of agencies and integration of
systems.
2.6 S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Vision
The vision is a non-technical, long-term view of how life will be along the S.R. 60 and
U.S. 19 Corridors with the implementation of traffic management applications. The
Vision provides a concept of operations for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS and presents
points of view from various users.
2.6.1 Concept of Operations
The concept of operations for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS project requires a coordinated
effort among the stakeholders. Pinellas County A TMS Coordinating Committee and
FOOT District 7 Traffic Operations should direct this effort. Other participating agencies
include Pinellas County Traffic Engineering, City of St. Petersburg Traffic Engineering,
Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, Office of Emergency Management,
Pinellas County 911 / City of Clearwater Fire/Rescue, City of Clearwater Parking
Management, City of Clearwater Police Department, and Pinellas Suncoast Transit
Authority. The primary traffic control center will be housed at City of Clearwater Public
Works Building on 100 South Myrtle. City of Clearwater Traffic Engineering will be
responsible for the operations and maintenance of the traffic control center, field
components and communications. Monitoring and control capabilities will be shared
with the Pinellas County Traffic Engineering and City of St. Petersburg Traffic
Engineering. Monitoring capabilities shall be provided to Pinellas County 911, City of
Clearwater Police Department, City of Clearwater Parking Management and Pinellas
Suncoast Transit Authority. Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization and
FOOT shall be able to obtain data collected by the system to aid in their planning efforts
and evaluation efforts. In addition, information shall be shared with other regional
centers as determined by the FOOT District 7 ITS Architecture.
2-22
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
The S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS will include roadway monitoring of SR. 60, traffic signal
control, traffic signal monitoring and traffic information dissemination. Wireline
communications will be used between the field components and the traffic control center
as well as between the traffic control center and the Pinellas County 911 Center. The
traffic control center will share information with other transportation centers through
wireline communications.
The traffic signal control strategies will adjust traffic signal timings to reflect changing
traffic conditions detected from the roadway monitoring. The system should have the
capabilities to detect changing traffic conditions caused by daily and seasonal
variances, incidents and special events. The incident detection and removal time
should be reduced to minimize the delays to motorists. The reductions should result
from sharing information collected by the roadway monitoring between the Traffic
Management Center and emergency dispatch time. This information should assist in
more timely dispatching of the appropriate resources more timely, while also informing
the resources of the fastest route to the incident. In addition, information about the
incident (Le., duration, lane reductions) should be shared with the Traffic Management
Center to aid in selecting the appropriate traffic control strategies.
2.6.2 Commuter
The commuter who uses the corridor early in the morning and afternoon on their way to
and from work will experience several improvements. Before leaving for work, they may
check the traffic conditions via electronic means. These traffic reports may be
personalized or provided as a broadcast to potential users. While driving along the
corridor, roadway sensors detect the changing traffic conditions and adjust the signals
to optimize the traffic flow, reducing the number of stops, and to make journey times
more reliable. In the case of an incident, the driver is notified of the type and location of
incident as well as an alternate route if available.
2.6.3 Traffic Management System Operator
The system operator is alerted to slowdowns in traffic along the corridor and uses video
cameras to determine if there is an incident. Verifying an incident, the operator contacts
the 911 Center to inform them of the incident. At the same time, the operator chooses a
message, which is then broadcast, to travelers along the corridor. This message may
contain incident location, type, estimated delay and possible alternative routes.
The system also collects a variety of system data including travel times, traffic volumes,
vehicle classifications, and speed. This data, collected in real-time, is used to optimize
the signal timings and is used offline for planning, modeling future conditions, and to
meet other Department data collection needs.
2-23
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
The system operator also has the capability to adjust the signal system for special
events such as carnivals, concerts, sporting events and hurricanes. In the event of a
hurricane, signal control can be used to optimize the evacuation of residents and
visitors. The operator can coordinate with the Office of Emergency management to
provide evacuation information to motorists.
2.6.4 Tourists and Retired Senior Citizens
Many visitors come to the western area of Pinellas County. Many of these are elderly
seasonal residents. The travel characteristics of these users show they primarily use
the corridor from late morning through the afternoon hours. They will experience similar
benefits in the reduction of delays and the accuracy of travel times, as experienced by
commuters. As these users may not be as familiar with the area, they are able to
access customized information that may include route information, and possible
alternatives.
2.6.5 Police I Emergency Medical Services
.
The police are an integral part of the management of transportation systems. With ITS
implementations along the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors, the police will receive
improved and additional capabilities. Sensors along the roadway can be used to
determine when vehicles slow down and reach a specific threshold. At the preset
speed, an alarm will be triggered to alert traffic management personnel. The traffic
operator will be able to determine the type and severity of incidents and relay this
information to police and EMS. This information will arrive quickly to help reduce the
response time but will also allow proper response to be sent. The traffic signal system
will be fitted with a system that gives emergency vehicles preemption to reduce delays.
Roadside devices will also be used to relay information to the motorists. This
information will help to dissipate congestion and may reduce secondary accidents.
2.6.6 Public Transportation Users I Operators
Implementing ITS along S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors will provide benefits to both the
transit management operators and transit users. Real-time traffic information will
provide the transit management operators the information required to re-route buses
when needed to avoid major delays to transit users. The traffic and travel data collected
from ITS will assist the transit managers in adjusting bus schedules and routes to better
meet demand as it changes over time. Transit preemption will help minimize delays to
transit vehicles.
The transit user will see the benefits by improved transit operations, which will make
transit a more viable and reliable solution to travel along the corridor. ITS
communication infrastructure will be a shared resource for sending valuable traveler
information to individual transit users at bus stops and major attractions.
.
2-24
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
SECTION 3.0: S.R. GO/U.S. 19 ATMS FRAMEWORK
.
In the context of ITS, the "architecture" describes what a system does and how it does
it, providing the general framework within which the various system components are
deployed. It identifies the processes to be performed by subsystems, and defines the
flows of information and the interfaces between the subsystems. The user services
identified in Section 2.4.1 and the National ITS Architecture were used to develop the
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework.
3.1 National ITS Architecture
The National ITS Architecture and Tampa Bay Regional Architecture were developed to
ensure compliance with federal guidelines, compatibility with regional ITS deployments,
and to maximize the benefits of ITS. Using the National ITS Architecture and Tampa
Bay Regional Architecture allows for comparison and the identification of interfaces with
other architectures which may be developed for the region. The benefits of using the
National Architecture include the following:
.
· Helps identify agencies and jurisdictions that should participate in the creation
of the regional architecture, and helps these organizations communicate
complex ideas by providing a common language.
· Enables up-front planning for the development of an entire system, allowing
for phased implementation while reducing the possibility of future costly
retrofits.
· Reduces the possibility of costly "gaps" in system definition and integration
requirements.
· Provides a framework for integrating legacy systems with each other and with
new, open systems.
· Provides a basis for moving forward with individual projects while a regional
architecture is under development.
· Identifies where standards should be used to make possible the development
of open interfaces supported by multiple vendors.
Furthermore, the National ITS Architecture and Tampa Bay Regional Architecture
provide a direct relationship to National ITS Standards that are needed to specify how
ITS components are to be interconnected, and to provide uniform data definitions.
Therefore, the National ITS Architecture provides the input required for the development
of a standards plan.
The key architecture concepts used in the development of the National ITS Architecture
were used in the development of the S.R. 60 ITS Architecture. They include:
. · User Services and User Service Requirements
3-1
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
-
. Logical Architecture
. Physical Architecture
. Market Packages
. Equipment Packages
The following provides a brief description of the key architecture concepts and how they
were applied in the development of the SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework. The user
services, logical and physical architectures were used to show how the S.R. 60/U.S. 19
ATMS deployment fits into a high-level "big ITS picture" for the region. The market
packages were focused on S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS deployment. The equipment
packages supporting the market packages were identified and used to develop an
implementation strategy.
3.1.1 User Services and User Service Requirements
The user services were previously identified in the Section 2.0. They represent what
the system will do from the perspective of the user and what high level services will be
provided to address identified problems and needs. There are a number of functional
requirements required to carry out each user service, which are called user service
req uirements.
.
These user services were used to define the logical and physical aspects of the S.R.
60/U.S. 19 A TMS Framework at a high level. For the logical architecture, the user
services were used to identify high-level processes that will be needed. In addition, at
the conceptual design phase, the detailed user service requirements will be used to
identify specific logical functions that will drive the system's functional requirements.
For the physical architecture, user services were used to identify strategies (market
packages) that can be implemented.
3.1.2 Logical Architecture
The logical architecture was used to assist in organizing the functional processes and
information flows of a system. The logical architecture helped to identify the system
functions and information flows, as well as guide the development of functional
requirements for new systems and improvements. The logical architecture is
independent of institutions and technology. Therefore, it was not used to define where
or by whom functions are performed in the system, nor should it identify how functions
are to be implemented.
The logical architecture of the National ITS Architecture defines a set of processes and
information / data flows that respond to the user services. Processes and data flows
are grouped to form particular transportation management functions, which break down
into several levels of detail. The highest level of the National ITS Architecture has eight
. major processes. They are:
3-2
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
. Manage Traffic
· Manage Commercial Vehicles
· Provide Vehicle Monitoring and Control
. Manage Transit
. Manage Emergency Services
· Provide Driver and Traveler Services
· Provide Electronic Payment Services
. Manage Archived Data
The manage traffic process (which includes traffic signal control functions) interacts with
the other seven processes. The manage traffic process is then further broken down to
a level that provides a complete functional view of a system. At the lowest level of detail
are the process specifications (referred to as P-specs). These process specifications
can be thought of as the elemental functions to be performed in order to satisfy the user
service requirements.
Table 3.1 shows the relationship between the S.R. 60 user services and the National
ITS Architecture major process. The S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Architecture should
support all or part of the following major processes, which are depicted in Figure 3.1:
. Manage Traffic
. Manage Transit
· Manage Emergency Services
· Provide Driver and Traveler Services
. Manage Archived Data
It should be noted that the processes for Manage Transit and Manage Emergency
Vehicles were included due to the need for coordination among transit management
and emergency communications centers for the City of Clearwater and the County, and
the traffic control center. In addition, these processes involve the deployment of signal
preemption, which needs to be closely coordinated with the deployment of traffic signal
systems.
3-3
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 3.1: Mapping S.R. 60 User Services to ITS Processes
~aJorlTS Processes
(5 ro
-
ro L.. ro
- >- Cl
.e c (J -0 l/)
L.. 0 C (J l/) "'0
Q) ~() Q) C Q) .- Q) Q)
- C 0
0 E ::J-o .w ~ ro 0 o .- .~
L.. ._ ~ 2:
:E E .~ C C Q) ~ 2: .c
~ .c ro ro E o Q) 0
0 Q) 0) L.. .- Q) ~CI) L..
I- () > C I- W o(j) w_ ~
Q) Q) l/) Q) .;:: Q) Q) l/) L.. Q) C Q)
Q) Q)
0) O)~ "'0 0 0) O)~ -0 - -0 Q) 0)
ro ro 0 .- - ro ro .- .- Q) .- E ro
C C .- > .- C C 2: > > > >. C
ro ro.c o C ro ro Q) e ~ e ro ro
SR 60 User Services ~~ L.. 0
~ o..~ ~ ~(j) 0..1- 0..0.. ~
I raTTlc t..;ontrol .
InCident Management .
Pedestnan ~arety anCfAccess .
Uemand Management and operations .
Varkjng Management .
E:mergency venlCle Management .
En-Route Unver Inrormatlon .
Vre-Tnp I ravel In TO rmatlo n .
IPUbllC I ransportatlon Management . . .
IArcnlve uata user ~ervlce .
3-4
S.R. eo/u.s. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
Figure 3.1: Processes and Data Flows to Support Project Architecture
.
Manage
Transit
Manage
Emergency
Services
Manage
Archived
Data
3.1.3 Physical Architecture
The physical architecture provides agencies with a physical representation (though not
a detailed design) of how the system should provide the required functionality
(processes) identified in the logical architecture. The processes were assigned to
physical entities (called subsystems in the National ITS Architecture). In addition, the
data flows between the logical processes (from the logical architecture) that originate
from one subsystem and end at another are grouped together into (physical)
architecture flows. In other words, one architecture flow may contain a number of more
detailed data flows. These architecture flows and their communication requirements
define the interfaces required between subsystems. The physical architecture identifies
the desired communications and interactions between different transportation
management organizations.
Based upon an assessment of the requirements of the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors, a
distributed architecture is recommended. This approach allows the autonomy needed
for localities and agencies to effectively operate their systems. All command and
control processes remain at the individual agencies. Yet, by establishing an information
network, this approach also provides the data and information sharing and inter-agency
.
3-5
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ArMS Feasibility Study
coordination/cooperation processes necessary to meet transportation needs of the
future. With respect to the control of the traffic management system, Pinellas County
will house the database in a central location.
To assist in viewing all of the elements of the ATMS framework, a layered concept is
used. Figure 3.2 depicts the physical architecture in three layers: Technical,
Institutional and Commercial. Both the technical and institutional layers will be
discussed below. The commercial layer was not developed. The commercial layer
identifies where outside funding may be obtained as well as how money flows from
agency to agency. This typically occurs with partnering with private agencies, where
the private agency provides services to motorists such as traveler information. Since
this is an A TMS framework and there is no anticipated activity for private agencies in
the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS, the commercial layer will not be explored. It should however
be part of the regional architecture which includes all areas of ITS.
Commercial Layer was not developed for SR 60
Subsystems
Communications
People
Organizations
Relationships
Agreements
Revenue
Profit
Subsidy
Risk
Figure 3.2: Three Layer Concept for National ITS Architecture
3-6
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
3.1.4 Technical Layer
The National ITS Architecture has identified nineteen interconnected subsystems as
shown in Figure 3.3. The subsystems align closely with typical jurisdictional and
physical boundaries that underscore the operation and maintenance of current
transportation systems. By mirroring the current transportation environment with the
identified subsystems, the subsystem boundaries identify the likely candidates for
interface standardization. The architecture recognizes these boundaries to minimize
the impact associated with adoption of the architecture. Maximum commonality
between existing transportation system boundaries and architecture boundaries serves
to minimize the number of artificial boundaries that are imposed (and constrained) by
the architecture. Using the National ITS Architecture allows for comparison and the
identification of interfaces with other architectures that may be developed for the region.
The subsystems may be grouped into four distinct subsystem classes that share basic
functional, deployment and institutional characteristics (Center, Roadside, Vehicle, and
Remote Traveler Support).
A long-term technical layer for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS was developed based upon
the existing subsystems and the National ITS Architecture. Figure 3.4 shows how the
existing agencies correspond with the National ITS Architecture.
3-7
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.3: High-level Technical Layer of National ITS Architecture
3-8
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Centers
c
OJ
E
OJ
C>
III
li c:
III
OJ Q; :i:
0 u C>
OJ ';;; c:
,!.? e :.i2
..... C> (5 0 0- ro
t5 :; 0- 0- OJ 0-
Q; 'C: .0 .... .... u Q;
I. - - ----- ---- - - - -- - -- - -- ---- in Ul ,., OJ OJ '2:
(ij is Q; C (ij (ij OJ (ij
~ l- V :J ~ ~ CI) ~
III 0- 0 III III c: III
Travelers OJ 0 ii5 u OJ OJ ,2 OJ
U 0 Ul U U co U
'0 III '0 .!!! E '0
u Qi
Remote Traveler ~ 'E ~ c: .E ~
U Li: U a:: E u
Support
Wireline Communications
Ul
~~
~ 0
~~
<>
OJ '-
Olt:
t: ::>
III E
0:: E
~8
.c:
CI)
Roadside
,
,
,
,
1_- __ _ _ _______ _._ ______ ______ _ ___ _____ _ __ _ ___ ___ _ __ ____
Figure 3.4: High-Level Technical Layer of S.R. GO/U.S. 19 ATMS
Legend
Existing Linkages
Stage 1 Project Linkages
, Future Linkages (beyond Stage 1)
or through separate projects
3-9
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
3.1.5 Institutional Layer
While an institutional layer is not actually part of the physical architecture, the physical
architecture cannot be fully defined in a region without some decisions being made
regarding the jurisdictional structure and working relationships that will provide a
framework for ITS planning and implementation. These institutional decisions should
lead to depiction of who should communicate with whom, and what information should
be communicated in the transportation and communications layers, and will vary based
on the unique needs and characteristics of a region.
It is envisioned that the City of Clearwater will be ultimately part of a regional traffic
management effort composed of state, county and private agencies. Currently there is
only one formal agreement between City of Clearwater and an outside agency. The
current agreement with FOOT calls for City of Clearwater to provide operations and
maintenance of traffic signals on the State Highway System within City of Clearwater.
Figure 3.5 was extracted from the Tampa Bay Regional Architecture and illustrates how
the City of Clearwater fits into the FOOT ~istrict wide framework to support a long-term
deployment of ITS applications.
Figure 3.6 illustrates the City of Clearwater agreements necessary to support long-term
deployment of ITS applications within Pinellas County. Pinellas County MPO is in the
process of coordinating the three countywide Traffic Management Centers (City of
Clearwater, City of St. Petersburg, and Pinellas County) into an ATMS Virtual Center.
This would unify A TMS applications, management and operations for Pinellas County
while allowing Clearwater and St. Petersburg to retain autonomous control over their
local signal operations. As part of this effort, there are plans to formulate an ATMS
Committee. Based upon this information, institutional agreements that have countywide
impacts will most likely be brokered through the A TMS Committee. Traffic Engineering
and the other agencies shown will broker agreements with the A TMS Committee.
Agreements with City of Clearwater Police Department and Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) agencies will mainly be for incident management where coordination
needs to occur to dispatch resources or control traffic flow. Regarding EMS, an
agreement will be needed for the use of preemption devices. In the case of FOOT,
agreements may be needed for incident management, information dissemination or
even control of devices. The City of Clearwater Parking Management and PST A will
most likely have agreements for information sharing and coordination for special events.
The MPO is most interested in data that is collected from the roadway. In addition, in
regards to data, several private agencies are collecting data, processing and
disseminating it to motorists. An agreement would be needed to determine the type of
data, frequency of reports, and quality of data, which is provided to these companies.
An agreement with the Office of Emergency Management needs to be established in
order to pass control of traffic devices in the case of a natural disaster.
3-10
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS FeaSibi/i.
~
~
Towing Dispatch
t
I"~I
I-I
I ~~~l
External ITS
Figure 3.5: Tampa Bay Regional Institutional Architecture
3-11
.
.
S.R. so/u.s. 19 A TMS FeaSibili~
City of Clearwater
Parking
Manal!ement
Pinellas County
A TMS Coordination
Committee
(FDOT-7)
PSTA
Office of
Emergency
Management
Figure 3.6: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 AlMS Institutional layer
3-12
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
3.1.6 Market Packages
The market packages are directly traceable to both the architecture framework and the
user services that were the source requirements for the S.R. 60 ITS Architecture. A
market package is implemented with a combination of interrelated equipment; this
equipment often resides in several different subsystems within the architecture
framework and may be operated by different stakeholders. They are groupings of
technologies that when implemented perform a measurable service. Market packages
are technology dependent but not technology specific. This means they rely upon
certain types of technologies but do not specify the kind of technology. This is done to
allow for future developments and so specific design decisions may be made
independent of determining the type of application desired.
Market packages identify the functionality and system components required for
delivering user services. The user services selected for S.R. 60 were mapped to viable
market packages in Table 3.2. The following criteria were used in the selection of
market packages:
.
· How well the market package addresses the user service, is consistent with
local needs and provides a basis for future integration with other systems.
· Level of government involvement required in deploying market
packages/technologies.
· Maturity of technology, ease of implementation, and costs.
During the determination of applicable market packages, some issues were discussed
and are mentioned below.
.
· APTS 07 Multi-modal Coordination was added to meet the need for
coordination among S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS and transit agencies, as well as,
transit signal preemption.
· Two undeveloped market packages were discussed, Pedestrian Safety and
Evacuation Coordination. The development of new market packages was
beyond the scope of this project. In addition, these market packages have
national and state impacts and should be further developed with a much
broader stakeholder group than those participating in this project. However,
this project took the first step in market package development by conducting a
technology review of the Pedestrian Safety products. This review is part of a
separate document entitled "S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study _
Technology Review". It is recommended that the need for these market
packages be expressed to the National ITS Architecture Team and that
development of the market packages should be closely monitored as they
may address some of the user needs identified during the stakeholder
meetings.
3-13
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
In comparing the results of the user services to market packages mapping analysis,
some differences arose from the proposed market packages selected for Pinellas
County in the Tampa Bay Regional Architecture. They are:
. The market package Traffic Prediction and Demand Management was
selected for S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS, whereas it was not selected for Pinellas
County by the Tampa Bay Regional Architecture. It was included in the S.R.
60/U.S. 19 ATMS because it provides the function of longer-range forecasts
that can be used in transportation planning and event planning.
. The market package Parking Facility Management was selected for S.R.
60/U.S. 19 ATMS, whereas it was not selected for Pinellas County by the
FOOT 07 Strategic Plan for ITS. It was included in the S.R. 60/U.S. 19
A TMS because it provides the requested coordination for event planning
between the City of Clearwater Traffic Engineering and the City of Clearwater
Parking Management.
· The market package Multi-Modal Coordination was selected for S.R. 60/U.S.
19 A TMS, where as it was not selected for Pine lias County by the Tampa Bay
Regional Architecture. It was included in the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS because
it provides the function of transit signal preemption and coordination with
transit agencies for event planning.
. 3.1.7 Equipment Packages
To understand and analyze deployment variations, the defined market packages must
be reduced to their basic elements. The portion of the market package capabilities that
are allocated to each subsystem are segregated and defined as equipment packages.
An equipment package represents a set of equipmenUcapabilities, which are likely to be
purchased by an end-user to achieve a desired capability. Equipment packages are
both the most detailed elements of the physical architecture and are associated with
specific market packages.
The equipment packages are the building blocks of the physical architecture
subsystems. They group similar processes of a particular subsystem into an
"implementable" package. The grouping also takes into account the user services and
the need to accommodate various levels of functionality. The equipment packages
were used as a basis for estimating deployment costs.
.
3-14
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 3.2: S.R. GO/U.S. 19 A TMS User Service to Market Package Mapping
user ~ Ylce
~ I-
W -. Z CJ)
(9 CJ) w CJ)
z Z I- <( W ~ W
0 0 z CJ) z 0 w 0
I- W Z <( > (9 0
I- <( ~ 0 ~ c::: <( <(
<( ~ z z
~ W I- Z W <( 0 0
c::: (9 0 0 CJ)I-
c::: 0 I- W ~ I- Z
0 Z <( I- I-z <(
ll.. Z CJ) W 0
ll.. Z W <( c::: <( Zw ....J Z >-
Z ~ W I- w~ 0 :J I-
- c::: ....J W ~ I- 0::: ~w W
....J 0 (9 Z 0 >-(9 I ll.. ll..
W 0
W > c::: <( z - 0- <(<( W <( <(
> I- Z <( ....J CJ) O-z > I- CJ)
<( c::: z <( ~ <( z 0<( >- <( z
c::: 0 0
I- 0 ~ W c::: <( z~ 0 <(
w 0 I c::: Z 0
0- l- I- 0 >- I- 0(9 W W c:::
c::: :J 0 Z ....J ~ 0 C:::z (9 > I-
0 ll.. W W 1-- CJ)
l- ll.. 0 > :J o~ c::: I W
I c::: I
lVbrket Package w I <( 0 <( (9 m wc::: w 0 0
c::: z c::: c::: :J ....J<( ~ c::: w
0- W I- Z l- I 0- WO- W <( 0-
PD2 IlS Data Wlreha.Jse .
.APTS7 M.llti-rrodaI Coordination .
AllS2 Interactive Traveler Infonration .
AllvS)1 Nav.ak SuveiIIa1Ce . . . . .
ATWS03 Suface Street Caltrol . .
AlNBl5 Traffic Infonration Dssenination .
AllvS)7 Regional Traffic Control .
ATfvS)8 Incident rvBnagerrent System .
AlM:m Traffic A"edic:tion ard Derrand rvBnagerrent .
AThf610 E1ectrc:ric Toll Collection .
AThf613 Stardad Railroa:i Qade Crossing . .
AThf619 Regional Parking rvBnagerrent . . .
EM! Errergercf ResJ:x>nse .
Table 3.3 provides a complete listing of the equipment packages for each market
package/subsystem combination applicable for deploying A TMS along S.R. 60 and U.S.
19. In the table, the rows represent the defined market packages, the columns
represent the subsystems and the center section of the table identifies the associated
equipment packages. Related market packages are grouped along the left side to
present the total set of equipment packages, which make up a particular market
package deployment. Since the implementation plan was specifically developed for
S.R. 60 and U.S. 19, the only subsystems considered were Pinellas County Traffic
Management Center and roadway subsystems.
3-15
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
3.2 S.R. GO/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework
The Tampa Bay Regional Architecture and the National ITS Architecture were used to
develop an S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework. As a result, market packages were
selected to provide user services to meet the needs identified in section 2.0. Figures
3.7a through 3.7m present a high-level architectural view of the SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS
Framework. It compiles the selected market packages and equipment packages. In
addition, it identifies high-level information flows (architecture flows) between the
subsystems and terminators, which can provide a basis for the development of
Memorandums of Understanding between agencies.
Figures 3.7a through 3.7m include subsystems that are not part of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19
A TMS, but need to be identified and incorporated into the operations to meet the user
services through information sharing. In addition, Figures 3.7a through 3.7m identify
how the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS will interact with the Transit Management Subsystem as
PSTA advances their Advanced Public Transportation program. The need to coordinate
with other agencies for events did arise. Therefore, coordination with the Transit
Management Subsystem should be part of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS. In addition, it is
recommended that the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS consider transit preemption and traffic
information sharing with local and regional transit agencies in the conceptual design
phase for future expandability if the need should arise in the future.
3-16
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
Table 3.3: Mapping of S.R. GO/U.S. 19 ATMS Market Packages, Subsystems and
Equipment Packages
.
Subsystems
City of Clearwater Traffic City of Clearwater
Management Center Roadway Subsystem
AD2 ITS Data ~ Traffic Data Collection ~ Roadside Data Collection
Warehouse
ATMS01 Network ~ Collect Traffic Monitoring ~ Basic Roadway Monitoring
Monitoring ~ Traffic Maintenance
A TMS03 Surface Street ~ TMC Signal Control ~ Roadway Signal Controls
Control ~ Traffic Maintenance
A TMS06 Traffic ~ TMC Traffic Information ~ Roadway Traffic
Information Dissemination Information Dissemination
(/) Dissemination
Q)
0') A TMS07 Regional ~ TMC Regional Traffic
co
~ Traffic Control Control
u
co A TMS08 Incident ~ TMC Incident Detection ~ Roadway Incident
a..
- Management System ~ TMC Incident Detection
Q) Dispatch/Communication
~
....
co A TMS09 Traffic ~ TMC Traffic Network
~ Prediction and Demand Performance Evaluation
Management
A TMS 13 Standards ~ HRI Traffic Management ~ Standard Railroad Crossing
Railroad Crossing (Preemption for traffic
signals)
APTS7 Multi-Modal ~ TMC Multi-Modal ~ Roadside Signal Priority
Coordination Coordination
EM2 Emergency ~ Roadside Signal Priority
Routing
3-17
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
The following is a legend for Figures 3. 7a-3. 7m.
A subsystem that contains equipment package(s) included in the
market package recommended for the S.R. 60 ATMS.
An equipment package included in market package recommended for
the S.R. 60 ATMS.
Traffic Information.
Architecture flow and direction of flow between subsystems (not
· equipment packages) that supports the operation of a market package
recommended for the S.R. 60 ATMS.
( Med~ ')
This is a terminator that participates in the market package.
. Terminators define the boundary of the regional ITS architecture. The
terminators represent the people, systems and general environment
that interface to, but no functional requirements are allocated to
Information
Service
Provider
~ This is a subsystem that participates in the operations of a market
-.. package through data sharing.
3-18
S.R. eo/u.s. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7a: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATIS2)
A TIS2 - Interactive Traveler
Traffic
Management
traffic
information
transit and fare
schedules
Transit
Maljagement
Leaend:
Transit Management - PSTA
Remote Traveler Support - PST A Kiosks
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater
Emergency Management - City of Clearwater PO Dispatch, County 911
Information Service Provider - Metro Networks, TiRN, Tampa Bay On-
Personal Info Access - City of Clearwater, Etak, other
Weather Service - National Weather
Vehicle - Vehicle
Media - Local Newspapers, TV, and Radio
( ':e~:r)
Incident information
traveler information
for media
.. I3merg~cy
Mallag~ept
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
.
3-19
.
.
.
S.R. so/u.s. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7b: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (AD2)
AD2 - ITS Data Warehouse
archive reoUeAts
transit archive data
weather
info.
Leaend:
Transit Management - PST A
Parking Management - City of Clearwater Parking Management
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Emergency Management - City of Clearwater PO Dispatch, County 911 Dispatch
Information Service Provider - Metro Networks, TiRN
Construction & Maintenance - City of Clearwater Public Works
Weather Service - National Weather Service
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Detectors)
Other Data Sources - City of St. Petersburg TOC, PinelJas County TOG
Archived Data Management - PinelJas County
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
3-20
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
A TMSOl - Network Surveillance
re uest for
traffic information
traffic flow
traffic
information
traffic images
Leaend:
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Information Service Provider - Metro Networks, TiRN
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Detectors)
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
.
3-21
.
.
.
S.R. so/u.s. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7d: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS03)
ATMS03 - Surface Street Control
si al control data
traffic flow
signal control stalus
request for
right~f-way
sensor and
surveillance control
crossing alerts.C Pede$triau)
& permission " "
Leaend:
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Detectors, CCTV, Traffic Signals, OMS)
Driver - Driver
Pedestrian - Pedestrian
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
3-22
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7e: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (APTS7)
APTS7 - Multi-Modal Coordination
Other Transit
Muagement
TRMS
coordination
transit
system
data
traffic traffic
control control
priority priority
status request
transit vebide
schedule performance
local
signal
priority
request
Leaend:
Transit Management - PSTA
Transit Vehicles - PSTA Buses
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Signals with Preemption)
Other Transit Management. HART
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
signal control data
3-23
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibilitr Study
Figure 3.7f: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 AlMS Framework (AlMS06)
A TMS06 Traffic Information Dissemination
traffic informatio
for media
traffic information
or transit
roadway information
system status
Transit
Management
traffic
information
broadcast
advisories
driver
information
current
network
conditions
~~
Emergency
Management
Information
Service
Provider
Leaend:
Transit Management. PSTA
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Emergency Management. City of Clearwater PD Dispatch, County 911 Dispatch
Information Service Provider - Metro Networks, TiRN
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., DMS, HAR)
Media - Newspaper, Local TV, Radio
Driver - Driver
Basic Vehicle - In-vehicle receivers Q.e., AM Radios)
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
3-24
.
.
.
S.R. so/u.s. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7g: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS07)
A TMS07 - Regional Traffic Control
Roadway
traffic
control
coordination
traffic
information
coordination
Other TM
Leaend:
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (Le. detectors. controllers)
Other TM - City of St. Petersburg TOC, Pinellas County TOC
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
3-25
S.R. GO/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
Figure 3.7h: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS08)
A TMSOS - Incident Management System
\ OR"=, ~
incident incident
response report
coordination
InfOl1l1ation
Service ProVide
Incident
information
traffic
'nformation
incident data
incident
status
Emergency
Vehicle
e end:
rafflc Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Emergency Management - City of Clearwater PO Dispatch, County 911 Dispatch
Emergency Vehicle - City of Clearwater PO Vehicles, City of Clearwater Fire/Rescue Vehicles
Information Service Provider - Metro Networks, TiRN
Construction & Maintenance - City of Clearwater Public Works
Weather Service - National Weather Service
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Detectors, CCTV)
Other TM - City of St. Petersburg TOC, Pinellas County TOC
Other EM - FHP, HAZMAT
Event Promoter - To Be Determined
Event
Promoter
weather ,traffic,
information InforJ.DatJ.on
--L coordination
~ ( ~TM)
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
.
3-26
.
.
.
S.R. eo/u.s. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7i: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS09)
ATMS09 - Traffic Forecast and Demand Management
( Ot>~TM)
traffic
information
coordination
InfortTlation
Service Provider
transit demand
management
response
Transit
Management
Leaend:
Transit Management - PSTA
Parking Management - City of Clearwater Parking Management
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Infonnation Service Provider - Metro Networks, TiRN
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Detectors)
Other TM - City of St. Petersburg TOC, Pine lias County TOC
Event Promoter - To Be Determined
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
event
plans
Roadway
management respon
management request
transit demand
management
request
Parking
Management
3-27
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
Figure 3.7j: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS13)
A TMS13 - Standard Railroad Grade Crossing
~
~
hri operational
status
Pedestrians
Driver
traffi c
characteristics
Traftk
I ~gp-ncl.
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Gates, Pedestrian Safety Devices)
Traffic - Traffic
Driver - Driver
Pedestrians - Pedestrians
Wayside Equipment - CSX Field Equipment
Rail Operations - CSX Operations Center
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
.
3-28
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7k: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (ATMS19)
A1MS19- Regional Parking.Managemmt
kt I't'lpCIJfe
puililg
roordnabm
cb
I egenct"
TI8'1SiMa laQ!!II1eI4 - PSTA
Paki"g~ II!lI1t-ClyclOeelvaerPaki"g Ma laQ!!IlleI t
T,*McIIaQEl1IIe11-Cly ofc::leavlaErlOC
0lherPaki"g- To Be ~1i1ed
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
3-29
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.71: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (EM1)
EMl - Emergency Response
Weatber
Services
weather
information
Other EM
incident
report
resource request
remote surveillance contro
current network conditions +
resource deployment status
Traffic
Management
Leaend:
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Emergency Management - City of Clearwater PD Dispatch. County 911 Dispatch
Emergency Vehicle - City of Clearwater PD Vehicles. City of Clearwater FirelRescue Vehicles
Weather Service - National Weather Service
Other EM - FHP
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
3-30
.
.
.
S.R. 601U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Figure 3.7m: S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework (EM2)
EM2 - Emergency Routing
Traffic
Management
ennergencytraflnc
control request
current network conditions +
emergency traffic control response
Leaend:
Traffic Management - City of Clearwater TOC
Emergency Management - City of Clearwater PD Dispatch, County 911 Dispatch
Emergency Vehicle - City of Clearwater PD Vehicles, City of Clearwater FirelRescue Vehicles
Roadway - S.R. 60 Field Components (I.e., Signal Preemption Devices)
Note: See Page 3-18 for legend
3-31
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
3.2.1 S.R. GO/U.S. 19 A TMS Process Specifications
The logical architecture of the National ITS Architecture defines processes required to
meet user services. These processes are called Process Specifications (Pspecs). The
Pspecs describe functional requirements for equipment packages. The equipment
packages recommended for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS short-term deployment were
used to identify the Pspecs referenced in the National ITS Architecture. These Pspecs
were modified to reflect the needs of the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors and should
provide a basis for the development of specification documents during the design phase
of the project.
Table 3.4 maps the subsystems, the equipment packages for that subsystem, and the
Pspecs for the equipment packages to the user services to be addressed by the S.R.
60/U.S. 19 ATMS. In addition, Table 3.4 shows the level of dependence required for
the Pspecs to address the user services. Two levels were identified, primary "P", and
secondary "S". The Pspec was assigned a "P" under a user service if it is a
fundamental process needed to address that user service. The Pspec was assigned an
"S" under a user service if it is not a fundamental. process, but will enhance the ability of
the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS to meet that user need. The Pspec was left blank under a
user service if it provided little or no enhancements to the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS to
meet that user need.
3-32
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
Table 3.4a: Relationship between S.R. GO/U.S. 19 ATMS Pspecs and User Services
User Service
Equipment
Subsystem Package
Roadway Roadway Basic
Subsystem Monitoring
Roadside Signal
Priority
Roadway Incident
Detection
Roadway Signal
Controls
Roadway Traffic
Information
Dissemination
Traffic Collect Traffic
Management Monitoring
.
TCC Multi-Modal
Coordination
TCC Regional
Traffic Control
Pspec # / Pspec Name
1.1.1.1 / Process Traffic Sensor Data
1.3.1.3 / Process Traffic Images
1.2.7.3 / Manage Indicator Preemptions
1.2.7.1/ Process Indicator Output Data for Roads
1.1.1.1 / Process Traffic Sensor Data
1.2.7.2/ Monitor Roadside Equipment Operation
for Faults
I .2.7.1 / Process Indicator Output Data for Roads
1.1.1.1 / Process Traffic Sensor Data
1.2.7. I / Process Indicator Output Data for Roads
1.1.2.1 / Process Traffic Data for Storage
1.1.2.2 / Process Traffic Data
1. I .2.3 / Update Data Source Static Data
1.1.4.2 / Provide Traffic Operations Personnel
Traffic Data Interface
1.1.4.4 / Update Traffic Display Map Data
1.1.4.1 / Retrieve Traffic Data
1.2.2.2 / Determine Indicator State for Road
Management
1.4.2/ Collect Demand Forecast Data
1.1.5/ Exchange data with Other Traffic Centers
1.1.4.2/ Provide Traffic Operations Personnel
Traffic Data Interface
1.2.4.1 / Output Control Data for Roads
TCC Signal Control 1.2.1 / Select Strategy
1.2.2.2 / Determine Indicator State for Road
Management
1.2.4.1 / Output Control Data for Roads
1.1.2.2 / Process Traffic Data
TCC Incident
Detection
.
1.1.4.2/ Provide Traffic Operations Personnel
Traffic Data Interface
1.3.2.1 / Store Possible Incident Data
1.3.2.2/ Review and Classify Possible Incidents
1.3.2.3/ Review and Classify Predicted Incidents
1.3.2.4 / Provide Predicted Incidents Store
Interface
1.3.2.5/ Provide Current Incidents Store
Interface
1.3.1. I / Analyze Traffic Data for Incidents
1.3 .1.2 / Maintain Static Data for Incident
Management
1.3.4.3 / Provide Media Incident Data Interface
1.3.4.2/ Provide Traffic Operations Personnel
Incident Data Interface
3-33
...
.~ "2
C5 5 c
~.~ 8
o E ,~
0::: '- ~
C E ~
u.l..= r=
S P
S P
S p
S p
S p
P P
p p
p p
p p
S P
S p
p
S p
p
S p
S
S
S
p
p
p
p
p
P
S
S
s
s
P
p
p
P
p
P
p
p
S
S
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
i:i
E
:: ~
~ ~
U 0::
..=~
p
p
P
p
p
p
S
S
S
S
s
S
s
S
S
S
S
p
p
p
p
P
P
p
P
P
"i)
:>
e c
f- .S2
0.0:;
.;: E
f- ...
~cB
... c
0.._
c
.2 ~
~ 0
1:: E
o OJ
.S? ~ ~
- c C
.0 0:: 0::
ci:r=~
s
S
S
p
s
S
S
S
p
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
s
S
P
P
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
p
E
>-, OJ
g E
OJ OJ OJ
~u ~
E ~ ~
u.l>~
S
S
p
p
S
~ ~
0:: U
Cl~
1) U
.:::~
..c ...
u 0)
... '"
<:J
p
P
P
P
S
S
p
s
S
p
p
p
S
S
p
S
p
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
p
s
s
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 3.4b: Relationship between S.R. GO/U.S. 19 ATMS Pspecs and User Services
(cant.)
User Service
....
u "2 -.; c:
..
.t: E .. 0_ E .;s u
a c: E ~ c: .- c: ;., '" u
u <;:j u u
0 0 E t- .9 1:: E g E a'1:
u .- U c..<;:j
:;ca - u o u u u u u u
Equipment o E u .g~ .t: E uc..on on- on "CIl
I:i: t- .... ._ en C'a .... U '" :.c '-
~ .... -c:c: C).- c:
'<2 '(3 1a uS .0 '" '" E "5 '" u u
'" .... '"
Subsystem Package Pspec # / Pspec Name c: c: .... ..::~ .... c: ~~~ UJ>~ -<::l
UJ_ t- o.._
Traffic TCC Incident 1.3.3/ Respond to Current Incidents S S P S P
Management Dispatch 1.3.4.1 / Retrieve Incident Data S S P S P
Coordination/
Communication 1.3 .4.2 / Provide Traffic Operations Personnel Inciden S S P S P
Data Interface
1.3.4.4/ Update Incident Display Map Data S S P S
1.3.5/ Manage Possible Predetermined Responses S S P S P
Store
1.3.6/ Manage Predetermined Incident Response Data S S P S P
1.3.7/ Analyze Incident Response Log S S P S P
1.3.4.5/ Manage Resources for Incidents S S P S P
1.3 .2.3 / Review and Classify Predicted Incidents S S P S P S
1.2.4. I / Output Control Data for Roads S S P S P
I. 1.5 / Exchange data with Other Traffic Centers S S P S P
TCC Traffic I. 1.4.3 / Provide Direct Media Traffic Data Interface S P
Information 1.3.4.3 / Provide Media Incident Data Interface S P
Dissemination
1.1.4.1 / Retrieve Traffic Data P P P P S S P
1.1.4.2 / Provide Traffic Operations Personnel Traffic P P S S
Data Interface
Traffic 1.2.8.1 / Collect Indicator Fault Data P
Maintenance 1.2.8.2/ Maintain Indicator Fault Data Store P
1.2.8.3 / Provide Indicator Fault Interface for C and M P
1.2.8.4 / Provide Traffic Operations Personnel P
Indicator Fault Interface
1. I. 1.2/ Collect and Process Sensor Fault Data P P
TCC Traffic 1.4.1 / Provide Traffic Operations Personnel Demand S P
Network Interface
Performance 1.4.2/ Collect Demand Forecast Data S P
Evaluation 1.2.6.1 / Maintain Traffic and Sensor Static Data S P S S S S P
1.2.6.2/ Provide Static Data Store Output Interface S P
1.1.2.1 / Process Traffic Data for Storage S P
1.1.2.2 / Process Tramc Data S P S S S S P
1.1.5 / Exchange data with Other Tramc Centers S
3.2.2 Standards Application Plan
ITS standards specify how various technologies, products and components interconnect
so they can be used together. ITS standards are defined as "industry-consensus
standards that provide the details about how different systems interconnect and
communicate information to deliver the ITS user services." These standards provide for
consistent communication messages and specify the information elements that make up
those messages.
3-34
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21) states that the primary goal
of the ITS standards program is to "promote and ensure interoperability in the
implementation of Intelligent Transportation Systems Technologies". Standards are
critical to the success of implementing ITS. Well-defined standards help agencies in
preparing procurement specifications, requests for information and requests for
proposals. Open standards will allow technology and products from different
manufacturers to be added and encourage interoperability and interchangeability of
products from different manufacturers. This will reduce costs, increase flexibility and
facilitate upgrades.
The development activities of the standards are coordinated by several standard
development organizations (SDO). These are the publishing authorities of the
standards. The SDO include:
.
· AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
· ITE - Institute of Transportation Engineers,
· ANSI - American National Standards Institute,
· ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials,
· CEMA - Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association,
· IEEE - Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and
· SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers.
Currently, about 80 standards are being developed. Table 3.5 presents the ITS
standards that are applicable to the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS. The table also indicates the
SDO and status of the standard. As indicated in Table 3.5, many of the applicable
standards are not yet published or endorsed. Thus, many of these standards will not be
available for use in the initial Phase of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS project. The status of
ITS standards and the U.S. DOT guidelines for the implementation of these standards
need to be continuously monitored. There is also a need for coordination with the
FOOT Central Office effort in testing and implementing these standards.
TEA 21 requires the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to identify critical
standards that are either standard needed for national interoperability or to develop
other national transportation standards. The U.S. DOT just released a report that
identified the critical standards. It should be recognized that other ITS standards are
equally important as those identified as critical. As an example, the National
Transportation Communication for ITS Protocol (NTCIP) is not necessary for national
interoperability. Thus, it is not a critical standard. However, this standard is one of the
most important ITS standards.
.
3-35
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 3.5: Status of ITS Standards Applicable to S.R. GO/U.S. 19 ATMS Project
.
SOO Standard Standard Title Status
Name
AASHTO TS 3.PRO NTCIP - Profiles - Framework and Classification of Profiles NP
AASHTO TS 3.vCC NTCIP - Object Definitions for Video Camera Control NP
AASHTO TS 3.CLA.C NTCIP - Class A and Class C Profile NP
AASHTO TS 3.FTP NTCIP - File Transfer Protocol- Application Profile NP
AASHTO TS 3.TFTP NTCIP - Trivial File Transfer Protocol- Application Profile NP
AASHTO TS 3.CORBA NTCIP - Application Profile - CORBA & Data Exchange (DATEX) NP
TS 3.DATEX
AASHTO TS 3.0ER NTCIP - Octet Encoding Rules NP
AASHTO TS 3.1 NTCIP - Overview P
AASHTO TS 3.2 NTCIP - Simple Transportation Management Framework (STMF) P
AASHTO TS 3.3 NTCIP - Class B Profile P
AASHTO TS 3.4 NTCIP - Global Object Definitions P
AASHTO TS 3.5 NTCIP - Object Definitions for Actuated Traffic Signal Controller P
Units
AASHTO TS 3.6 NTCIP - Object Definitions for Dynamic Message Signs P
AASHTO TS 3.PMP232 NTCIP - Point-to-Multipoint Protocol/RS232 Subnetwork Profile NP
AASHTO TS 3. TSS NTCIP - Object Definitions for Transportation Sensor Systems NP
(formerly SEN)
AASHTO TS 3.DCM NTCIP - Data Collection & Monitoring Devices NP
AASHTO TS 3.STMF NTCIP - STMF Application Profile NP
AASHTO TS 3.TUI NTCIP -Internet (TCP/IP & UDP/IP) Transport Profiles NP
ITE ITE-960 1-1 ATMS Data Dictionary (TMDD) - Section 1 (Links/Nodes) (TM NP
1.01 )
ITE ITE-9601-2 ATMS Data Dictionary (TMDD) - Section 2 (Events) (TM 1.01) NP
ITE ITE-9601-3 ATMS Data Dictionary (TMDD) - Section 3 (Traffic Control) (TM NP
1.02)
ITE ITE-9601-4 ATMS Data Dictionary (TMDD) - Section 4 (DMSNideo/etc) (TM E
1.02)
ITE ITE-9604-1 Message Set for External TCC Communication (MS/ETCCC) (TM NP
12.01 )
IEEE P1512 Standard for Common Incident Management Message Set (IMMS) NP
ifor use by EMCs
IEEE ITSPP#5 Survey of Communications Technologies NP
IEEE ITSPP#6-A ITS Data Dictionaries Guidelines P
IEEE P1454 Recommended Practice for Selection and Installation of Fiber NP
Optic Cable in ITS Environments
IEEE P1488 Standard for Message Set Template for ITS NP
IEEE P1489 Standard for Data Dictionaries for Intelligent Transportation NP
Systems
Source: http://www.its.dot.gov/standardJDocuments/ms pub.pdf revised 7/13/99
Note: P - Published
E - Endorsed
NP - not published or endorsed
.
.
3-36
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
SECTION 4.0: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
- The ATMS implementation plan for the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 Corridors was developed
using qualitative measures. The implementation plan consists of a high-level
deployment plan for the market packages and equipment packages identified in the
SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework.
The qualitative approach took steps that encouraged efficient deployment of the market
packages by identifying synergies and dependencies among the number of A TMS
services offered and to maximize the degree of system integration over time on a local
and regional level.
4.1 A TMS Synergies and Dependencies
.
One of the unique attributes of developing an A TMS Framework is that it identifies
common features and shared functionality. Questions such as: "Once I implement
network monitoring in my region, what other services can I implement?" and "What sorts
of efficiencies are possible when advanced traveler information and traffic management
systems are implemented in the same region?" are readily answered through the
development of an A TMS Framework. These inter-relationships are presented for each
of the identified market packages. Consideration for these market package synergies
and dependencies can result in more efficient deployment of A TMS services over time.
These efficiencies were considered in developing the deployment timeframe of the
market packages and equipment packages.
Synergies and dependencies have been identified and analyzed for each equipment
package and then aggregated at the market package level. The most significant
synergy of the Advanced Traffic Management market packages is the shared need for
traffic information. Each of these market packages is supported by the basic monitoring
infrastructure that is implemented through the two monitoring market packages; network
and probe. The information provided by the equipment packages within these market
packages (e.g., traffic volumes/occupancies/speeds and video) can be used for many
purposes, including control and management of the traffic signals, incident
management, emissions management and traveler information. The information can
also be saved as historical data for planning purposes or for evaluating the
effectiveness of previous system enhancements. Each of the synergies and
dependencies that apply to the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS is described below.
.
· Network Monitoring Market Package - This market package consists of the
basic field components to monitor and collect data and communications
infrastructure equipment, which most of the other A TMS market packages are
dependent upon.
· Surface Street Control Market Package - This market package provides a
building block for basic surface street control. It shares much of the
equipment deployed in the network monitoring market package. It may be
interconnected with the basic monitoring infrastructure deployed at the
4-1
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
roadside for cost-effective implementation. While it is dependent upon
network monitoring, many of the benefits of network monitoring are
accomplished through the deployment of surface street control market
package.
· Traffic Information Dissemination Market Package - This market package
provides basic roadside information dissemination infrastructure, which is also
dependent upon network monitoring. The basic infrastructure can be shared
with network monitoring and surface street control market packages.
· Incident Management System Market Package - This market package utilizes
the traffic information dissemination and traffic control capabilities deployed
through other market packages to adapt traveler information and traffic
control strategies to account for incidents. The communications infrastructure
and working relationships established to support Incident Management could
also be used to support the coordination required for the regional traffic
control market package.
· Regional Traffic Control Market Package - This market package enhances the
coordination between traffic management systems within a region. It directly
leverages the surface street control market and incident management system
market packages. The regional scope of this market package provides the
opportunity to fully realize the benefits of enhanced coordination with the
transit systems and railroads operating in the region.
· Parking Facility Management - This Market Package utilizes the network
monitoring market package applications to monitor parking facility utilization
and support parking information dissemination.
· Emergency Response Market Package - This market package enables a
rapid response to the emergency notifications provided by the Network
Monitoring and Incident Management System Market Packages.
· Emergency Routing Market Package - This market package provides the
basic dispatcher support capabilities, which may be extended and integrated
to support the required multi-agency coordination supported by the
Emergency Response Market Package.
· Interactive Traveler Information Market Package - This market package
shares the basic traveler information collection, management and interactive
communications capabilities with more advanced or specialized traveler
information market packages. The basic interactive traveler information
service can be extended to support centralized route planning services
offered by the ISP-Based route guidance market package. The interactive
capabilities of this market package allow it to better use information provided
by the Transit Passenger and Fare Management and the parking fee
management market packages for transit and parking fees and transit
schedules and parking occupancy and reservation.
· Traffic Prediction and Demand Management Market Package - This market
package provides mass storage capabilities that support historical evaluation,
real-time assessment and forecast of the roadway network performance. The
source data would come from the network monitoring and surface street
control market packages.
· Multi-modal Coordination Market Package - This market package enhances
the coordination between the traffic control center and transit management
centers. It assists in establishing coordinated control strategies between
.
.
4-2
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
transit vehicles and traffic signal control through traffic signal preemption. In
addition, this market enhances the coordinated efforts for event planning
between the traffic control center and transit management centers.
· ITS Data Warehouse Market Package - This market package shares many of
the same data management functions associated with collecting data
delivered by an operational center, field device or other data sources. It has a
focus on checking and storing data in a centralized physical repository. The
ITS Data Warehouse Market Package builds upon the other market package
capabilities by adding data transformation and metadata management
features necessary for integrating data from disparate sources and also
includes more advanced data analysis capabilities.
4.2 Deployment Timeframe
In order to maximize the benefits of the synergies and dependencies identified above, a
deployment period was developed for the implementation of the market packages and
equipment packages. A focus was placed on near-term problems and the early
deployments best suited to addressing those problems on a local and regional basis.
The local basis was incorporated in the S.R. 60 user services.
.
Table 4.1 shows the recommended implementation plan for S.R. 60 market packages
and equipment packages. The relationships between the market packages are
described in Figure 4.1. These deployments were established to meet the District's
transportation needs, local priorities, funding availability and the ability of the
infrastructure to support the particular deployments. The deployment timeframes were
broken into three categories; short-term, mid-term, and long-term. The following criteria
was established:
· Short-term priorities have available funding for Stage 1, meet current needs,
expand on legacy system, provide measurable benefits
· Mid-term priorities continue to address current needs by expanding Stage 1
deployments that require additional planning and funding.
· Long-term priorities address the less critical needs, require additional
planning and funding, and require substantial institutional arrangements.
This deployment timeframe provides a basis for the development of a conceptual design
for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS. The conceptual design should include deployment of
technologies that are conceivably feasible. It also should be a source for identifying
future funding needs for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS. Therefore, the conceptual design
should include the equipment packages identified under the short-term period, with
considerations for expandability to include the deployment of the equipment packages
identified under the mid-term and long-term deployment timeframes.
In summary, the following equipment packages were identified for short-term
deployment:
.
· Traffic Data Collection
· TMC Multi-modal Coordination
· Collect Traffic Monitoring
· Traffic Maintenance
4-3
--
.
.
. Basic Roadway Monitoring
. TMC Signal Control
. Traffic Maintenance
. Roadway Signal Controls
. TMC Traffic Information
Dissemination
. Roadway Traffic Information
Dissemination
. TMC Regional Traffic Control
. TMC Incident Detection
. TMC Incident
Dispatch/Commu n ication
. Emergency Response Management
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
. HRI Traffic Management
. Standard Rail Crossing
. Emergency Call-Taking
. Emergency Response
Management
. On-Board EV Incident
Management Communication
. Roadside Signal Priority
. Emergency Dispatch
. On-Board EV Route Support
. Vehicle Location
Determination
4-4
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 4.1: Proposed Deployment Timeframe for S.R. 60 Market Packages and
Equipment Packages
Market Packages Equipment Packages Proposed Deployment Time
Frames
Short Medium Long
Term Term Term
AD2 ITS Data Warehouse Government reporting System Support X
ITS Data repository X
On-line Analysis and Mining X
Traffic and Roadside Data Archival X
Roadside Data Collection X
Emergency Data Collection X
ISP Data Collection X
Traffic Data Collection X
Parking Data Collection X
Transit Data Collection X
APTS07 Multi-modal TMC Multi-modal Coordination X
Coordination Roadside Signal Priority X
A TIS2 Interactive Interactive Infrastructure Information X
Traveler Information Interactive Vehicle Reception X
Remote Interactive Information Reception X
Personal Interactive Information Reception X
A TMSO 1 Network Collect Traffic Monitoring X
Monitoring Traffic Maintenance X
Basic Roadway Monitoring X
A TMS03 Surface Street TMC Signal Control X
Control Traffic Maintenance X
Roadway Signal Controls X
A TMS06 Traffic TMC Traffic Information Dissemination X
Information Roadway Traffic Information X
Dissemination Dissemination
A TMS07 Regional TMC Regional Traffic Control X
Traffic Control
A TMS08 Incident TMC Incident Detection X
Management System Emergency Response Management X
TMC Incident Dispatch/Communication X
Roadway Incident Detection X
A TMS09 Traffic TMC Parking Coordination X
Prediction and Demand TMC Traffic Network Performance X
Management Evaluation
ATMS 13 Standard HRI Traffic Management X
Railroad Grade Crossing Standard Rail Crossing X
A TMS 19 Regional Parking Management X
Parking Management Parking Coordination X
EM I Emergency Emergency Call-Taking X
Response Emergency Response Management X
On-Board EV Incident Management X
Communication
EM2 Emergency Routing Roadside Signal Priority X
Emergency Dispatch X
On-Board EV Route Support X
Vehicle Location Determination X
4-5
--
.
Network
Monitoring
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS FeaS. Study
Figure 4.1: Relationships of Market Packages
Surface Street
Control
Emergency
Routing
Traffic Information
Dissemination
Emergency
Response
Regional Parking
Management
Incident
Management
ITS Data
Warehouse
Traffic Prediction and
Demand Management
Multi-modal
Coordination
Interactive Traveler
Information
4-6
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
SECTION 5.0: SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
This section identifies and evaluates the system alternatives. The S.R. 60/U.S. 19
A TMS system configuration must consider and be integrated with the Pinellas County
and City of St. Petersburg A TMS systems. The optimal solution is to deploy one system
configuration on a countywide basis. The Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning
Organization has contracted Transcore to perform an Assessment of Technology to
facilitate their selection of a countywide system configuration. The Pinellas County
Traffic Signal & Median Closure Committee (TS&MCC) will evaluate the available
technologies assessed by Transcore. Their evaluation will consist of a utility analysis
that ranks system alternatives according to specified requirements. Each requirement
was assigned a relative weight reflecting its importance. The ability of each alternative
system to meet each requirement is rated 0 to 10. Zero indicates that the system does
not satisfy the requirement at all while 10 indicates total satisfaction. By multiplying the
individual rating and the requirement weight, a utility value can be obtained. By
summing the individual utilities for each alternative, a utility measure or a performance
index can be obtained for that alternative. Table 5.1 contains the utility measures to be
used by the TS&MCC.
5-1
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
Table 5.1: Utility Analysis for Control System Alternatives
Utility Measure Matrix
# Criteria Discussion Notes Weight
1 Cost Central system I controller purchase price 8.6
-y- Software maintenance, spare parts, maintenance 7.8
history
3 Experience & Reputation With Pine lias County? Florida DOT? 5.6
of the Vendor
4 Bandwidth requirements 3.8
5 Real-time Monitoring How important is second-by-second monitoring / control 4.7
6 Financial and corporate If this is important - suggest measurements 4.7
stability
7 Support for ITS functions Ramp Metering Incident VIDS 9.0
management
CCTV DMS ATIS
8 Support for Transit 1.9
Preemption
9 Computer Platform PC, NT, UNIX, High Reliability configurations, 6.6
10 I ntegrated Adaptive As opposed to simple Traffic Responsive, CIC, TOD, 7.2
control module Local actuated control, etc.
11 Standards Supported TMDD I NTCIP I ETMC2 6.8
A TC/2070 I NEMA I C2C/CORBA
12 Maintenance support E.g. In-state maintenance depot? Consistent with 6.1
existing agency shop support.
13 Cabinet Type A TC, FDOT, 170, TS2/1, TS2/2, other 3.0
14 Operational Features Capability for TOD, TRSP, Manual, Special Events 4.3
15 Signal Preemption Emergency/ Transit 3.0
16 Multiple, Concurrent 3.9
Users
17 On-Line Timing Plans Dynamic plan generation (Transyt/Passer); 5.3
Modify plan while on-line with central;
Temporary timing plan change
18 Upload/Download Timing 3.9
Plans
19 Compatibility with Legacy 2.9
System
20 Other .3
Source: TransCore: "Assessment of Technology" prepared for Pinellas County MPO
.
5-2
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
SECTION 6.0: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
.
This section presents the conceptual layout for a full-build scenario for S.R. 60/U.S. 19
A TMS. It provides an overview of the recommended field components and their
approximate locations, communication needs and the equipment, operations and
maintenance for the Traffic Management Center.
6.1 General Requirements
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a notice of proposed rulemaking out
for comment that will require compliance with FHWA adopted standards in order to
secure Federal funding for ITS projects. These standards are listed in Table 3.5. For
this project, that translates into compliance with NTCIP communications standards.
This is particularly important since the NTCIP standards greatly increase the bandwidth
needs required for a common communications network to serve a variety of field
devices.
6.2 Field Components
.
The market packages, equipment packages and process specifications selected from
the National ITS Architecture to meet the user needs/services for S.R. 60 and U.S. 19
Corridors were used as a basis for selecting the field components. The field component
locations were selected based upon the available information analyzed in section 2.0.
The field components and their locations were designed for future conditions and
provide a full-build scenario. In the following section, a migration plan is presented that
will initially address the more critical locations, but ultimately will lead to the full-build
scenario presented in this section. This approach was taken so that each stage of the
migration plan is designed with consideration for future expansion of the system. The
recommended field components are listed below and are shown in Figure 6.1.
.
· Traffic Controllers - Update the existing traffic controllers to perform adaptive
control. There are 58 intersections along S.R. 60, U.S. 19, Drew, Chestnut,
Pierce and Cleveland Streets.
· Vehicle Detectors - Install non-intrusive system detectors along S.R. 60 for
monitoring traffic flows and support coordinated adaptive control. It is
recommended to deploy 348 stations, which are made up of one non-intrusive
detector per approach lane for each leg of each intersection (an average of 4
detectors per intersection x 58 intersections = 232). It should be noted that
these detectors are in addition to the existing local intersection detectors.
· Closed-Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) - Install nineteen CCTV cameras
for video monitoring and incident verification. CCTV cameras should be
installed to provide full coverage of S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 and at key
intersections along Drew Street.
6-1
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
· Dynamic Message Signs (OMS) - Install eight OMS in advance of decision
points for route diversion. Install dynamic message signs in advance of key
diversion points along S.R. 60, U.S. 19, Drew Street and McMullen Booth
Road.
· Dynamic Trailblazer Signs - Install twenty-one dynamic trailblazer signs in
advance of decision points for route diversion from S.R. 60 to the parallel
routes.
· Pedestrian Safety Units - Install two pedestrian safety units at the bike trail
crossings on Court and Chestnut Streets to enhance pedestrian and bicycle
movements.
6-2
...
~
.....
~ ~ cu
~
~
cu I.t
\S\.ANO 'JIIf>..i ~ 0
~ 'f
u
CU
==
g:;
vi
L-:t;-1
-.- I
-!i
~
co
,:.:
..0
Cb
...
:)
0)
ii:
I t ...= t -
V) r
O.L
'3A~- - 3 TNV::>Nnd -
I W J
~l
- -- --l
I
I
I
I
1'3AV N~nlVS
(~
I
Q-
---
~
~
u..
...J
:J
<-'
<- J
I
'"
,)
I ('.
I
.
'I
r'
I
I
,I
tnl
I
I
...=
V)
~
:J
o
U
l?"
~
1
T 3NVl ,i~1l38
...= I +:r
V) i ~
1
+-+
I
tr
"t
T'l
J::;
,.
I .
N10::>NIl
01
1=1
Wi
::51
~
T
I
.f+.
-+
1.;r
r
1
W
...J
01
~
...
~
.....
CU
~
CU
~
~
U
...
o
'f
CU
==
o
I-
o
ClI:
o
:J
ClI:
o
L
I
T
I
1
1
I
I
1
avo~ 3N33)f
0 0 0
ClI:
ClI:
~ ~
ClI: =
W ~
V)
ClI:
:J ...J <
Z ...J
W
co ~
--- --
g/
3AI~a 3)fVl i
I
1
'3AV aNVlH81H r
i
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
'3AV lS3~::>lllH
I
~I
~I
~I
~ I 3NVl
I
A.ll38 I
\
\
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
. ,
=
.....
<
~
~
~
~
=
'3AV l~nOSSIW I
I
~ I
.....
'3AV aOOMN33~8 I
I I
1 3nN3AV 311~^W \
I
a
1
,-\\
?~~11
",or r1
l.,\,
V)
r~ 'il ~~L 11r r:\'
tl:i ~I II
-'.L a.. 1
PAV1 NOSI~~VH '.l::l
~
~~
...J
I W
ICO
l/
<-'::E~
Zww
-1-1-
:..!V)Z
~>-w
~V)U
"-
I
-- -
==a--=.:.;......___
S.H. 601J.S. 19 ArMS Feasibility Stud}
600.5. 19 A TMS Full-Build Scenario
cil
Q!~
""~
I
[;\l~ERi
uj
~
en
~
~
I-
U
Q!
w
I
./
A~'
/ ~.
/'
,.
/! -.......J
0
z
01
~I
<:L t
u
.4
~
~ I N
-.- 0/ ~
zl 0
0' -.-
~I Sf
!:!51
I, ~i
~I ,
01 I ..
U I DREW ST.
01 \Y.! 0 -~-~ ......
~\ Q! ~
w
-'I <>" z Q!
0, 0 ~ 0
~/ Ii: W I,
~ ~ en! ~~
~'r/ ~ ~
I ...
S.R.60 ~-
-
./
"-
/,
'-
- ~~Q'
~ci\~~
./ (p~
I
ujl
~4
zl
-I
~I
I
I
I
c,
I
,
.. I GTB PLAZA
t--
DRUID RD. I
cP
~
C!J.
o
'rT'
~
'6
~
V4 0 V4 V2 314
, , , , ,
SCALE IN MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1....111 ' , , , I
SCALE IN FEET
PROPOSED
..
-.--
T
.
.
PROPOSED
CONDUIT
~/#hl
~~""~~
Figure 6.1:
S.H. 6ov.S. 19 A TMS
Full-Build Scenario
j~ \ ....
CLW MALL Q!
<:
I
L SEVILLE
..
Old Tampa Bay ___
LLJ
:::ll
:>
z
LLJ
@I
01
Q!I TROPIC HILLS
I
,~ '~-e
I 0-
.-
I CURTIS ~/V BLVD. ~
~
"-
"" ..
Q! CURTIS
w
I
U
-'
W
!Xl NURSERY RD.
--
BELLEAIR ~ RD.
\
FULL BUILD
LEGEND
EXISTING
\
\
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CCTV
DMS
DYNAMIC TRAILBLAZER
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY UNIT
OVERHEAD
72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
6112 FIBER-OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
EXISTING UNDERGROUND
CONDUIT
W400'/~ 72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
~~,,~~~ 6112 FIBER OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
6-3
~
..
....
'"T
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
6.3 Communications
The objective of the communications network is to facilitate a reliable system dedicated
initially to the computerized signal system and eventually to a regionally integrated
intelligent transportation system (ITS). The technologies identified in the full-build
scenario include closed-circuit television cameras, variable message signs and incident
detection/monitoring. The design of the communications architecture should
accommodate these technologies and yet remain flexible enough to accommodate
growth beyond these initial technologies. As a result, it is recommended to install a
fiber optic trunk along S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 with a fiber optic trunk from S.H. 60 to the
Traffic Control Center. This fiber optic communications network will carry all data and
video transmissions for the system and serve as the communications backbone in the
future. The fiber optic communications system will remain in parallel to the existing
twisted pair network until the remaining portion of the City of Clearwater TSS is
replaced.
There also will be an underground fiber optic link across Myrtle Avenue from the Traffic
Control Center to the City of Clearwater Police Dispatch. This will connect with the
existing communications link between the City of Clearwater Police Dispatch and the
Pinellas County 911 Communications Center. The link between the City of Clearwater
Police Dispatch and the Pinellas County 911 Communications Center will be upgraded
with the relocation of the 911 Communications Center to Ulmerton Road. This
communications link upgrade will be installed by Pinellas County when the 911 Center
is relocated.
6.4 Traffic Control Center
This section presents the conceptual layout for the Traffic Control Center, showing the
system software/hardware, operations plan, staffing and agency coordination.
6.4.1 MTCS Computer Replacement
The existing computer controlling the remaining 68 signals of the MTCS system in the
City will be replaced. This replacement is intended:
. Extend the life of the MTCS central computer equipment until the entire
system is replaced. This replacement will occur in conjunction with similar
replacements in Pinellas County and the City of St. Petersburg.
· Provide communications data sharing with the Pinellas County and St.
Petersburg MTCS systems using IP addressing.
. Provide coordination across jurisdictional lines.
. Provide central computer redundancy for the three TCC's.
6-4
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
6.4.2 Traffic Control Center Equipment
. The existing traffic control center has enough room to accommodate the new system.
The center will house the traffic management hardware/software, control center console
and communication equipment.
The system design should address human/machine interface, display legibility and
workstation design. Operators should be able to use the system in an effective and
efficient manner. Other design considerations are listed below:
.
· Sufficient power outlets and resources should be provided for the necessary
and redundant hardware components. The design and deployment
considerations will influence the number of outlets.
· All computers, monitors and printers should be specified and protected with
uninterrupted power supplies (UPS).
· Surge protectors for all processors
· Lighting controls should be designed to minimize glare and eye strain.
· Operator consoles should be designed to accommodate ergonomic and
operational demands such as access from console to telephone, workstation
components, camera controls, video switching monitors and radio
communications.
· The center's design should provide the infrastructure for network backbones
for LAN/WAN installations and incoming/outgoing communication lines and
connections.
· All communication equipment including fiber optic transceivers, intelligent
multiplexers, terminal servers, bridges, routers, etc. should be professionally
designed with reliability and maintainability in mind.
The layout must take into consideration the MTCS system and its associated hardware
will remain in place and operating.
6.4.3 Staffing
Additional training and staffing will be required for the new system. The existing
maintenance personnel will need to be trained in fiber optics communications. The
recommended additional staff includes:
.
· System Operator - Operates system from workstations. Operator's
background should include traffic operations and computer operations.
He will interact with the system at the level deemed necessary by
policies and procedures. Responsibility will include timing plan
implementation, making necessary database changes, information
gathering and dissemination, and incident management.
6-5
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
6.5 Agency Coordination
As identified in the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework in Section 3.0, an institutional
layer must be addressed to ensure the success of the system. The institutional layer
identified other agencies that Pinellas County Traffic Engineering Division will need to
coordinate its operations, planning and maintenance. These agencies provide
individual functions in the overall framework, but they must have synergy to maximize
the benefits of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Framework. This coordination requires open
lines of communications among the agencies such that they can share objectives,
goals, and needs. As result, memorandums of understanding (MOUs) should be
developed that outline the information shared, interfaces used to communicate
information, and policies/procedures that support the concept of operation for the
system. These agencies include local and regional enforcement, local and regional
emergency services, maintenance and construction departments, transit agencies,
information service providers, media, and regional traffic management centers.
The preliminary list of agreements are:
Parties Purpose
FOOT and City of Clearwater Traffic Operations and maintenance of the
Engineering system
FOOT and Pinellas County Maintenance and operations of the remote
workstation and video monitoring
equipment
FOOT and City of Clearwater Police Maintenance and operations of the remote
Department workstation and video monitoring
equipment
FOOT and Pine lias Suncoast Transit Maintenance and operations of the remote
workstation and video monitoring
equipment
FOOT and Pinellas County Traffic Maintenance and operations of the central
Engineering Division database
FOOT and City of Clearwater Parking Maintenance and operations of the remote
Management Division workstation and video monitoring
equipment
FOOT and Information Service Providers Use of data and video for traffic
information dissemination.
6-6
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
SECTION 7.0: MIGRATION PLAN
.
This section describes the migration plan for the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS. The migration
plan is a series of deployment stages that were developed based upon the
Implementation Plan in Section 4.0. The Implementation Plan identified the deployment
of the selected market packages and equipment packages over three time frames:
short-, mid- and long-term. However, the available funding for Stage 1 deployment will
not cover complete geographic coverage of S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 with the selected
market packages and equipment packages identified in the short-term deployment.
Therefore, criteria was used to geographically spread the deployment of the market
packages and equipment packages selected for short-term over the three stages. The
following criteria was used to develop a migration plan:
.
. Address User Services - Based upon the input of the stakeholders at the
workshops, improvement to traffic control and incident management user
services were the most pronounced needs.
. Available Funding - The available funding for the first stage is limited to
approximately $ 5,504,948 for design and construction.
. Legacy Systems - Maximize the use of legacy systems to minimize costs.
. Provide Visible Benefits to Public - The limited budget of $ 3,204,948 for
construction would not cover all the costs for the conceptual full-build
scenario and future funding has not been secured at this time. Therefore,
each Stage must provide quantifiable benefits that are visible to the public
and must be operable independent of future stages.
· Review of Traffic and Accident Data and Roadway Network - The available
traffic and accident data presented in Section 2.2.2 and discussions with City
of Clearwater Traffic Engineering was used to prioritize the geographical
deployment (See Figure 2.7). Intersections with higher accidents per year
and with a Level-of-Service F were prioritized over intersections with less
severe conditions.
Based upon these criteria, the A TMS technologies identified in the full-build scenario
(CCTV, Traffic Controllers, DMS and vehicle detectors) were geographically deployed.
Phased deployment of communications, TCC and other components of the full-build
scenario are discussed in the following subsections.
Table 7.1 describes the staged geographic deployment of ATMS technologies along
SR. 60 based upon the available traffic and accident data and discussions with City of
Clearwater Traffic Engineering. The staging of the communications and field devices is
shown in Figure 7.1.
.
7-1
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS FeaSibi~
Table 7.1a: Phased Geographic Deployment of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Technologies
Dynamic Dynamic Ped.
Traffic Vehicle Video Trailblazer Message Safety
Intersection Controllers Detectors Monitoring Signs Signs Units
S.R.60/Bayshore 1 1 2 N/A 3 N/A
S.R. 60/McMullen Booth 1 1 1 3 3 N/A
S.R.60/Hampton 1 1 1 N/A 3 N/A
S.R. 60/Sky Harbor 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
S.R. 60/Park Place 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
S.R. 60/West Mall Entrance 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 1 1 1 3 N/A N/A
S.R. 60/01d Coachman 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
S.R. 60/Belcher 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A
S.R.60/Hercules 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
S.R.60/Arcturas 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
S. R. 60/Keene 1 1 3 3 N/A N/A
S.R.60/Duncan 1 1 N/A 3 N/A N/A
S.R.60/Lake 1 1 N/A N/A 1 N/A
S.R. 60/Highland 1 1 3 N/A N/A N/A
S.R. 60/Hillcrest 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Court/Hillcrest 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Court/Missouri 2 2 2 3 N/A N/A
Court/Greenwood 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Court/Myrtle 2 2 3 N/A N/A N/A
Court/Ft. Harrison 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Court/Oak 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Court/Bike Trail N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3
7-2
..
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 ArMS FeaSibili~
Table 7.1b: Phased Geographic Deployment of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Technologies (cont.)
Dynamic Dynamic Ped.
Traffic Vehicle Video Trailblazer Message Safety
Intersection Controllers Detectors Monitoring Signs Signs Units
ChestnuUBike Trail N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3
Pierce/Memorial Causeway 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A
C hes tn uUMyrtle 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Chestnut /Ft. Harrison 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A
Chestnut /Oak 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Memorial Causeway/Island Way 2 2 2 N/A 1 N/A
Drew/McMullen Booth 2 2 2 3 3 N/A
Drew/Park Place 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/U.S. 19 2 2 3 3 3 N/A
Drew/Old Coachman 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/Belcher 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/NE Coachman 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew /Hercules 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cleveland/Keene 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/Keene 2 2 2 3 N/A N/A
Drew/Highland 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/Betty Lane 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/Missouri 2 2 2 3 N/A N/A
Mis souri/C leveland 2 2 N/A 3 N/A N/A
Drew/Greenwood 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cleveland/Greenwood 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cleveland/Bike Trail 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
C leveland/W aterson 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
7-3
-e
.
S.R. so/u.s. 19 A TMS FeaSibili~
Table 7.1c: Phased Geographic Deployment of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Technologies (cont.)
Dynamic Dynamic Ped.
Traffic Ve hicle Video Trailblazer Message Safety
Intersection Controlle rs Detectors Monitoring Signs Signs Units
Cleveland/Ft. Hairston 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
C leveland/O sceola 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pierce/Ft. Hairston 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew /Myrtle 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/Ft. Hairston 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drew/Osceola 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
DrewlWaterson 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cleveland/Myrtle 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pierce/Myrtle 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A
U.S. 19/Druid Street 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A
U.S. 19/Tropic Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A
U.S. 19/Nursery Road 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
U.S. 19/Harn Blvd. 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A
U.S. 19/Belleair Rd. 1 1 1 N/A N/A N/A
U.S. 19/Haines Bayshore 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
7-4
PARKING
SYSTEM
CENTER
/
/~
v
Clearwater
Harbor
Clearwater
Harbor
w
~
C2
::>
o
(/')
(/')
~
'\
~
PALMETTO ST.
___...1._ _ _ ~
"-'
<
ST.
~
Figure 7.J: S.~
g--
- --
w
~
Z
0.:::
::>
<
(/')
~ .. ~
- ---,- - --- -<(~ -----1--
-:... -r--
CLEVELAND ST.
~ ---;!- - --..,. ----1 ,..---
Z
O (j
~ ~
GULF TO BA
- ,... -~
Wi
~
o
o
o
~
z
UJ
UJ
0.:::
"
_-< DRUID RD.
- - __ __--J
u.i----..r-.--- --4"""-'
~ W
I- ~
(/')
UJ
0.::: 0
U z
:J ~
J: J:
~
J:
.i-
f-
_ - - - -----1
'f
UJ
Z
~
....H -+ ~'
UJ
c:c
-S~R: 60
z
--'
o
u
Z
:::J I COURT ST.
I
LAKEVIEW
UJ
Z
~
~
UJ
c:c
y
lf1l
. ero
UJ
>
C2
o
o
<(
o
0.:::
UJ
Z
UJ
UJ
::.:::
UJ
::.:::
~
_ >-- RD.
- --i, ---
./
--+- _ -i- __ NUR~ERY RD.
__ _~ ____ ~__ -j_ ~ELLEAIR
RD.
-I
I LARGO:
~
C/).
:::J'
1-..'
"
"'\
SEMINOLE
z
o
(/')
0.:::
UJ
~w
~t,
r >-t I: l-Jt' 1+1-. tl t-
DRE~ ~
-
H _G&QVE
_LAURA ST -
UJ
::>
JEFFORDS rri
-?~---:~~ ~
~ PINELIAS ~
.- ~ -~ ~
z '"' ~
o
(/')
C2
0.:::
<( ~--l
:c
---4
t
:0
BELLEVIEW
"
t"
.,..
BELLEAIR
s.H. 601J.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Stud}
. 600.5. J9 A TMS Staged Deployment
I
I
I--
lllBEI<!
,-
~I
u.i
~
en
~
:::::>
I-
I~
en
w
.....J
:::::>
u
c.::
w
I
g~
"-
"
"
,/ '.......,
/' ~<::>.
/.~
I // 0~~
/r/ cPI'
/.,
~. I
I
I
I
u.i I I
~~
zl :
~I
..
DRUID RD.
1
V
l
I
.1
o
c.::
1
I
I
r
I
GTB PLAZA
~I
~I
u.J
@I
...
//:
"
0.'
0'0'
-.-
z'
~i
II
~I
8' .. ~
~---
0'
.....J
o
"T!~
cdl
01 Ie
~I CLW
~I
SEVILLE
..
TROPIC HILLS
---
~~-e
,,\iV BLVD.
~-
~
'--- -
Old
Tampa
Bay
---
V4 0 V4 V2 314
I I I I I
SCALE IN MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1....1Il . , I I I
SCALE IN FEET
I CURTI)
c.:: I CURTIS
~I
al,
NURSERY RD.
0-
.....
~
:::::>
..
BELLEAIR ~ RD.
\
0'
~
~
Q,
~
o
~
Staged Deployment
LEGEND
STAGE COLOR
STAGE 1 Construction
STAGE 2 Construction
STAGE 3 Construction
\
\
\
FIELD DEVICES
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CCTV
DMS
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
Figure 7.1:
S.R. 600.S. 19 A TMS
Staged Deployment
7-5
IJ
..
-.-
.
NOTE: COLOR FOR FIELD DEVICES COMPONENTS TO
STAGE COLORS ABOVE
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
7.1 Stage 1 Deployment
In Stage 1, the most critical problems facing the S.R. 60 travelers are addressed.
These include interagency coordination, variations in traffic patterns due to tourism
traffic and special events and non-recurrent congestion due to incidents.
This Stage addresses the variations in traffic patterns due to tourism traffic and special
events by replacing the MTCS system along all of S.R. 60 and along U.S. 19 from S.R.
60 to Haines 8ayshore Road with a coordinated adaptive control system.
Stage 1 improves the monitoring of S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 by adding system detectors,
CCTV and upgrading the communications and central software/hardware for improved
traffic monitoring capabilities.
This Stage includes the replacement of the MTCS computer that currently controls 126
of 140 City maintained intersections. When the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS is complete the
MTCS will still control 68 intersections, assuming no new signals are added.
Stage 1 addresses the need to reduce non-recurring congestion by enhancing the
existing incident management. These enhancements include providing video
monitoring at three high crash intersections and workstations at the Pinellas County 911
dispatch center and City of Clearwater Police Dispatch. The workstations will allow a
dispatcher to monitor traffic conditions along SR. 60 and U.S. 19 for directing the
appropriate response teams to the incident scene. In addition, the dispatchers will be
able to monitor the video monitoring for faster dispatch of incident removal teams.
Four memorandum of understandings (MOUs) are recommended in this stage:
· City of Clearwater Traffic Engineering
· Pinellas County 911 Dispatch Center
· City of Clearwater Police Dispatch
· Pinellas County Traffic Engineering
These MOUs will outline specific policies and procedures related to the proposed
information sharing and equipment maintenance.
Stage 1 also recommends that at least one system operator be added to the existing
staff. This additional operating cost is not included in the capital cost budget, but was
considered in the benefit-cost analysis.
7-6
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
Stage 1 TCC, field components, and communications are presented below and shown
in Figure 7.1. The estimated capital costs for Stage 1 is $ 3,204,948. A breakdown of
the capital costs is shown in Table 7.2. Table 7.3 summarizes the capital cost
assumptions for each item in Table 7.2.
A breakdown of the operating and maintenance cost is also shown in Table 7.2. Table
7.4 summarizes the maintenance and operations cost assumptions for each item.
7.1.1 Traffic Control Center (TCC)
Stage 1 deployment will include the following TCC improvements:
.
· Traffic Control System Software/Hardware Installation: This includes a traffic
control system that operates in a Local Area Network (LAN) configuration and
has the capability to share information and control with remote workstations.
The selected system will provide continuous monitoring of field devices, can
support ITS devices like CCTV and OMS, has the ability to provide
coordinated adaptive traffic control, has extensive data management
capabilities, can share video and data with other centers and has incident
management capabilities.
· MTCS computer replacement with a PC based computer system using the
existing Series 90 communications protocol.
7.1.2 Field Equipment
Stage 1 deployment will include the following new or upgrade to the existing field
equipment:
.
· Field Controllers/Cabinets: The existing NEMA TS-1 controllers/cabinets will
be replaced by 2070N controllers/cabinets for 16 signalized intersections
along S.R. 60 and the 5 intersections along U.S. 19.
· Adaptive Control Additions: The 16 S.R. 60 intersections and the five
intersections along U.S. 19 intersection will be controlled using adaptive traffic
control. Additional components will be added to the local controller and/or
field cabinets, depending on the adaptive control system selected.
· System Sensors: Non-intrusive system sensors will be installed at all
approaches to the intersections controlled by adaptive traffic control.
· Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV): CCTV cameras will be installed
at S.R. 60/McMullen Booth, S.R. 60/U.S. 19, S.R. 60/Hampton, and S.R.
60/Belcher, U.S. 19/0ruid Street, U.S. 19/Harn Blvd., U.S. 19 Belleair Road.
· Dynamic Message Signs (OMS): OMS signs will be installed along the
westbound approach of S.R. 60 at Lake Drive and the eastbound approach of
S.R. 60 at Island Way. Separately, the City of Clearwater will install a OMS
7-7
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
westbound on SR. 60 (OMS) at Memorial Causeway/lsland Way. This OMS
sign will exist at the start of Stage 1 and be integrated in this Stage 1 project.
7.1.3 Communications
As stated in Section 6.0, the recommended full-build scenario includes the installation of
fiber-optic communication backbone along S.R. 60 with a fiber optic cable run from S.R.
60 to the TCC. The preferred scenario is to place the fiber-optic cable underground.
However, the limited funding available for Stage 1 deployment does not permit for this
full implementation of this communications. Thus, an interim communications solution
was selected for Stage 1. This solution supports video and data communications
between Stage 1 deployment field devices and the TCC, taking into consideration the
fund limitation.
The Stage 1 communications solution is:
· 72 - Fiber Trunk Cable in Existing Conduit:
· S.R. 60 - Bayshore Blvd. to Clearwater Mall
· S.R. 60 - New bridge and roadway on the causeway to Clearwater
Beach. The conduit will be installed with road and bridge project.
· Druid Road - Bypass Road to U.S. 19
.
.
72 - Fiber Trunk Cable in New Conduit
· Court Street - Highland Avenue to new bridge at Osceola Avenue
· Myrtle Avenue - Court Street to TCC
· S.R. 60 - Clearwater Mall to Old Coachman Road
· U.S. 19 - Haines Bayshore to S.R. 60
· 72 - Fiber Trunk Overhead Cable
· Druid Road - Bypass Road to Keene Road
· Highland Avenue - Turner Street to SR 60
· Keene Road - Druid Road to Turner Street
· Turner Street - Keene Road to Highland Avenue
· 6/12 - Fiber Feeder Overhead Cable
· Arcturus Road - Turner Street to S.R. 60
· Belcher Road - Turner Street to S.R. 60
· Duncan Street - Turner Street to S.R. 60
· Hercules Avenue - Turner Street to S.R. 60
· Keene Road - Turner Street to S.R. 60
· Lake Drive - Turner Street to S.R. 60
.
6/12 - Fiber Feeder Cable in Existing Conduit
S.R. 60 - New bridge and roadway on the causeway to Clearwater Beach
.
7-8
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
.
6/12 - Fiber Feeder Cable in New Conduit
. Myrtle Avenue - TCC to Police Department
. S.R. 60 - From new bridge and roadway to Parking System Center on
Clearwater Beach
The aerial fiber optic cable along Druid Road is an interim installation until Stage 3 and
it will be to installed parallel to the existing cable along Druid and Turner Roads. This
fiber optic cabling provides the necessary bandwidth for this project and subsequent
communications upgrades elsewhere in the City.
A communications link between the City of Clearwater Police Dispatch and the TCC will
be established utilizing new underground conduit. This link will establish continuous
communications between the TCC and the remote workstation in the City of Clearwater
Police Dispatch. Separately, Pinellas County will provide a dedicated communications
link between the City of Clearwater Police Dispatch and the new Pinellas County 911
Center on Ulmerton Road that will provide monitoring at the Pinellas County 911
Center.
7-9
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 7.2: Estimated Cost for Stage 1 Deployment
.
.
s u bsyste m Item Equipment Unit Cost Units lata I Cost
TCC-l Central ::iottware I Hardware I Fumlture $LUU,UUO 1 :I> 200,000
TCC-L CentraT Video Hardware :I> LO,UOO 1 :I> 20,000
TCC TCC-3 I Centrar Communications Hardware $ oo,oUU 1 $ 55,5UU
TCC-4 I Database Server/workstations $ 21,000 1 $ 21,000
TCC-5 Training I Integration $571,575 1 :I> 571,575
TCC-6 Workstation Tor Video at TCC $ 4,500 1 :I> 4,500 /
Remote ~ " """ ..
REM-1 Workstation/Monitors (911, P. D.) $ 4,500 2 ,.......,.-
Workstations ------
RD-l System Sensors per Intersection Ai 28, UUU 21 :I> 588,000
RD-2 Controller Upgrade and Cabinet / $ 10,000 21 :I> 210,000
Roadway RD-3 IColor Camera I Lenses I Pan-Tilt I $ 11,000 7 $ 77,000
Subsystem Receiver
RD-4 'tJoles/GroUndlngltJower ::ierv. for Video \ $ 6,000 7 $ 42,000
Camera
RD-5 I UM~ (;:S-line, 12" character, w/structure) \ $150,000 2 $ 300,UOO
COM-1 172 Strand Fiber OptiC Trunk (exIst. $------r5O 8,205 $ 12,308
conduit)
COM-2 {L ::itrand t-lOer Uptic rrunK (direCtional $ 23.50 13,355 $ 313,843
bore)
COM-3 72 Strand t-lOer Uptic I runK (plowed $ 6.50 10,218 $ 66,417
conduit)
TTrI'Vf -4 , 12 ::itrand Fiber OptiC TrunK (overhead) $ 1.50 14,~14 :I> 22,461
--
Communications COM-5 10/12 ~trand t-Ioer UptlC IrunK (Orldge mt., $ 5.00 4,100 $ 20,500
exist. conduit)
COM~ 6/12 Strand Fiber Optic Feeder (overhead) $ 23.30 300 $ 6,990
CUM-7 I-'ullooxes $ 400 33 $ 13,387
COM-8 ~Iber-Optic Data Transceiver $ 1,000 62 $ 62,UOO
COM-9 ~Iber-Optlc Video I ranscelver $ 1,200 20 $ '7.11 nru
,- , "'''''''
COM-l0 1 Splices $ 75.00 224 $ 16,tlUO
COM-ll I Interconnect Centers $ 500 27 $ 13,OUO
::iuototal $2,670,7tlO
Contingency (20%) $ 534,168
I U IAL t:~ f1MATED CAPITAL COST . $3,204,948
OM-l System Sensors $ 100 84 $ 8,400
UM-L CCTV $ 500 7 $ 3,500
(O&M) COST OM-3 UM::i $ 3,000 1 $ 3,UOO
PER YEAR OM-4 ::iystem Uperator (Annual ::ialary of
$50,000) $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000
OM-5 I CG equipment U&M $ 2,000 1 $ 2,UOO
I U I AL ~~J/.IU!: COST PER YEAR . $ 66,900
IUIAI LIFE-CYCLE COST $3,674,826
Loire-cycle Cost - Capital Cost + (Life-Cycle Cost t-actorf{AnnuaIO&M)
Note: Ufe-Cycle FaCtor assumes 7% interesfand10Yr's .... ... ..... .. ... ..
7j;-St<
~/
.
7-10
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS FeaSibilltUdY
Table 7.3: Capital Cost Assumptions for Stage 1 Deployment
7-11
--
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS FeaSibi~
Table 7.4: Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions for Stage 1 Deployment
7-12
-
v;
c'i
....:
f
:)
0)
i.i:
I03AV N~nlVS
1
(~
1
I
1
'3AV
,
I
1
01.
l?"
~
I
+ it
3NVl ,:~U38
....= I rr
V') ,
I
o
1=
~l
<(!
0-
j
1
J
T
-t
II
!
LU
....J
-" 0
Zl
6[ 'Son ' ~,
.J. 7\1' V')
NOS~3i~ T
...
Q)
.....
cu
~
~
Q)
~
U
...
o
'f
cu
==
+
\
1
T
1
I
r
01
tnr
o I I
~ [ NV::>Nna I ~
....J 10
U II-
I 0---/ ~
I~
I
j 0
~
CD
avo~ 3N33>1
o
0.::
o
~
==
<
~
o
0.::
&
LU
~
=>
z
0.::
<
LU
....J
....J
LU
CD
ci
0.::
f
I
T
I
3AI~a 3>1Vl
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
"
tnl
,
I ':J~' b()
.1'-
I
01
-0
, 0 I
~ 1 N10::>NIl
J,
I
-.
aNVlH91H I
I
I
,
I 03AV
I
j',AV lS'~::>llIH
~
LU
:>
LU
~ 13NVl
I
....=
V')
~
=>
o
U
\
i
o
0.::
Ail38 L
l
I
I
I
.L
o
-I
=>,
~I
~
~I
01 , I
I-
iV')fl-
I LU V')
>!~
I ~!=>
l~,' ::s'
t
r; ,t t '-'
I
I
,
~ -~~
;)~ 0.::'
vO i ~II
1 ~
~r T
Zq:
tnl
LU ,
II
U ~
i
1T~3AV >1"101
1'3AVr
1
.
NOSI~~VH o.L:l
03AV l~nOSSIW 1
I
J.
aOOMN33~9 i
or'
,
==
t--4
<
~
~
~
~
=
a
I I
'3AV
I
; 3nN3AV 311~^W I
1.
T ~l >- 1.
,.
V') .~. I
o V')
0.:: J <1"
J~'l' it~"
-', 0-
1- 11 .\
i~ ,j"t
,LU
I I Q'~
T c.... ,LU
I a::
,_ 1-
,
I
1
~
LU
1-
j~
~'-J
IU::
ICD
...
Q)
.....
~ j) cu
~
~
cu &.4
\Sv.NO y./t>-'< Q) 0
~ 'f
u
cu
==
~::E~
ZwW
-1-1-
~V'lZ
~>-w
~V'lU
Q.,..,
/<9 '-
~~
~,
-----
1. 600.5. 19 A TMS Stage
S.H. 6ov.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility SfucIJ
LLi ~~ I
~
LLi en' c,.
,~ \
I~ ~\ Zl
~I
I~ wI
I~ II I
:<C 1
,
.. GTB PLAZA
DRUID RD.
G\l~~R1
1 Deployment
ciI
~I
\
",,---
"-
"
//
/'
.
...
,
<l..
is
z
o
~I
<( -
u
8
g/
~i
~i
~
~!
~\
<>"
DREW ST.
------r-- - - 1---.
~,
z'
o
Ii:
~
I.
S.R.60
w
~
w
~
o
I
en
~
co
~
N
~
/ -----
~
V4 0 V4 112 314
, , , , ,
SCALE IN MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
I..... ' , , , I
SCALE IN FEET
5T AGE 1
LEGEND
EXISTING
..
""T
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CC'TV
DMS
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
OVERHEAD
72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
6112 FIBER-OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
UNDERGROUND
72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
6112 FIBER-OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
PROPOSED
..
-.-
.
PROPOSED
CONDUIT
W/0'//ff//~
~""""~ """"~ ,,~
Figure 7.2:
S.H. 6ov.S. 19 ArMS
Stage 1 Deployment
7-73
, .1
}\ 0'
~' ~I TROPIC HILLS Old Tampa Bay
I
\ l cP
l' "' ~
"~-e lJ'
I ..... ~
" IV 0 ~
I CURTI: BLVD. => ~
~ CURTIS '----- .. '6
~
I
L
co NURSERY RD.
/'
~
w
~
co
EXISTING
CONDUIT
1'l'///ff/h0"~
~~~~
-+-Q .
~
(,-<-~
O'f
o
~\
z
~i
I
u
<(,
01
- --~'--- -A-
o
...J
o
..
~
q,,~
UJ
-'
-'
:>
z
UJ
0,
UJ
C<: '
o
~I
<:
c...
~I
CLW MALL
I~
o
\ co
~
<(
I
~
en
BELLEAIR ~ RD.
\
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
. 7.2 Stage 2 Deployment
.
.
As shown in Table 7.1, the proposed deployment for Stage 2 upgrades the existing
controllers/cabinets for 37 additional intersections (Drew Street, Cleveland Street, S.R.
60 from Memorial Causeway to Highland Avenue and Chestnut Street from Oak Avenue
to Greenwood Avenue). Stage 2 deployment also includes bringing the additional 37
intersections under adaptive control. This would require the installation of more non-
intrusive detector stations.
In addition, video monitoring is proposed at key intersections on Drew Street, including
almost full coverage of S.R. 60 between Belcher Avenue and Island Way. This includes
eight CCTV cameras.
The Stage 2 communications upgrade would include installing fiber optic runs to
connect the devices along Drew Street and sections of Cleveland Street. It is assumed
that the existing aerial pole lines and conduits would be used.
Upon the completion of Stage 2, the entire section of S.R. 60 through the City of
Clearwater would have comprehensive roadway monitoring. Therefore, during the
design phase of Stage 2, the TCC Traffic Network Performance Evaluation equipment
package should be incorporated. The detailed estimated cost for Stage 2 is shown in
Table 7.5.
Two memoranda of understanding (MOU) is recommended in this stage:
. City of Clearwater Parking Management Division
. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority
These MOU's will outline specific policies and procedures related to the proposed
information sharing and equipment maintenance.
Stage 2 also recommends that at least one systems engineer be added to the existing
staff. This additional operating cost is not included in the capital cost budget.
Stage 2 TCC, field components, and communications is presented below and shown in
Figure 7.3. The estimated capital costs for Stage 2 is $ 3,739,872. A breakdown of the
capital costs is shown in Table 7.5. Table 7.6 summarizes the capital cost assumptions
for each item in Table 7.5.
7-14
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
A breakdown of the operating and maintenance cost is also shown in Table 7.5. Table
7.7 summarizes the maintenance and operations cost assumptions for each item.
7.2.1 Traffic Control Center (TCC)
Stage 2 deployment will include the following TCC improvements:
· Integration of a remote workstation for the City of Clearwater Parking
Management Division.
. Integration of additional field devices.
7.2.2 Field Equipment
Stage 2 deployment will include the following new or upgrade to the existing field
equipment:
· Field Controllers/Cabinets: The existing NEMA TS-1 controllers/cabinets will
be replaced by 2070N controllers/cabinets for 38 signalized intersections
along Drew Street, Cleveland Street, S.R. 60 from Memorial Causeway to
Highland Avenue and Chestnut Street from Oak Avenue to Greenwood
Avenue.
· Adaptive Control Additions: The 38 intersections will be controlled using
adaptive traffic control. Additional components will be added to the local
controller and/or field cabinets, depending on the adaptive control system
selected.
· System Sensors: Non-intrusive system sensors will be installed at all
approaches to the intersections controlled by adaptive traffic control.
· Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras: Install 8 CCTV cameras at S.R.
60/Bayshore, Court/Missouri, Pierce/Memorial Causeway, Chestnut/Ft.
Harrison, Memorial Causeway/Island Way, Drew/McMullen Booth,
Drew/Keene, Drew/Missouri.
7.2.3 Communications
The Stage 2 communications solution is:
.
6/12-Fiber Feeder Cable in Existing Conduit
· Cleveland Street - Osceola Ave. to Myrtle Avenue between street
crossings
· Cleveland Street - Missouri Avenue to Gulf to Bay
· Drew Street - Hercules Avenue to Belcher Road
· Drew Street - Old Coachman Road to Hampton Avenue
· Ft. Hairston Avenue - Chestnut Street to Drew Street
7-15
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
· Hampton Avenue - S.R. 60 to Drew Street
· Hercules Avenue - S.R. 60 to Drew Street
· Keene Avenue - S.R. 60 to Drew Street
· McMullen Booth Road - S.R. 60 to Drew Street
.
6/12-Fiber Feeder Cable in New Conduit
· Chestnut Street - Oak Avenue to Ft. Hairston Avenue
· Cleveland Street - Osceola Avenue to Myrtle Avenue, install conduits
only under street crossings.
· Cleveland Street - Myrtle Avenue to Greenwood Avenue
· Cleveland Street - Gulf to Bay to Highland Avenue
· Drew Street - Greenwood Avenue to Betty Lane
· Drew Street - Osceola Avenue to Myrtle Avenue
· Missouri Avenue - Court Street to Drew Street
· Myrtle Avenue - Chestnut Street to Court Street
· Myrtle Avenue - TCC to Cleveland Street
. 6/12-Fiber Feeder Overhead Cable
· S.R. 60 - Cleveland Street to Hillcrest Avenue
· Grove St. - Missouri Avenue to Betty Lane
· Highland Avenue - Cleveland Street to Drew Street
7-16
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 7.5: Estimated Cost for Stage 2 Deployment
Remote
Workstation
Roadway
Subsystem
RD-4 $ 6,000 8 $ 48,000
$ 1.30 22,521 $ 29,277
$ 23.30 12,803 $ 298,310
$ 23.30 1,290 $ 30,057
7-17
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 7.6: Capital Cost Assumptions for Stage 2 Deployment
Table 7.7: Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions for Stage 2
Deployment
ssumptlons
our non-intrusive eVlces per intersection.
7-18
vi
M
"
e
::t
0)
i.i:
l H 1 1
1+/////+/////////////21 ;--
! J I j ~
J"3AV N~nlVS. 1 ~ i I m
(~ '3A~ ~IN'v':)Nna r ~
I ~ ! l ~
1 i r-? ru..
I '\J ~
I
4<-t'r - '.
.. -. "i:~"-
~"
,
, L 1
..
b<)
~,
c:"
/
r
~
;/
1.
\,
1 3NVl )~1l38
,: I
l-
V) 1=r
gl r
~
UJI ? 1
~ :r
~ "
!
1 r"
r 1
r
t-r
- - --
.....: t;;
V)
~
:J
0 0
I~ u
~ Ii
'en N10:)NIl
!
, I
I ,I '
V>.I. I- - ---I - -~.tn
I UJ I V)! ;)~1 ~
:~J~ u 6>( ~I
I~:J U . :J
q~ 1-, , l-
I -" .--~ -y-
2Iiln~~; "'
1
-...
UJ
-J
01
Z h .:r
~,
6/ 'S', ~ I '3A'v'
n .J.7v "NOS~31'v'M
~
~
..
CU
~
CU
~
~
U
~
o
"f
CU
==
I I
I
~ f
a'v'o~ 3N33)1
1
ci
~
J
~i
>-1
~I
UJ
~
:J
Z
.1.
T
I
"
I
I
I
'3A'v' aNVlH81H I
I
,
!
!
---1-
3AI~a 3)1Vl
- '3A'v' lS3~:)11IH
o
it
,
l
~
UJ
:>
UJ
~
~ 13NVl
lli38 t
~
'3A'v' I~nosslw I
I
l
a
"'\
t-'
~
~
1~
'T-J
Ig
-
NOSI~~'v'H '1::1
\
0 0
~
~
~ =
<(
UJ <
-J
-J
UJ
co ~
I
,
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
1
I
1
~
I
=
~
<
~
~
~
~
=
-r U
I
I
" :>-rt
\~
~
~
..
~ j) CU
~
~
CU ~
\5v..~O 'NP-'< ~ 0
,...... "f
u
CU
==
~
,,-
o,,)~
<9
~~
'/D '-
""
~~O<:
ZUJUJ
-1-1-
~V)z
O<:>-UJ
~V)U
/----
s.H. 6{HJ.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Sfud)
r. 600.5. 19 A TMS Stage 2 Deployment
i
G\l~~~
I
u..i
~
en
~
:::l
I-
U
01::
<c
w
I
'1
0,
01::1
~""
"
...
/:
/
/
0'
z
o
~I
<cL
U I
q,..<;) .
~ ~
(,~~
I C /
o'f I
C Zl 0
~I g/
~~. II E!!5/(
UI ~I
<3/ I DREW ST. ..
U
.1 ~ t>/ ci ---~- ---T
~~ ~\ 01:: ~
01 w
-J <>", Z
0 I 01::,
I 0 ~I 0
z' ~. l- I
I a.. ~
_I ~ en
~: ~~ ~
I t:C t:C
I S.R.60
t
N
~
-----
~
Figure 7. 3:
S.R. 6tnJ.S. 19 A TMS
Stage 2 Deployment
7-J9
.;" I J- ---10' " . " \- -.. - --1.-- ----
LLJ .,..:' I
GTB PLAZA -J I Cl , 01:: \ ..
...J 0
:> V) I
z V) CLW ' t:C
LLJ ~I MALL 01::
Cl I >-' I <c
LLJ a:lj I
i SEVILLE ~
~- en
DRUID RD.
I
1\
\/
I
\
ci
01::
Old
Tampa Bay
TROPIC HILLS
..I
i
I
i CURTI]
01:: CURTIS
~I
iLL I
t:C
~ ~,p1-
~ BLVD.
0-
.--
vi
:::l
~
"
NURSERY RD.
.
~
BELLEAIR ~ RD.
\
--- ----(,
I
I
I
I
,
. HAINES BAYSHORE RD.
tP
~
C!).
~
~
'6
~
V4 0 V4 112 3/4
I , , , .
SCALE IN MI LES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1....11I ' , , , 1
SCALE IN FEET
STAGE 2
LEGEND
EXISTING
EXISTING
CONDUIT
~///$,.0'h1
~,~~
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CCTV
OMS
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
OVERHEAD
72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
6112 FIBER-OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
UNDERGROUND
72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
6112 FIBER-OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
PROPOSED
..
-.-
.
PROPOSED
CONDUIT
Wffff,.0'ff/;l
~,~"'~"~
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
. 7.3 Stage 3 Deployment
Stage 3 deployment will focus on completing the full-build scenario presented earlier in
Figure 6.1. Stage 3 deployment includes installation of video monitoring at four
locations and DMS signs at five locations. Twenty-one dynamic trailblazer signs would
be installed at ten intersections that assist in diverting traffic onto Drew Street from S.R.
60. Pedestrian safety units would be installed along at the bike trail crossing of Court
and Chestnut Streets.
The estimated capital costs for Stage 3 are shown in Table 7.8. Tables 7.9 summarizes
the capital cost assumptions for each item. Stage 3 TCC, field components and
communications is presented below and shown in Figure 7.4. The estimated capital
costs for Stage 3 is $ 1,890,036.
A breakdown of the operating and maintenance cost is also shown in Table 7.8. Table
7.10 summarizes the maintenance and operations cost assumptions for each item.
7.3.1 Traffic Control Center (TCC)
Stage 3 deployment will include integration of the additional field devices.
. 7.3.2 Field Equipment
Stage 3 deployment will include the following new or upgrades to the existing field
equipment:
. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Cameras: Install 4 CCTV cameras at S.R.
60/Keene, S.R. 60/Highland, Court/Myrtle and Drew Street/U.S. 19
. Dynamic Message Signs (DMS): Install 6 DMS signs at S.R. 60/Bayshore,
S.R. 60/McMullen Booth, Drew/McMullen Booth, Drew/U.S. 19 and U.S.
19/Tropic Hills, SR. 60/Hampton.
. Dynamic Trailblazer Signs (DTS): Install 21 DTS at S.R. 60/McMullen Booth,
S.R. 60/U.S. 19, S.R. 60/Keene, S.R. 60/Duncan, S.R. 60/Lake,
Court/Missouri, Drew/McMullen Booth, Drew/U.S. 19, Drew/Keene,
Drew/Missouri, Missouri/Cleveland.
7.3.3 Communications
The interim Stage 3 communications solution is:
.
Underground 72-Fiber Trunk Cable in New Conduit
. S.R. 60 - Old Coachman Road to Highland Avenue.
.
7-20
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
6/12-Fiber Feeder Cable in Existing Conduit
· McMullen Booth Road - North of Drew Street to OMS sign
· Underground 6/12-Fiber Feeder Cable in New Conduit
· Bike Trail - Chestnut to Court Streets for pedestrian safety units
· U.S. 19 - North of Drew Street to OMS sign
· S.R. 60 - Bayshore Blvd. to OMS sign
· 6/12-Fiber Cable in New Conduit on Existing Bridge
· McMullen Booth Road - South of S.R. 60 to OMS sign
7-21
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 7.8: Estimated Cost for Stage 3 Deployment
RD-6
Roadway RD-7
Subsystem
RD-4 $ 6,000 4 $ 24,000
$ 1.30 600 $ 780
$ 36.30 1,000 $ 36,300
7-22
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 7.9: Capital Cost Assumptions for Stage 3 Deployment
Table 7.10: Operations and Maintenance Cost Assumptions for Stage 3
Deployment
ssumptlons
7-23
1-
()U>~
m-<;>e
zu>^
-i-i-
mmz
;>e?:Q
==
~
a- n )..'<IN'- Ql4'f\S\
.....
0 fD
.., ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
.....
fD
...
t:=
~
~
~
~
>
~
~
OJl
~I
r-
1'T]1
SI
m
~
FT. HARRISON
I,
I I
lA vd
I" T<-
12: : ~
m L"
1'- iF 0
,~ ;;0
Ic.n .l ~
1
r" Y. ~
MYRTLE AVENUE '
I I
j GREENWOOD AVE!
~" \
T
I
I
1
T
I
MISSOURI AVE.
1
I BETTY
I
LANE I >
'A
I~
~
1;;0
10
i.
HILLCREST AVE.f
I HIGHLAND AVE. J
I I
....
~
>
~
~
o
\
1
I
I
-I I
I
I
I
1 Iz
I
OJ
m
r-
r- C
m ;;0
~ c.n
;;0 m
~
I
I~
LAKE DRIVE
;;0
~
-r
1
;;0
~
KEENE ROAD
I
/1
~4
-' ~ - "-
I (
IOAK AVE., V I., J I
I
I 1
r IQI ~] I .J.
.. ~ .en
nZ:t' L~ ,.. T
1 l~J ~ ~
:2 I I: ,rl
';;0 ,.... ()
'z' ;'J
: ~ v -!bC::-O
'c.n- y
l:-l
I I
..
.L
I
> 'OT
c;;o
~I~
J. ~l:l
--I
I I I 10
, ;;0
1m
~
o
;;0
C
o
I I
1-.- ~ -,-j~
-'0
1 '
I LINCOLN i~:
[ . I
, 0.'
10
I
~ ---
()
o
c
~
c.n
:-l
J
- +- ~r
I /
i / .-is I
, 1 ~q ~
1
o
C
r-
"
I
()J
'n
Ir-
I~
~\.JJ-lC~~tz> AVE.
o --1
\-~ i
J -.-1'
I ~[---
~- - t
.
T
I
~ - J-
--I
o
OJ
<
~ ~
, ---
==
~
a-
o
...
n
.....
fD
~
~
~
.....
fD
...
.1
~~TERSON .,. -4L.,.
Tc.n 'Us
. : ~ . .79
,-
IZ
o
r-
m
I
I
f:.
r
h
~
T
~
I~
m
::t
o
~
f-
/
~
I
1.
Ic.n
-+ [:-l
BEn';' LANE 1
r
,
Ic.n
:-l
1-
~
I
~ ------
"I'
'.., ,t;",I'I_
I ' 1L
I
V'CJ \
SATURN AVE. r
I
I
."
cQ'
e:
(j;
~
oI:l.
"
~
:e
1,
-,
I. 600.5. 19 A TMS Stage 3 Deployment
s.1i. 6fJ1J.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Stud)
.1
0'
0.:\
"-,
...
/1
/ I
/ I
o
z
o
~,
<( L--
U
"
/
I
I
G\~EI
-.-
Q
o
2
!!E,
Ll
~<::).
~
G-<-~
o~
o
'\"
@.\
Z
~I
II
U'
<('
01
__ __ U..
T
W w I
W ~I ~H 0'
~ · 01
~ ~I ~I I !
~ fD, ~I' I I
U II
0.: I
r/$/////////;///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////J'
I I GTB PLAZA ~ ~
i ct5 ~
I DRUID RD. @ ~
/
/
..
~ i----
I
<r--~-- -
'6' 0
~\ 0.:
0', Z,
o
Ii:
~
I
,
I
-.-I~
~!
~
~~
S.R.60
Q
,
I
.1
o
0.:
TROPIC HILLS
Old
Tampa Bay ---
I SEVILLE
~-
~ , " ~1>'1t
I CURTIS 0-
.-
v;
BLVD. =>
" '---
,
0.: CURTIS
w
I
U
....l
W
lJJ NURSERY RD.
BELLEAIR ~ RD.
\
~
N
~
~
~~-'~
V4 0 V4 1'2 314
, , , , ,
SCALE IN MILES
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1....111 ' , , , I
SCALE IN FEET
cP
\~
<!J.
~
%
6
~
EXISTING
5T AGE 3
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CCTV
DMS
DYNAMIC TRAILBLAZER
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY UNIT
OVERHEAD
72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
6112 FIBER-OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
UNDERGROUND
72 FIBER-OPTIC TRUNK
6112 FIBER-OPTIC FEEDER CABLE
EXISTING
CONDUIT
f7'/4000"hl
~""~
PROPOSED
..
-.-
-.-
.
PROPOSED
CONDUIT
f7'ff//0"ffffhl
~~"""~~
Figure 7. 4:
5.1i. 6tn1.5. 19 A TMS
Stage 3 Deployment
7-24
DREW ST. ---1
~I ~ ' ----
<(I W
0.:
~ 0
w I
~ V>
~ ~
~I lJJ
1 -.-
_,_-
\ I - - --H,"""''l
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
7.4 Project Deployment and Costs
The following Table 7.11 summarizes the capital costs for the three stages of
deployment for the project. Table 7.12 summarizes the operations and maintenance
costs for the three stages of deployment.
7-25
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 7.11: Estimated Capital Cost for Full Deployment
. . Equipment
~entral-software / Hardware / Fumlture
~entral-s6ltware
~entral VRfeo Hardware
~entrar Communications Hardware
Uatabase -Server/Workstatlons
I raining TImegratlon
WorkstalionfOr Video at TCC
System Integration
System Integration
Remote WAN Frame Relay CircUit (PS IA)
Workstations Workstation/Monitors (911, P. U.)
WorKstation/Monitors (parl<lngl'VTanagement, PSTA)
system Sensors per InterseCtion
Controller Upgrade and caolneT
COlor cameraTCensesTPan-Tilt I Kecelver
Roadway
Subsystem pOles TorVRfeoGamera (40')
OMS (3::flne, 12' character, w/structure)
DynamiC Trailblazers (Including structure)
Pedestrian Safety Units
72 Strand Fiber OptiC TrunKTexlst. condUit)
72 Strand Fiber OptiC IrunK1OJrectlonal bOre)
.. mm_m_mm_____m_ .72 Strand Fiber opuc TrunK (plowed condUit)
I {2 ::itrarlOFilfer-Upuc Trunk (ovemead)
16/12 StrarfcfFiDe(Uptic Feeder (exIst. condUit)
16/12 StranOFiber Optic Feeder {a1rectlonal bOre)
16/12 Strand Fiber OptiC Feeder {t:xlstlng condUit on bndge)
16/12 Strand Fiber OptiC Feeder (bnage mount)
16/12 Strand Fiber OptiC Feeder (ovemead)
IPullboxes
~Iber-optlc Data Transceiver
~Iber-optlc Video Transceiver
Splices
nterconnect Centers
....OnifCoSt
$ 200,000
$ 271,429
$ 20,000
$ 55,500
$ 21,000
$ 571,575
$ 4,500
$ 800,711
$ 50,000
$ 3,000
$ 4,500
$ 4,bUO
$ 2tl, UUU
$ lU,UUU
$ . 11,000
$ 6,000
$ 150,000
$ 20,000
$ lU,UOO
$ 1.bO
$ 2J.bU
$ o.bU
$ 1.bU
$ 1.30
$ 23.30
$ 5.00
$ 36.30
$ 23.30
$ 4UO.UO
$ 1,UUU.UO
$ 1,2UU.UO
$ (b.UU
$ bUO.UO
SubsyStem
TCC
Subtotal
~ontlngency (20~o)
111IllI t::) liMA I t:U l'At"11 AL COST
Stage-Z Stage 3 project Total
Units . Total CoSt Units.. TolaICoSt.. . Units .. Tola I CoSt
1 $ 200,000
1 $ 271,429
1 $ 20,000
1 $ 55,500
1 $ 21,000
1 $ 571,575
1 $ 4,500
1 $ 800,711
1 $ 50,000
1 $ 3,000
i- $ 9,000
2 $ 9,000
58 $ 1,624,000
5tl $ btlU,OOU
1~ $ 2U~,UUU
1~ $ 114,UUU
H $ 1,i-UU,UUU
i-l $ 420,000
2 $ 20,000
8,205 $ 12,308
13,355 $ 313,843
lU,21tl $ 00,417
14,~{4 $ 22,401
(tlU 2J,121 $ JU,Ub{
12,tlUJ $ 2~tl,J1U
4,lUU $ 2U,bUU
1,000 $ ;;\o,JUU 1,UUU $ Jo,JUU
300 $ 6,990 1,2~U -s 30,057 1,b~U $ J/,U41
33 $ 13,387 ltl ~ 7,202 3 $ 1,JUU bb:l) 21,888
62 $ 62,000 (4 -s 74,000 58 $ bH,UUU 1~4 $ 194,000
20 $ 24,000 2U -s L4,000 14 $ 10,HUU b4:l) 64,800
224 $ 16,800 121 ~ 9,075 38 $ 2,HbU JHJ:l) 2H,/2b
27 $ 13,500 J{ -s 1tl,500 2 $ 1,UUU 00$ JJ,UUU
$2,670,780. $3,116~5O(J aI--s1,575,030E;I $ 7,362,369
$ 534,168 ~.~ $ Jlb,UUo $ 1,472,486
~3,204,948 $3,73~ ~1,890,036 ~ 8,834,855
Stage 1
Units . TotafCoSt
1 $ 200,OUO
1 -s2T1 ,42g
1 $ 20,000
1 $ 55,500
1 $ 21 ,000
1 $ 571,575
1 $ 4,500
1$ lm{J,{11
1 $ bU,UUU
1~
~,OOO
2 $
9,000
21 $ btl8,UUU
21 $ 21U,UUU
1 $ 77,000
7 $ 42,000
2 $ 300,000
2 $ ~,UOO
37 $1,03Q,UOO
37 $ 370,000
8 $ 88,000
8 $ 48,000
4- -$ 44,UOO
4 $ 24,UUU
6 $ ~UU,UUU
21 $ 42U,UUU
2 $ 'LU,UUU
8,2U5 $ 12,3U8
lJ,3bb $ 313,84J
1U,218 $ 00,41 {
14,~/4 $ 22,461
22,521 $ 29,277
12,803 $ 298,310
600 $
4,100 $ 20,500
7-26
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
Table 7.12: Estimated Operations and Maintenance Cost for Full Deployment
(O&M) COST
PER YEAR
7-27
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
.
7.5 Alternative System Detection
The capital and operating costs assumed non-intrusive detection due to the long term
benefits of reduced maintenance costs. As an alternative, capital and operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs per intersection have been computed and are presented
below. The following assumptions were made in this calculation:
. Estimate assumes SCOOT installation which is more expensive.
. Assumes one maintenance visit per year for RTMS detection.
. Assumes two maintenance visits per year for loop detection.
. Assumes 1 O-year life for RTMS detection.
. Assumes 4-year life for loop detection.
. No costs have been included for cost of lane closures.
Table: 7.13: RTMS Non-Intrusive Detection Life-Cycle Costs
.
2,000.00
5,942.47
Table: 7.14: Inductive Loop Detection Life-Cycle Costs
$ 550 $ 5,500.00
150 . $ 1,800.00
350 $ 1 ,400.00
10$ 2,000.00
22 $13,200.00
$ 100 400.00
7,455.98
.
This analysis clearly shows the life-cycle cost advantage for non-intrusive detection.
7-28
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
This analysis clearly shows the life-cycle cost advantage for non-intrusive detection.
. 7.6 Market Package Deployment
The following table summarizes market package deployment. Table 7.15 correlates the
market packages identified with the three stages of deployment:
Table 7.15: Deployment of Market Packages
Package Number Market Package Stage
AD2 ITS Data Warehouse 1
ATIS2 Interactive Traveler Information 2
APTS7 Multi-modal Coordination 2
ATMS01 Network Surveillance 1
A TMS03 Surface Street Control 1
ATMS06 Traffic Information Dissemination 1
A TMS07 Regional Traffic Control 1
A TMS08 Incident Management System 1
A TMS09 Traffic Prediction and Demand Management 3
ATMS13 Standard Railroad Grade Crossing 1
ATMS19 Regional Parking Management 2
EM1 Emergency Response 1
EM2 Emergency Routing 1
.
Stages:
1 Short Term = 0-5 years
2 Mid Term = 5-10 years
3 Long Term = >10 years
7.7 Procurement Alternatives
ITS systems such as proposed for the S.R.lU.S. 19 corridors are complex and utilize the
latest technology in a rapidly changing industry. To maximize the use of the technology,
it is important to utilize a procurement process that expedites the acquisition of
materials. Another important issue in the integration of complex systems is the ability to
integrate the different subsystems. A procurement process that has accountability to a
single entity is highly desirable. Third, it is very difficult to acquire a contractor who has
the expertise to install these types of integrated systems. This section outlines
procurement alternatives and a recommended method for procuring the system.
Low bid construction with owner operations and maintenance: The contracting agency
procures design and construction services under separate independent contracts. The
owner (City of Clearwater/Florida Department of Transportation) provides all
. maintenance after final acceptance. The maintaining agency may not have all the
7-29
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
required expertise and equipment to maintain certain components due to high costs and
infrequent need for that expertise and equipment.
Low bid construction with extended warranties and owner operations: The contracting
agency procures design and construction services under separate independent
contracts. The owner is responsible for system operations. The construction contract
includes requirements for the contractor and the manufacturers of equipment supplied
for the project to fix or replace malfunctioning equipment for a specified period. The
scope can be limited to certain items. Failures may occur at inopportune and
unexpected times.
Contract maintenance, contract operations: The contracting agency procures design
and construction services under separate independent contracts. A contractor is
employed to provide system operations and maintenance staff for a specified period.
The contract operation is usually a separate contract from the construction contract.
DesiQn-build-operate-maintain (DBOM): This method utilizes single contractor/engineer
team to supply design services, construction, system integration, operations and
maintenance. The length of the contract for maintenance can be specified for any
length. This method allows for an expedited construction schedule. It allows the
contractor team to be more innovative in the technologies used.
System ManaQer: All project design and interface functions are performed under one
contract with all construction performed in one or more construction contracts. The
systems manager develops the sequence of projects, preparation of plans,
specifications and estimates (PS&E), systems engineering, software design and
development, inspection, testing and integration. In some cases, the systems manager
procures certain system hardware. The benefits of this procurement method are: single
point of authority and responsibility for design, software and integration, reduced
implementation time, reduced contractor claims, better identifies sources and causes of
system incompatibility and the agency retains authority for project control and
management.
Traditional construction contracts do not require special approval from FHWA for the
type of procurement process. Design-build and systems manager contracts do require
at least FHWA Division Office approval before utilizing those types of procurement
processes. Purchases under $ 100,000 and sole source projects are not applicable due
to the size of the purchases and the lack of a prior system that requires justification to
match equipment with a pre-existing system.
In order to achieve the migration plan described throughout this section, we recommend
a systems management approach be used to procure the system.
7-30
.
.
.
SECTION 8.0: BENEFIT I COST ANALYSIS FOR STAGE 1
As shown in the previous section, Table 7.2 includes the estimated capital and
operation and maintenance costs for Stage 1 deployment. Also shown in Table 7.2 is
the calculated life-cycle cost for Stage 1 deployment. This life-cycle cost was used for
determining the benefit/cost ratio. The following presents the methodology for
estimating the benefits associated with Stage 1 deployment and the benefit/cost ratio.
The benefits of deploying an adaptive signal control system for the 15 intersections on
S.R. 60 and 5 intersections on U.S. 19 and Stage 1 incident management functions as
discussed in Section 6 were calculated based upon two congestion cost components:
the personal delay cost and wasted fuel cost. The results are presented in Table 8.1.
The following is the methodology used in the calculation of the benefits of adaptive
traffic control in Table 8.1.
8.1 Adaptive Control Benefits
The hourly fuel consumption in gallons and total delay in vehicle-hour/hour (veh-hr/hr)
for the existing time-of-day (TOO) plans were estimated from Synchro 4 signal timing
program runs which were performed on 1996/1997 turning movement counts using
existing controller settings. The runs were performed for 15 intersections on S.R. 60
from Highland Avenue to Bayshore Boulevard and 5 intersections on U.S. 19 from Druid
Street to Haines Bayshore Road.
The year 2000 hourly fuel consumption and delay for TOO plans were obtained from the
Synchro 4 outputs as mentioned above, except that the delays were reduced by 12
percent (assuming 4% decrease in delay per year if the timing plans were updated
every year from 1997 to 2000). No increase in delay and fuel consumption was
assumed between the years 2000 and 2010. That is, for all the years between these
two years, the delays and fuel consumption are the same. This is a conservative
assumption, since some increase would be expected.
The hourly fuel consumption and system delay for the adaptive traffic control option
were estimated from Synchro 4 signal timing program runs using the 1996/1997 turning
movement counts and optimizing each 15-minute interval for all peaks investigated. A
FHWA report [1], which summarizes the reported benefits from ITS deployments,
reports between 15% and 20% reduction in delay when using adaptive traffic control
compared to optimized time-of-day plans. The results from this study show a 23%
decrease in delay during the high volume PM peak hour and a much higher 38%
decrease in delay during the lower volume and more variable off-peak hour period.
8-1
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
The annual yearly fuel consumption and total system delay for the existing TOO and
adaptive control alternatives were calculated based upon the hourly values assuming
260 working days per year, three hours AM peak, three hours PM peak and ten hours
off-peak.
The annual yearly vehicle operation and traveler costs for the TOO and adaptive control
alternatives were calculated based on the annual delay and fuel consumption values
estimated above, assuming $7.5 per person-hour personal cost of delay, 1.2 average
vehicle occupancy (in persons per vehicle) and $1.0 per gallon cost of fuel.
The yearly benefits of the adaptive control system in dollars were calculated by
subtracting the operation and traveler cost of the optimized TOO alternative from that of
the adaptive control alternative. The life-cycle benefit was then calculated assuming
7% interest rate and 10 years project life.
8.2 Incident Management Benefits
The incident management system was assumed to reduce the incident duration time of
80 incidents per year, assuming that each of the four CCTV cameras proposed for
Stage 1 deployment is installed at a location with 20 incidents per year. Benefits at
other incident locations, due to information sharing with emergency management
agencies and better central software capabilities, were not included in the benefit
calculation.
The incident management system was assumed to reduce the incident duration by 20
minutes. This number was selected on previous experience with incident management
systems [2].
The California Department of Transportation estimates that for each minute reduction in
incident duration, there is a reduction of four to five minutes in individual vehicle delay
[3]. It was assumed that each minute reduction in incident duration reduces individual
vehicle delay by two minutes. This results in approximately 40 minutes of savings per
vehicle per incident. Thus, the two minutes delay saving in this study is a conservative
assumption.
Pinellas County MPO's 1999 Transportation Level of Service Report presented average
peak hour volumes (K100) for S.R. 60 at Belcher Road, U.S. 19, Hampton Road and
McMullen-Booth Road. These locations all had peak hour volumes greater than 5,000
vehicles per hour in both directions. However, it was assumed that only 1800 vehicles
per hour would be affected by an incident. It was assumed that this number was
constant for the ten-year period between 2000 and 2010. This is a conservative
estimate.
8-2
-
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
The yearly savings in total delay in veh-hr was calculated for each year between 2000
and 2010 conditions by multiplying the number of affected incidents per year (80) by
individual vehicle delay saving by the number of vehicles affected by each incident.
The yearly savings in fuel consumption in gallons were calculated assuming 0.4 gallons
saving in fuel consumption for one vehicle-hour saving in delay.
The annual yearly vehicle operation and traveler costs were calculated based on the
annual delay and fuel consumption values estimated above, assuming $7.5 per person-
hour personal cost of delay, 1.2 average vehicle occupancy (in persons per vehicle) and
$1.0 per gallon cost of fuel.
The life-cycle benefit of the system was then calculated assuming 7% interest rate and
10 years project life.
8.3 Benefit/Cost Ratio
Based on the life-cycle cost presented in Table 7.2 and the benefits presented in Table
8.1(a) and (b).
indicating that
The benefit/cost ratio for the project was calculated to be 15.68
Stage 1 deployment is a very cost-effective alternative.
8-3
.
.
.
Table 8.1: Stage 1 Benefit-Cost Analysis
(a) Adaptive Control Benefits
TOD Control Performance Adaptive Control Performance
Year Peak Delay (veh-hr) Fuel Consump. Cost ($) Delay Fuel Consump. (gal) Cost ($)
(gal) (veh-hr)
2000 AM 803 2226 $9,453 534 1856 $6,662
PM 1056 2818 $12,322 817 2420 $9,773
OFF 358 1566 $4,788 221 1415 $3,404
Yearly 2,380,820 8,005,920 $29,433,300 1,628,380 7,014,280 $21,669,700
Annual Adaptive Control Benefits $7,763,600
Life-Cycle Adaptive Control Benefits $54,528,421
Life-Cycle Benefit = (Life-Cycle Benefit Factor)*(Annual Benefit)
Note: Life-Cycle Factor assumes 7% interest and 10 yrs
(b) Incident Management Benefits
Volume Delay Fuel Consump. Cost
(vph) (veh-hr) (gal)
Annual Incident Management Benefits 1800 96000 38400 $902,400
Life-Cycle Benefits for Incident Management $6,338,097
Life-Cycle Benefit = (Life-Cycle Benefit Factor)*(Annual Benefit)
Note: Life-Cycle Factor assumes 7% interest and 10 yrs
(c) Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Life-Cycle Benefit of Stage 1 $60,866,518
Total Life-Cycle Cost of Stage 1 $3,881,320
Benefit/Cost Ratio 15.68
8-4
.
.
.
SECTION 9.0: EVALUATION PLAN
The objective of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Stage 1 evaluation is to determine how well
project goals and objectives are being achieved by Stage 1 deployment. The primary
purpose of the evaluation is to suggest changes in the project so that it eventually
meets or exceeds its goals and objectives. The results of the evaluation of S.R. 60
Stage 1 deployment will assist in making decisions regarding Stages 2 and 3
deployments. In addition, the evaluation will help The City of Clearwater and other
transportation agencies to make better decisions regarding traffic control system
deployments.
The evaluation plan described below recommends a combination of qualitative and
quantitative evaluation techniques for this purpose. Technical and non-technical
(institutional) factors will be evaluated before and after Stage 1 deployment.
The Evaluation Plan defines the evaluation measures of effectiveness, the hypotheses
that reflect the expected outcomes of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS project and a test plan
that is needed to test these hypotheses.
Field studies will be conducted in the AM, off-peak, PM and weekend peak periods.
Weekday studies will be conducted Tuesday to Thursday since Monday and Friday are
not considered normal days for traffic. In addition, because special events such as
incidents and construction can affect traffic volumes and patterns, these events and the
collection of data that are meant to represent "normal" traffic conditions should not
coincide.
9.1 Evaluation Measures
This section discusses the evaluation measures of effectiveness (MOE's) for the ATMS
components recommended for Stage 1 deployment. These measures are associated
with the National ITS Program goal areas - safety, mobility, efficiency, productivity,
energy and the environment.
9.1.1 Safety
The measures of effectiveness that will be used to quantify improvements in safety are
total crash rates, injury crash rates and fatal crash rates. These rates will be expressed
in terms of the number of crashes per million-vehicles entering the intersection for which
the safety analysis is being conducted. Crash rates by type will also be used in the
analysis (rear-end, angle, left-turn and same direction sideswipe crash rates in number
of crashes per million-vehicles entering the intersection).
9-1
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
9.1.2 Mobility
. The measures of effectiveness that will be used to quantify improvements in mobility
are: travel time in seconds per vehicle (sec/veh), travel time variability, average signal
delay in sec/veh, total signal delays in vehicle-hour (veh-hr) and number and
percentage of stops.
9.1.3 Efficiency
The measures of effectiveness that will be used to quantify improvements in efficiency
are the increase in throughput in veh/hr and reduction in the average incident duration
in minutes.
9.1.4 Productivity
The measure of effectiveness that will be used to quantify improvements in productivity
is cost savings in dollar. The costs considered will include vehicular operation and
traveler time costs, in addition to the S.R. 60 system capital, installation, operation and
maintenance costs.
9.1.5 Energy and Environment
.
The measure of effectiveness used to quantify improvements in energy is the fuel
consumption in gallon per hour (gal/hr). The measure of effectiveness used to quantify
improvements in air quality includes the concentration of the primary exhaust pollutants
(in gram) such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (Nox), hydrocarbons (HC)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC's).
9.2 Test Hypotheses
This section presents recommendations for the hypotheses to be tested in this study
and the tests required for these hypothesis. As is the case with system measures, the
evaluation hypotheses are related to the National ITS Program goal areas.
9.2.1 Safety
The hypotheses that will be used to assess the safety effects of Stage 1 include:
.
· The adaptive traffic control system to be installed at the 16 intersections on
S.R. 60 and the 5 intersections on U.S. 19 results in a reduction in the total,
injury and fatal crash rates.
· The adaptive traffic control is more effective in reducing crash rates than
retiming the signal using time-of-day or traffic responsive operation.
· The improvement in incident detection and management results in a reduction
in secondary crash rates.
9-2
.
.
.
SR. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
These hypotheses will be tested using a before-and-after crash analysis and by
examining the enforcement and emergency agencies incident records before and after
Stage 1 deployment.
9.2.2 Mobility
The hypotheses that will be used to assess the mobility effects of Stage 1 include:
· The adaptive signal control system to be installed 16 intersections on S.R. 60
and the 5 intersections on U.S. 19 provides a reduction in signal delays and
travel time compared to existing conditions.
· The adaptive signal control system to be installed at 16 intersections on SR.
60 and the 5 intersections on U.S. 19 provides a reduction in travel time
variability compared to the existing system.
· The adaptive signal control system to be installed at 16 intersections on S. R.
60 and the 5 intersections on U.S. 19 provides a reduction in the percentage
of stops compared to the existing system.
· The adaptive control system is more effective in improving mobility than time-
of-day operation.
· The improvement in incident detection and management results in a reduction
in travel time delay due to incidents
The tests that will be used to assess the above hypotheses, except the last one, will
utilize the floating car method. The last hypothesis will be tested based upon system
sensors measures, interviews with The City of Clearwater Signal Control System
personnel, and utilizing analytical analysis that relates delays to incident durations.
9.2.3 Efficiency
The hypotheses that will be used to assess the efficiency effects of Stage 1 include:
· The adaptive traffic control system will increase the throughput or effective
capacity of the S.R. 60 and U.S. 19 segments that are controlled by the
adaptive system.
· The improvement in incident detection and management results in a reduction
in incident duration.
The first two hypotheses will be assessed using system sensor counts and turning
movement counts for intersections. The third hypothesis will be examined using the
logs of the enforcement, emergency agency and the City of Clearwater Signal Control
System.
9-3
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 A TMS Feasibility Study
9.2.4 Productivity
. The hypotheses that will be used to assess the productivity effects of Stage 1 include:
.
.
· The adaptive traffic control system will result in a reduction in vehicular
operation and traveler time costs.
· The improvement in incident management and detection techniques will result
in a reduction in vehicular operation and travel time costs.
· The improvement in the central system monitoring and data management
capabilities will result in increase in productivity and reduction in cost of the
operation and maintenance of the system.
The saving in vehicular operation and traveler time costs will be calculated based upon
other system measures such as the savings in delay and fuel consumption. The
change in maintenance and operation costs will be assessed based upon City of
Clearwater Traffic Control System logs and interviews with system personnel. The
actual overall system cost will be documented including the capital, installation,
operation and maintenance costs.
9.2.5 Energy and Environment
The hypotheses that will be used to assess the energy and environment effects of
Stage 1 include:
· The adaptive traffic control system will result in a reduction in vehicle fuel
consumption.
· The adaptive traffic control system will result in a reduction in vehicle
emissions.
Fuel consumption and emission are outputs from travel time study programs. In these
programs, these measures are calculated based upon other measures such as stops
and delay.
9.3 Testing Plan
9.3.1 Quantitative Studies
System Sensor Measurement Analysis
As part of S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Stage 1 deployment, non-intrusive detectors will be
installed upstream of all intersection approaches of the signals along S.R. 60 and U.S.
19 previously shown for the purpose of adaptive traffic control. Data from these
detectors as well as the system loops that exist in the western section of the corridor
(between Highland Avenue and Oak Avenue) will be collected for a period of two
9-4
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
months before and after the Stage 1 implementation. The before and after data will be
collected in the same season or in seasons of similar traffic patterns to minimize the
effect of variations in S.R. 60 traffic demand taken into considerations the high
percentage of tourism traffic.
Counts, occupancy and speed will be recorded and stored in 15-minute summaries for
each location. Statistical analysis will be performed to test for any change in these
parameters.
Data during incident conditions will be isolated to determine the effects of incidents on
the operation before and after the project.
Turning Movement Counts
Peak-period manual turning counts will be collected and compared at selected locations
before and after the deployment of Stage 1. Some of this data (particularly the before
data) will most likely be available from the calibration of the signals adaptive traffic
control systems and from the retiming effort of the other signals. The peak period
volumes will be stored in 15-minutes intervals for the purpose of the analysis.
Crash Data Analysis
Crash data will be obtained from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles'
computerized crash record system. A statistical comparison will be made of the crash
rate in the three-year period before and the three-year period following the
implementation of the S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS project to determine if there is a change in
the corridor crash rates.
Travel Time Studies
The "floating car" method will be used to measure the delay experienced before and
after the installation of the system. In the "floating car" method, evaluation personnel
measure the time it takes a probe vehicle to traverse the arterial, using equipment such
as the Jamar board, a laptop computer equipped with the TA-88 program or other time
measurement equipment. From the information collected, average travel time, travel
time variability, speed, stops, fuel consumption and emission can be estimated.
Windows of time in the AM, PM and off-peak periods with consistent traffic conditions
will be selected for travel time measurements. Data from preliminary runs will be used
to measure the mean and standard deviation of travel time. A 95% confidence level
and a 10% tolerable error will be used to determine the required sample size.
9-5
.
.
.
S.R. 60/U.S. 19 ATMS Feasibility Study
Cost Studies
The costs considered will include vehicular operation and traveler time costs, in
addition, to the S.R. 60 system capital, installation, operation and maintenance costs.
The system costs will be collected from the City of Clearwater logs. The vehicular
operation and traveler costs will be calculated using equations that relate these
variables to other system measures such as delay and fuel consumption.
9.3.2 Qualitative Studies
Institutional Factors
An area of special emphasis in the evaluation effort will be the institutional (non-
technical) factors that influence the project performance both before and after its
deployment. Institutional factors that will be evaluated include procurement practices,
contracting policy and relationships among major participants. Of particular interest is
how the wide range of non-technical factors affect project performance factors such as
cost, schedule and functionality.
Service Providers Satisfaction
This study will evaluate if the needs of the public agencies, such as the transportation
and emergency agencies, are being met or surpassed. The transportation and
emergency service providers will be surveyed before and after the project to determine
their expectations of the project benefits and if those expectations are met, if
coordination was actually improved between the agencies and their satisfaction with the
system after implementation. This survey will help to identify areas of interest to all
stakeholders and can be used to refine the system before and after installation.
Examples of questions to be asked of transportation and emergency service providers
include:
· Is the additional functions provided to you because of the project helpful in
executing your job duties?
· What is your overall impression of the project's impact on your operations?
· Has the project improved the working relationship between the involved
agencies?
Compliance with ITS Architecture and Standards
ITS standards will be monitored before and after the implementation of the project.
Recommendations will be given regarding any changes required to the project
consistency with the Pinellas County ITS architecture and compliance with the national
implementation because of the evaluation.
9-6
.
.
.
SECTION 10.0: REFERENCES
1. "Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits: 1999 Update," Report No. FHWA-
OP-99-012, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., 1999.
2. Turner, S., W.R. Stocktone, S. James, T. Rother and C.M. Walton, "ITS Benefits:
Review of Evaluation Methods and Reported Benefits," Report 1790-1, Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998.
3. "Freeway Incident Management Handbook," FHWA-SA-91-056, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1991.
10-1