Fdot Bewegungsdurchschnitte

3. Wartung eines Netzwerks von Feldgeräten Vor dem Starten der i Florida Model Deployment wurden die meisten D5-Verkehrsüberwachungsgeräte entlang der I-4 eingesetzt. Daten von Schleifendetektoren wurden zu Zeiten verwendet, um die Fahrtzeiten zu schätzen, aber die Betreiber waren ebenso wahrscheinlich, Schätzungen auf Beobachtungen von den Verkehrskameras zu basieren. Dynamische Meldungssignale (DMS) und 511 Meldungen wurden nur auf I 4 verwendet, und Regional Traffic Management Center (RTMC) - Aperatoren registrierten diese on the fly. Da die meisten Verkehrsmanagement-Operationen von Hand durchgeführt wurden, können sich die RTMC-Operatoren an fehlende Daten von ausgefallenen Feldgeräten anpassen. Mit dem Start von i Florida, änderte sich die Situation. Die Straßen, die an der RTMC gehandhabt wurden, stiegen von ungefähr 40 Meilen von I-4 durch Orlando zu mehr als 70 Meilen von I-4, eine gleiche Länge von I-95, fünf Mautstraßen nahe Orlando, sieben Schlüssel Orlando arterials und eine Anzahl von Anderen Straßen über den Staat. Weitergehende Operationen waren auch für jede dieser Straßen erforderlich, einschließlich der Notwendigkeit von Echtzeit-511- und DMS-Fahrzeitinformationen. Da diese zusätzliche Arbeitsbelastung nicht leicht mit den vorherigen von Hand Methoden, i Florida enthalten Software zur Automatisierung vieler Verkehrsmanagement-Aktivitäten erfüllt werden konnte. Die Fahrtzeitinformationen werden automatisch auf Meldezeichen und das 511-System gebucht. Sign-Pläne können erstellt werden, um Meldungszeichenbuchungen zu automatisieren, wenn ein Ereignis aufgetreten ist, und um Bediener daran zu erinnern, Zeichennachrichten zu entfernen, wenn ein Vorfall gelöscht wurde. Die gesteigerte Abhängigkeit von automatisierten Verfahren führte zu einer erhöhten Abhängigkeit von der Zuverlässigkeit der Feldgeräte. Vor i Florida würde ein RTMC-Operator eine andere Möglichkeit finden, Informationen zu veröffentlichen, wenn die Ausrüstung versagt hatte, jedoch waren die automatisierten Systeme nicht so flexibel, so dass Ausrüstungsausfälle eher zu fehlenden Nachrichten in den Reisendeninformationssystemen führen würden. Das Endergebnis war ein Übergang von einer Abteilung mit einer moderaten Menge an nicht-kritischen Geräten im Feld eingesetzt, um eine Abteilung mit einer großen Menge an kritischen Geräten in diesem Bereich eingesetzt. Dieser Abschnitt des Berichts beschreibt, wie die Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) seine Instandhaltungspraktiken geändert, um diesen Übergang anzupassen. 3.1. FDOT D5-Feldgeräte Vor dem i Florida-Einsatz bestand die Feldgeräte-Instrumentierung von FDOT District 5 (D5) hauptsächlich aus Schleifendetektoren, Kameras und DMSs entlang der I-4 in Orlando, wobei ein kleinerer Satz ähnlicher Geräte entlang der I-95 eingesetzt wurde Osten oder Orlando. Mit dem Fortschreiten der i Florida-Implementierung erhöhte sich die Komplexität der eingesetzten Feldgeräte auf drei verschiedene Weisen: Die Anzahl der Geräte nahm zu, die Anzahl der verschiedenen Gerätetypen nahm zu und die Größe der Region, in der diese Geräte eingesetzt wurden, nahm zu. Die Zahl der eingesetzten Geräte stieg von rund 240 im Januar 2004 - dem ersten Termin für die Wartungsinventurdatensätze für das Evaluationsteam - auf mehr als 650 im Juni 2007 (siehe Abbildung 11). 1 Diese Abbildung enthält nur Verkehrsmanagementgeräte und schließt Geräte aus, die mit den FDOT-Netzwerken verbunden sind, die für die Verbindung zu diesem Gerät verwendet werden. Abbildung 11. Die Anzahl der FDOT D5 Traffic Management Devices Die Anzahl der verschiedenen Gerätetypen nahm ebenfalls zu. Im Januar 2004 umfasste das Gerät Schleifendetektoren, Verkehrskameras und DMS. Bis zum Jahr 2007 hatte FDOT auch Radar (anstelle von Schleifendetektoren), Wegfahrsperren, variable Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzungen (VSL), Mautmarkenleser und Kennzeichenleser eingesetzt (siehe Abbildung 12). Abbildung 12. Die Anzahl der FDOT D5 Traffic Management-Geräte, nach Typ Die geografische Verteilung der eingesetzten Geräte hat zugenommen. Im Januar 2004 befand sich die Mehrheit der eingesetzten Geräte auf der I-4 (ca. 190 Geräte), mit etwa 30 Geräten auf der I-95 und 11 Geräten auf der SR 528. Bis 2007 wurden zusätzliche Geräte auf diesen Straßen eingesetzt (Z. B. 25 Kameras und Radareinheiten zur Unterstützung des staatlichen Überwachungssystems (siehe Abschnitt 8) und Videoüberwachungskameras an zwei Brücken). Beachten Sie, dass die oben aufgeführten Geräte nur Verkehrsmanagementgeräte und Ausschlussschalter und andere Netzwerkgeräte umfassen, die für den Betrieb des Systems erforderlich sind. Die Liste enthält auch nur Geräte, die FDOT beizubehalten half, so dass es Ausrüstungen ausschließe, die im Einsatz waren oder waren, aber noch vom Instandhaltungsunternehmer gepflegt wurden. 3.2. FDOT-D5-Wartungspraktiken Vor der i Florida-Modellbereitstellung verfolgte FDOT das eingesetzte Equipment und verwaltete den Wartungsprozess. Jeden Tag würde ein RTMC-Operator die Schleifen, Kameras und Schilder überprüfen und in einer Kalkulationstabelle aufzeichnen, ob das Gerät funktioniert. Schleifenfehler wurden durch Scannen einer Liste von aktuellen Messungen festgestellt, um sicherzustellen, dass Daten von jeder Schleife verfügbar waren. Kamera-Fehler wurden durch den Zugriff auf die Video-Feed von jeder Kamera festgestellt, um sicherzustellen, dass es betriebsbereit war. Sign-Fehler wurden festgestellt, indem die Kameras, um jedes Zeichen zu sehen. Wenn ein neuer Fehler festgestellt wurde, würde FDOT entweder Personal entlassen, um die Reparatur (für FDOT gepflegte Ausrüstung) oder einen Arbeitsauftrag für die Reparatur (für Vertragspartner gepflegte Ausrüstung) zu machen. Für die im Rahmen von i Florida eingesetzten Feldgeräte wurde ein anderer Ansatz verwendet. In den meisten Fällen umfassten die Ausrüstungsverträge einen Garantiezeitraum für die gesamte geplante i Florida Betriebszeit bis Mai 2007, während der der Auftragnehmer für die Wartung der Ausrüstung verantwortlich war. Dies war für FDOT wichtig, weil der Einsatz so viel neuer Geräte das Potenzial hatte, die Fähigkeit der FDOTs zu überwachen und zu pflegen. FDOT erwartete, dass einschließlich einer Gewährleistungsfrist würde die Verantwortung für die Überwachung und Wartung der Ausrüstung auf den Auftragnehmer. FDOT entdeckte ein Problem mit dem Garantieansatz. Während die Verträge eine Sprache enthielten, die bestimmte Ausstattungsstufen für das Gerät erforderte, und maximale Reparaturzeiten bei Ausfall des Geräts, enthielten sie keine Sprache, in der angegeben wurde, wie die Verfügbarkeit der Geräte überwacht werden würde. Implizit im FDOT-Plan war, dass die RTMC-Operatoren in der Lage sein würden, die Verfügbarkeit der Feldgeräte zu überwachen, wenn ein Teil der Feldausrüstung fehlgeschlagen ist, würde ein RTMC-Operator den Fehler merken, da Daten, die er benötigt, nicht verfügbar wären. Wenn das Condition Reporting System (CRS) nicht wie erwartet funktionierte (siehe Abschnitt 2), konnten RTMC-Operatoren manchmal nicht überprüfen, ob das Gerät funktioniert, da CRS-Fehler den Zugriff auf Daten von dem Gerät verhinderten. Wenn fehlende Daten vermerkt wurden, war es nicht klar, ob die fehlenden Daten auf Ausfallversagen, Ausfälle im CRS oder Fehler an anderer Stelle im System zurückzuführen waren. In Feldausrüstungsverträgen sind Anforderungen an Werkzeuge zur Überwachung des Betriebsstatus des eingesetzten Geräts und zur Unterstützung der Geräteüberwachung nach Abschluss der Bereitstellung enthalten. Dies trifft insbesondere auf die arteriellen Toll-Tag-Leser zu. Toll-Tag-Lesevorgänge wurden durch mehrere Verarbeitungsschritte geleitet, um Laufzeit-Schätzungen zu erzeugen, bevor das CRS erreicht wurde, und FDOT hatte Schwierigkeiten, die Grundursache fehlender oder ungenauer arterieller Laufzeiten aufzuspüren. Leserfehler wurden zuerst durch FDOT bemerkt, als das CRS bereit war, arterielle Reisezeiten zu empfangen, die durch die Leser im Sommer von 2005 erzeugt wurden. Wenn der Reisezeit-Server es versäumt hat, Reisezeiten für die meisten Arterien zu melden, die Identifizierung der Grundursache des Fehlers, der erforderlich ist FDOT Personal manuell Überprüfung einer Reihe von Datenverarbeitung und Übertragung Schritte. Im Fall der Mautmarken-Leser wurde diese Überprüfung komplizierter, da nur begrenzte Unterlagen über die Funktionsweise des Leser-Netzwerks vorliegen. FDOT entdeckte schließlich, dass jeder Leser ein Selbstdiagnose-Dienstprogramm enthielt, auf das remote über einen Webbrowser zugegriffen werden konnte - die Toll-Tag-Reader-Dokumentation beschrieb diese Funktion nicht. Jeder Leser hat auch ein lokales Archiv aller Tag-Lesevorgänge erstellt. Um fehlgeschlagene Leser zu identifizieren, überprüft das FDOT-Personal die lokale Diagnose jedes Lesers jeden Tag und überprüft ein Beispiel von Tag-Lesevorgängen, unter Berücksichtigung von Diagnosefehlern oder weniger Tag-Lesevorgängen als erwartet in einer Kalkulationstabelle. Dieser Prozess, wenn auf die 119 i Florida Toll-Tag-Leser angewendet, benötigt etwa 4 Stunden pro Tag zu vervollständigen. 2 Diese Forschung ergab schließlich die Tatsache, dass fast die Hälfte der arteriellen Toll-Tag-Leser versagt hatte. (Siehe Abschnitt 5 für weitere Informationen.) Wenn die Anforderungen für die Implementierung des Toll-Tag-Lesers ein Instrument zur Überwachung und Berichterstattung über den Betriebsstatus eines jeden Lesegeräts enthalten hätten, wäre FDOT nicht nötig gewesen, eine Ad-hoc-Methode zu entwickeln Diese Fehler leichter feststellen und sie korrigieren konnten, als sie auftraten, anstatt die Anzahl der ausgefallenen Geräte zu akkumulieren, während das System nicht überwacht wurde. FDOT auch darauf hingewiesen, dass wiederkehrende Ausfälle manchmal mit einigen Geräten an bestimmten Orten aufgetreten. FDOT vermutete, dass hohe Fehlerraten manchmal mit einer Grundursache (z. B. unzureichende Leistungskonditionierung oder hohe Kabinetttemperatur) zusammenhingen, die nicht durch die Reparatur des ausgefallenen Teils behoben wurde. Die Gewährleistungsverträge erforderten jedoch keine Ursachenanalyse oder umfangreichere Reparaturen, wenn mehrere Fehler an einem Standort auftraten. FDOT erwägt, ob diese Sprache in zukünftige Garantieverträge aufgenommen werden soll. 3.3. Zuverlässigkeit der Ausrüstung Ein Teil des Wartungsprozesses von FDOTs war die Generierung eines jeden Tag einer Tabellenkalkulation, die dokumentierte, ob das Gerät in Betrieb war. Während der primäre Zweck dieser Kalkulationstabellen war, Arbeitsaufträge für die Reparatur von ausgefallenen Geräten zu generieren, archivierte FDOT jede Tabellenkalkulation. FDOT stellte dem Auswertungsteam Kopien dieser archivierten Kalkulationstabellen für den Zeitraum vom 2. Januar 2004 bis zum 2. Juli 2007 zur Verfügung und das Evaluationsteam hat die Informationen auf diesen Kalkulationstabellen in eine Datenbank umgewandelt, sodass die Ausfalldaten des Systems analysiert werden konnten. 3 Dies ermöglichte die Schätzung von drei Messungen der Zuverlässigkeit der Geräte: Verfügbarkeit, Fehlerhäufigkeit und Reparaturzeit. Jede dieser Maßnahmen wurde für die folgenden Gruppen von Feldausrüstung analysiert: Überwachungsfahrzeuginformationssystem (SMIS). Diese Gruppe umfasst Geräte, die entlang der I-4 eingesetzt werden. Anfang 2004 waren es rund 87 Melderstationen, 68 Kameras und 36 Meldezeichen. Im Mai 2007 bestanden 128 Melderstationen, 77 Kameras und 56 Meldezeichen. Daytona Bereich Smart Autobahn (DASH). Diese Gruppe umfasst Geräte, die entlang der I-95 eingesetzt werden. Anfang 2004 waren es rund 13 Melderstationen, 14 Kameras und 6 Meldeschilder. Im Mai 2007 bestand diese aus 23 Schleifendetektorstationen, 25 Kameras und 3 Meldezeichen. Brücke Sicherheit. Diese Gruppe umfasst Kameras, die zur Unterstützung des Projekts i Florida Bridge Security eingesetzt werden - siehe Abschnitt 12. Dies bestand aus 29 Kameras, die an zwei Brücken eingesetzt wurden. Bundesweit. Diese Gruppe umfasst Kameras und Radareinheiten, die als Teil des staatlichen Überwachungssystems eingesetzt werden - siehe Abschnitt 8. Dies bestand aus 25 Radareinheiten und 25 Kameras, die an Stationsorten im ganzen Land eingesetzt wurden. Hurrikan-Evakuierungssystem (HES). Diese Gruppe wurde entlang SR 528 und SR 520 eingesetzt, um Hurrikan-Evakuierungen zu unterstützen. Anfang 2004 waren es rund 5 Melderstationen, 4 Kameras und 2 Meldezeichen. Im Mai 2007 bestand diese aus 16 Schleifendetektorstationen und 4 Kameras. GEGEN MICH. Diese Gruppe besteht aus 20 VSL-Zeichen, die an 16 Orten auf einem Teil der I-4 in Orlando eingesetzt werden. Wegbereiter. Diese Gruppe besteht aus 44 Trailblazer-Meldungsschildern, die an Schlüsselkreuzungen entlang der I-95 eingesetzt werden, Kreuzungen, die verwendet werden könnten, wenn der Verkehr während eines Zwischenfalls von I-95 abgeleitet wird. Arteriell Diese Gruppe besteht aus 14 Kameras an zentralen Kreuzungen in Orlando eingesetzt. Diese Maßnahmen wurden unabhängig für jede Art von Ausrüstung (z. B. Kameras, Schleifendetektorstationen) innerhalb jeder Gruppe berechnet. 3.3.1. Feldgerät-Verfügbarkeit Ein Maß für die Verfügbarkeit von Feldgeräten wurde als Anzahl der Tage während eines bestimmten Zeitraums berechnet, in dem FDOT berichtete, dass ein Gerät in Betrieb war (dh keine gemeldeten Fehler) geteilt durch die Anzahl der Tage, die FDOT auf einem Stück gemeldet hat von der Ausrüstung. (Perioden, für die keine Berichte verfügbar waren, wurden ignoriert.) Beachten Sie, dass dies das Ausmaß, in dem die Ausrüstung nicht verfügbar war, überschätzen könnte, da jeder gemeldete Fehler so behandelt wurde, als wäre das Gerät nicht verfügbar. Wenn beispielsweise eine von fünf Schleifen an einer Detektorposition ausgefallen ist, wurde die Detektorposition so behandelt, als ob Daten von dieser Stelle nicht verfügbar wären. Abbildung 13 zeigt die Verfügbarkeit der Schleifen, Kameras und Zeichen in der SMIS-Gruppe. Beachten Sie, dass die Ausrüstung in der Regel 80 bis 90 Prozent der Zeit zur Verfügung stand, obwohl geringere Verfügbarkeitsstufen im Jahr 2005 auftraten. Die niedrigeren Verfügbarkeitsstufen im Jahr 2005 entsprechen einer Zeit, in der FDOT gleichzeitig versucht, Reparaturen an der arteriellen Maut zu bewältigen Tag-Reader-Netzwerk und gehen live mit dem CRS. Mit begrenzten Ressourcen zur Verfügung, diese neuen Verantwortlichkeiten schien Auswirkungen FDOTs Fähigkeit, das bestehende SMIS-Netzwerk zu halten. Abbildung 14 zeigt die Verfügbarkeit der DASH-Feldgeräte. Beachten Sie, dass diese Gruppe niedrigere Ebenen der Verfügbarkeit, die auf die Tatsache zurückzuführen war, dass es neuere und FDOT weniger Erfahrung war es zugeschrieben werden konnte. Die Grafik in Abbildung 15 zeigt die Verfügbarkeit der Bridge Security Kameras. Da dieses System von untergeordneter Bedeutung für Systeme war, die direkt unterstützte Verkehrsmanagement-Operationen unterstützten, waren die niedrigeren Verfügbarkeitsebenen in diesem System wahrscheinlich, weil FDOT weniger Wert darauf legte, sie zu erhalten. Abbildung 15. Verfügbarkeit der Brückensicherheits-Feldgeräte Abbildung 16 zeigt die Verfügbarkeit des Gerätes im staatlichen Überwachungssystem. Da FDOT entdeckte, dass dieses System nicht sehr effektiv bei der Bereitstellung landesweiter Reiseinformation war (siehe Abschnitt 10), reduzierte die Agentur die Betonung auf ihre Aufrechterhaltung. Dies und die Tatsache, dass die Wartungskosten aufgrund der Kosten für die Reise zu Standorten im ganzen Land hoch waren, um Wartungsarbeiten durchzuführen, führten wahrscheinlich zu einer geringen Verfügbarkeit dieser Ausrüstung. Abbildung 16: Verfügbarkeit der landesweiten Überwachungsfeldausrüstung Die Verfügbarkeit der HES-Ausrüstung ist in Abbildung 17 dargestellt. Diese Ausrüstung, die zur Unterstützung sowohl von Hurrikan-Evakuierungen als auch von Reisendeninformationen für SR 520 und SR 528 verwendet wurde, war für FDOT weniger kritisch als die Instrumentierung auf I-4 und I-95 für das tägliche Verkehrsmanagement. Abbildung 18 zeigt die Verfügbarkeit der VSL-Zeichen, die auf der I-4 in Orlando eingesetzt werden. Da VSL-Operationen nicht in Orlando eingesetzt wurden, dürften geringere Verfügbarkeit dieser Zeichen erwartet werden. Fig. 19 zeigt die Verfügbarkeit der Wegmarkierungszeichen, die an Schlüsseldurchläufen in der Nähe von I 95 verwendet werden. Abbildung 19. Verfügbarkeit der Trailblazer-Feldgeräte Schließlich ist die Verfügbarkeit der Verkehrskameras, die auf Orlando-Arterien eingesetzt werden, in Fig. 20 dargestellt. Fig. 21 zeigt den Pegel Für die arteriellen Mautmarken-Leser. (Die Definition dieser Dienstleistungsstufe ist in Anhang A aufgeführt.) Die Verfügbarkeit von Feldgeräten, die von FDOT eingesetzt wurden, betrug im Jahr 2007 typischerweise zwischen 80 und 90 Prozent. Für die SMIS-Ausrüstung lag der Durch - schnittsdurchschnitt 2007 bei 80% für Schleifendetektoren , 87 Prozent für Kameras und 92 Prozent für Zeichen. Für die DASH-Feldgeräte waren die entsprechenden Durchschnittswerte 77 Prozent, 82 Prozent und 79 Prozent. Für arterielle Toll-Tag-Leser (siehe Abschnitt 5) lag die Verfügbarkeit bei fast 90 Prozent. Die Verfügbarkeit von anderen Geräten, für die FDOT weniger kritisch war, verfügte über eine geringere Verfügbarkeit. Eine Schlussfolgerung, die aus diesen Beobachtungen gezogen werden kann, ist, dass ein Verkehrsmanagement-Feldgerät zu einem beträchtlichen Teil der Zeit nicht verfügbar sein wird, und Systeme, die Daten von diesem Gerät verwenden, müssen entworfen sein, um diesen Fehlern Rechnung zu tragen. Siehe Abschnitt 3.5 für Vorschläge für die Konstruktion von Systemen für Geräteausfälle. 3.3.2. Zeit zur Reparatur Eine weitere Maßnahme im Zusammenhang mit der Zuverlässigkeit der Feldgeräte ist die Reparaturzeit, gemessen als die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Tage, in denen die Wartungsprotokolle einen Fehler für die Ausrüstung berichteten, gemittelt über die Sammlung von Geräten in jeder Gruppe. Abbildung 22 zeigt die durchschnittliche Reparaturzeit für die SMIS-Ausrüstung. Abbildung 22. Durchschnittliche Reparaturzeit für die SMIS-Feldgeräte Im Jahr 2007 betrug die durchschnittliche Reparaturzeit ca. 6 Tage für SMIS-Schleifendetektoren, ca. 5 Tage für Kameras und ca. 6 Tage für Zeichen. Abbildung 23. Durchschnittliche Reparaturzeit für das DASH-Feldgerät Die durchschnittliche Reparaturzeit betrug im Jahr 2007 ca. 18 Tage für die DASH-Schleifendetektorstationen, ca. 9 Tage für DASH-Kameras und 25 Tage für Schilder. Für die HES-Feldgeräte betrug die durchschnittliche Reparaturzeit im Jahr 2007 etwa 12 Tage für Schleifendetektorstationen, 16 Tage für Kameras und 9 Tage für Zeichen. Für VSL-Zeichen betrug die durchschnittliche Reparaturzeit 16 Tage im Jahr 2007. Für das staatliche Überwachungssystem waren die durchschnittlichen Reparaturzeiten wesentlich länger und betrugen im Jahr 2007 etwa 29 Tage für Detektoren und 64 Tage für Kameras. 3.3.3. Mittlere Zeit zwischen Ausfall Die mittlere Zeit zwischen Ausfall (MTBF) wurde geschätzt, indem die durchschnittliche Zeit, dass ein Teil der Ausrüstung wurde als Dienst in den FDOT Wartungsprotokollen markiert wurde. Beachten Sie, dass ein Gerät als ausser Betrieb angesehen werden kann, aus einer Vielzahl von Gründen, einschließlich Ausfall der Ausrüstung, Ausfall von Ausrüstungs-Dienstprogrammen oder Ausfall des Netzwerks, um eine Konnektivität für das Gerät bereitzustellen. Die gemeldeten MTBFs sind also für die im FDOT-Netzwerk eingebettete Ausrüstung, nicht für das Gerät selbst. Fig. 24 zeigt die MTBF für das SMIS-Feldgerät. Abbildung 24. Mittlere Zeit zwischen Ausfällen für SMIS-Feldgeräte Die MTBF, Reparaturzeit und Verfügbarkeit für FDOT-Feldgeräte sind in Tabelle 1 zusammengefasst. Tabelle 1. Durchschnittliche mittlere Zeit zwischen Ausfällen für FDOT-Feldgeräte, 2007 Beachten Sie, dass es eine ungefähre Beziehung gibt Zwischen der MTBF, Reparaturzeit und Verfügbarkeit: Im Durchschnitt sollte jedes Gerät MTBF Tage vor Reparaturen erforderlich sind, und die Reparaturen erfordern über Reparaturzeit zu vervollständigen. So ist die Spalte Obs unter Verfügbarkeit die beobachtete Verfügbarkeit (siehe Abschnitt 3.3.1), und die Spalte Est ist die geschätzte Verfügbarkeit unter Verwendung der obigen Formel. Die Betrachtung dieser Formel führt zu der folgenden Beobachtung. Da die MTBF gewöhnlich signifikant länger als die Reparaturzeit ist, wird die Reduzierung der Reparaturzeit um eine bestimmte Anzahl von Tagen einen größeren Einfluss auf die Verfügbarkeit haben, als die MTBF um dieselbe Anzahl von Tagen zu erhöhen. 3.4. Wartung eines Fibre-Netzwerks Eine der häufigsten Fehlerquellen bei FDOT waren Faserschnitte, bei denen Feldgeräte vom RTMC getrennt wurden. Die Hauptursache für Faserabbau auf dem FDOT-Netz war die Bautätigkeit. Ein Austauschprojekt zum Beispiel führte im Laufe des 3-jährigen Projekts zu mehr als 90 Faserabschnitten. In einem Fall war ein Auftragnehmer Vor-Ort-Reparatur der Faser, wenn die Faser buchstäblich aus seinen Händen wackelte als Ergebnis eines zweiten Schnittes, die auf dem gleichen Faserbündel auftreten. Vor 2007 hatte die FDOT ITS-Gruppe eine reaktive Rolle bei dem Schutz und der Reparatur ihrer Fasern gespielt. Alle Verträge enthalten Klauseln, die von den Vertragspartnern verlangt werden, alle Fasern, die beschädigt wurden, rechtzeitig zu reparieren, aber die Auftragnehmer haben oft wenig Anstrengungen unternommen, um die Beschädigung der Faser zu vermeiden. FDOT glaubte, dass in einigen Fällen, weil der Auftragnehmer möglicherweise nicht bewusst gewesen, die genaue Lage der Faser. Zu anderen Zeiten, schien es, dass die Kosten für die Reparatur der Faser war weniger als die Kosten und Unannehmlichkeiten zu versuchen, es zu vermeiden. Als ein Faserschnitt geschehen war, wurden die Konsequenzen manchmal vergrößert, da die ITS-Gruppe nicht sofort informiert wurde, so dass Reparaturen beginnen könnten. Die meisten Vertragspartner hatten nur wenige Interaktionen mit der ITS-Gruppe und waren unsicher, wer bei einem Problem auftrat. Wenn ein Faserschnitt während der Öffnungszeiten aufgetreten ist, kann der Auftragnehmer, ungewiss, wen er kontaktieren könnte, den Schnitt nicht sofort melden. Unterdessen würden Netzmonitoren den Verlust der Konnektivität merken und fingen an, mit FDOT Angestellten durch E-Mail, Pager und Handy in Verbindung zu treten. FDOT-Mitarbeiter würden Tests durchführen, um das Problem zu lokalisieren und die Quelle des Problems als beschädigte Faser in einer Konstruktionszone zu identifizieren. In einigen Fällen würden laufende Bautätigkeiten die beschädigte Faser zu dem Zeitpunkt, als FDOT reagierte, begraben haben, und FDOT würde zusätzliche Tests durchführen müssen, um die genaue Position des Schnittes zu bestimmen und die beschädigte Faser wieder auszugraben, bevor Reparaturen durchgeführt werden könnten. Im Jahr 2007 begann FDOT, eine proaktivere Haltung einzugehen, um das Problem der Faserschnitte zu lösen. Das Ziel war es, die Anzahl der Faserschnitte zu reduzieren und den Aufprall zu reduzieren, wenn ein Schnitt gemacht wurde. In einem ersten Schritt identifizierte FDOT einige der Ursachen, die zu Faserschnittern führten, was folgendes ermittelte: Die ITS-Faser wurde oft nicht in die Baupläne einbezogen. Bis vor kurzem wurde die ITS-Gruppe nicht in den FDOT-Bauplanungsprozess integriert. In einigen Fällen wurde die ITS-Faser nicht in die Baupläne einbezogen, und die Probleme wurden oft nicht identifiziert, bis die Pläne fast vollständig waren. Als es aufgenommen wurde, war es oft zuerst in den 30 Prozent Pläne enthalten. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt waren die Kosten für die Änderung der Pläne höher als bei früheren Planungen, und einige Ansätze zur Vermeidung von Schäden an ITS-Fasern waren nicht mehr machbar. Die ITS-Gruppe erklärte, ihr Ziel sei es, als Teil des normalen DOT-Prozesses zur Identifizierung, Planung und Errichtung von Projekten vollständig integriert zu werden. Integrieren Sie die ITS-Gruppe in den Bauprozess, um sicherzustellen, dass die Berücksichtigung der Faser-Netzwerk in Baupläne enthalten ist. Die genaue Lage der ITS-Faser war oft nicht bekannt. Manchmal waren die tatsächliche Bereitstellung und die as-built-Zeichnungen zu unterschiedlich, um nützliche Anleitungen zu sein, ob Bauaktivitäten die Faser beschädigen würden. FDOT auch festgestellt, dass mit dem Toning Draht, um die Faser zu lokalisieren oft war nicht genau genug, um Faser Schnitte zu vermeiden. Auftragnehmer waren oft nicht sicher, wie FDOT zu kontaktieren, um weitere Informationen zu erhalten, wenn etwas auf dem Gebiet verursacht, dass sie besorgt, dass sie einige Faser beschädigen könnte. Nicht sicher, wer zu kontaktieren, Auftragnehmer oft mit Bauaktivitäten. Wenn ein Faserschnitt geschah, konnte der Auftragnehmer noch nicht sicher gewesen sein, mit wem in Verbindung zu treten, und der Schaden wurde nicht gemeldet, bis FDOT es entdeckte. Nach der Überprüfung dieser Ursachen, identifiziert FDOT mehrere Schritte, die es nehmen könnte, um besser zu schützen ihre Faser. Diese Schritte waren: Die ITS-Gruppe begann eine genauere Bestandsaufnahme der Lage ihrer Faser zu entwickeln. Dieses GIS-basierte Inventar ermöglicht es FDOT, genauere Informationen über den Standort der Faser an Bauunternehmer vor Baubeginn zu liefern. Große Projekte durchlaufen FDOTs Berater Projektmanagement-Prozess. FDOT modifizierte Verfahren für diesen Prozess, so dass die ITS-Gruppe frühzeitig im Planungsprozess benachrichtigt werden und an frühzeitigen Planungssitzungen zwischen FDOT und dem Auftragnehmer teilnehmen könne. Dies sorgte dafür, dass die Baupläne die ITS-Infrastruktur berücksichtigten. Es gab auch FDOT die Chance, Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um die Schäden an der ITS-Infrastruktur zu reduzieren, wenn Schäden auftreten. Kleinere Projekte (Ortsprojekte und Sonderprojekte) gingen nicht durch den Projektmanagementprozess des FDOT-Beraters. Um sicherzustellen, dass der Schutz der ITS-Ressourcen in diesen Projekten berücksichtigt wurde, begann FDOT, Beziehungen zu den verschiedenen Regierungsstellen der Stadt und der Grafschaft aufzubauen, die diese Projekte verwalteten. Ein Mitarbeiter der ITS-Gruppe begab sich mindestens einmal pro Monat mit wöchentlichen Projektbesprechungen an diesen Organisationen. Dies hat dazu beigetragen, die Beziehungen zwischen der ITS-Gruppe und denen der lokalen Projekte und der lokalen Projektträger zu entwickeln. Installieren Faser in sichtbaren Orten anstatt U-Bahn kann helfen, Vertragspartner vermeiden Schäden an der Faser. Die ITS-Gruppe fing an, Änderungen an ihrem Netzwerk vorzunehmen, bevor ein Projekt begann, die Wahrscheinlichkeit und die Auswirkungen von Faserschnittern zu verringern. Betrachten Sie die Herstellung Faser sichtbar. In der Regel FDOT Faser-U-Bahn als Mittel zum Schutz vor Schäden. Das Herstellen der Faser schwierig zu sehen, hat es jedoch anfälliger für Schäden während der Bautätigkeiten gemacht. FDOT stellte fest, dass Auftragnehmer in der Regel vermeiden Beschädigung Overhead-Faser, weil es sichtbar für sie ist. FDOT begann, die Faser entlang einiger beschränkter Zufahrtswege von der unterirdischen zu oberirdischen entlang der Zaunlinie während der langfristigen Bauvorhaben auf begrenzten Zugangsstraßen zu repositionieren. FDOT glaubte, dass die Herstellung des Faserteils einer sichtbaren Obstruktion (d. H. Des Zauns) dazu beiträgt, sie vor unbeabsichtigter Beschädigung zu schützen. Betrachten Sie die Lokalisierung Faser in der Nähe von Funktionen, die Auftragnehmer wahrscheinlich sind, während der Bautätigkeiten zu vermeiden. FDOT stellte fest, dass, mit Overhead-Faser, die Anwesenheit von in der Nähe Stromleitungen machen Auftragnehmer vorsichtiger. FDOT begann die Vorteile der Verlegung neuer Faser in der Nähe von anderen Funktionen, die Auftragnehmer bereits anfällig für die Vermeidung, wie unterirdische Pipelines. Betrachten Sie die Verlagerung der Faser vor Baubeginn. In vielen Fällen hielt es FDOT für unrealistisch, von einem Auftragnehmer zu erwarten, Schneidfasern bei längeren Bauaktivitäten zu vermeiden. Mehrere Faserschnitte, die auftreten könnten, würden Kosten für die Reparatur der Faser, Störungen der ITS-Dienste und Faserverbindungen mit geringerer Qualität ergeben (da die zur Reparatur der Faser erforderlichen Fasern die Gesamtqualität der Faser verringern). Da die meisten Vertragspartner in ihrem Angebot eine Reserve enthalten, um für Schäden, die auftreten können, zu bezahlen, führt das Potenzial für Faser Schnitte tatsächlich zu erhöhten Baukosten für FDOT. FDOT fing an, die Faser weg von der Baustelle zu nehmen, um Gesamtkosten und besseren ITS Service zu senken. In einem vor kurzem durchgeführten Rekonstruktionsprojekt (bei SR 436 und SR 50) befanden sich sowohl ITS-Geräte als auch Fasern am Standort. FDOT entschied, dass es kostengünstiger wäre, die Faser umzuleiten und die ITS-Ausrüstung zu bewegen, als es während des Aufbaus beizubehalten. Die ITS-Gruppe koordinierte mit der Stadt Orlando, dem Seminole County und der Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) die Nutzung der nahen dunklen Fasern, die diese Organisationen zur Verfügung hatten, wodurch FDOT die Faser um den Schnittpunkt SR 436SR 50 umleiten konnte. Die starken Beziehungen zwischen der FDOT8217s ITS Group und diesen anderen Agenturen waren der Schlüssel zur Verwirklichung dieses Kooperationsniveaus und der gemeinsamen Nutzung der Ressourcen. Dieser Ansatz war kostengünstig, da er nur eine geringe Menge neuer Fasern einsetzen musste. Betrachten Sie die Erhöhung der Menge an Slack in Faser-Bereitstellungen enthalten. FDOT hat begonnen, die Praxis der Einbeziehung großer Mengen an überschüssigem Spiel in Bereichen, wo sie erwarten, später zusätzliche Feldgeräte installieren. Diese Zulage kann die Menge an Nacharbeit reduzieren, die erforderlich ist, wenn die neue Ausrüstung eingesetzt wird. FDOT vor kurzem musste mehrere Meilen von Infrastruktur durch unzureichende Nachschub in früheren Projekten eingesetzt zu überarbeiten. Es kann kostengünstiger sein, Fasern vor der Konstruktion zu verlagern, um die Wahrscheinlichkeit und die Auswirkungen von Faserschnittern zu verringern, als Reparaturen zu machen, wenn Schnitte auftreten. FDOT stellte ferner fest, dass einige Auftragnehmer vorsichtiger sind, um eine Beschädigung der ITS-Infrastruktur zu vermeiden als andere. Eine weitere Ursache für Faserschnitte, die von FDOT festgestellt wurden, waren Mähtätigkeiten. Es war allgemein für Auftragnehmer, die an der Faser arbeiten, um die Abdeckungen nicht auf Faserspitzen zu verriegeln. Wenn ein Mäher über eine Nabenabdeckung geführt wurde, die nicht verschraubt war, konnte er entweder die Abdeckung anheben oder brechen oder, falls die Nabenabdeckung nicht vertieft war, direkt auf die Abdeckung drücken und diese zerreißen. Sobald die Abdeckung gebrochen war, konnte das Absaugen von dem Mäher das Faserbündel in die Mähklingen ziehen und die Faser schneiden. 3.5. Entwerfen von Traffic-Management-Systemen für Geräteausfälle Eine der Lehren, die bei der Berücksichtigung der Wartung der i Florida-Feldgeräte erlernt werden, ist, dass ein Ausfall von eingesetzten Feldgeräten erwartet werden sollte. Bei FDOT D5 war es üblich, dass zwischen 10 und 20 Prozent der Geräte in Schlüsselsystemen zu einem beliebigen Zeitpunkt liegen. Die TMC-Software sollte diese Fehler aufnehmen, wenn sie auftreten. Dieser Abschnitt des Dokuments beschreibt einen Ansatz, der verwendet werden könnte, um Geräteausfälle aufzunehmen. Die grundlegenden Konzepte hinter dem Ansatz sind: Fehlende Daten sollten durch geschätzte Daten für alle Schlüsseldaten ersetzt werden, die in der Transportentscheidung verwendet werden. In den meisten Fällen können vernünftige Schätzungen von Fahrtzeiten und anderen Daten erzeugt werden (z. B. aus historischen Daten, aus der Betreiberüberprüfung des Verkehrsvideos). Die Grundlage von Transportentscheidungen über geschätzte Daten ist wahrscheinlich effektiver als sie auf keine Daten zu stützen. FDOTs ursprüngliche Spezifikationen forderten für geschätzte Reisezeiten zu verwenden, wenn beobachtete Reisezeiten nicht verfügbar waren. Wenn das CRS erstmals freigegeben wurde und diese Funktion nicht enthalten war, ist eine große Anzahl von 511 Nachrichten angegeben. Die Fahrzeit auf dem Namen der Straße von Standort 1 zu Standort 2 ist nicht verfügbar. Das Evaluierungsteam war der Ansicht, dass mehr Zeit für die Anpassung der fehlenden Fahrtzeitdaten an das 511 System als für die Implementierung eines Verfahrens zum Ersetzen fehlender Daten über alle Systeme mit Schätzwerten erforderlich war. Geschätzte Daten sollten als solche markiert werden, so dass nachgelagerte Entscheidungsunterstützungssoftware, falls erforderlich, die Tatsache berücksichtigen kann, dass Daten abgeschätzt wurden. Damit nachgelagerte Datenverarbeitung zwischen tatsächlichen und beobachteten Daten differenziert werden kann, müssen die Daten entsprechend markiert werden. Die geschätzten Daten sollten so früh wie möglich im Datenfluss erzeugt werden. Es ist schwierig, Software für fehlende Daten zu entwerfen. Das Ausfüllen fehlender Daten mit geschätzten Daten in einem frühen Zeitpunkt des Datenflusses wird es Systemen nach diesem Punkt zu übernehmen, dass Daten immer verfügbar sein werden. Alle verfügbaren Datenquellen, die verwendet werden können, um fehlende Daten abzuschätzen, wie historische Daten, die durch die Detektoren und Verkehrsvideos erzeugt werden, die von den TMC-Betreibern überprüft werden können, um die Gültigkeit der geschätzten Daten zu beurteilen, sollten genutzt und zu diesem Zeitpunkt am besten geeignet sein . Die TMC-Software sollte Werkzeuge bereitstellen, mit denen TMC-Operatoren fehlende Daten mit Schätzwerten füllen können. TMC-Operatoren mit Zugriff auf viele Verkehrsdatenressourcen sind am besten dafür geeignet, fehlende Daten auszufüllen und die geschätzten Werte auf Korrektheit zu überprüfen. Die TMC-Software sollte die Operatoren über fehlende Daten informieren und es den Operatoren ermöglichen, Parameter festzulegen, um zu steuern, wie die fehlenden Daten abgeschätzt werden sollen. Fig. 25 zeigt einen Ansatz zum Ersetzen von fehlenden Fahrzeitbeobachtungen mit geschätzten Werten. Abbildung 25. Verfahren zum Ersetzen fehlender Fahrzeit Beobachtungen mit Schätzungen Im obigen Verfahren erzeugen Feldgeräte Messungen, die vom Reisezeit-Manager verarbeitet werden, um Fahrzeitschätzungen für Straßenabschnitte zu erzeugen. This process also identifies segments for which missing observations from the field devices result in missing travel time estimates. When it first occurs that travel time observations are not available for a segment, the Missing Travel Time Manager alerts an operator, who selects an approach for producing estimated travel times for that segment. (This also gives the operator the opportunity to alert maintenance personnel that a piece of equipment has failed.) Several approaches might be used to produce travel time estimates: The operator might specify the travel time to use. (When the CRS failed in 2007, TMC operators would use observations from traffic video and loop detector speeds to estimate travel times. See Section 2 for more information.) The system might use the historical average for similar types of travel days. The travel days might be categorized into a number of different categories, such as Typical Weekday, Fall, Typical Weekday, Summer, Special Downtown Event, Weekday, Typical Weekday, Strong Rain, and Typical Weekday, Minor Incident. (When the CRS failed in 2007, FDOT did use historical travel time data for 511 travel time messages.) The operator might specify a relative congestion level (based on available traffic video) and the system would compute an appropriate travel time for the segment based on historical averages for the specified level of congestion. The estimated travel times would be merged with the observed travel times, adding a flag to indicate if travel times were estimated, to produce a complete set of travel times for the monitored road segments. The operator would be periodically alerted to review the segments with estimated travel time times to verify that the estimates remain valid. The TMC Management System would use the travel times-both observed and estimated-to help perform traffic management operations, such as creating DMS and 511 messages. Note that, because the travel time data received by the TMC Management System does not include missing data, this software does not need to include features to address the fact that some data may be missing. (The system can, if desired, adjust its responses when data is marked as being estimated instead of observed.) Since the TMC Management System likely consists of a number of modules performing different operations (e. g. a module for managing DMS messages, a module for managing 511 messages, a module for managing web-based traveler information), inserting travel time estimates before the data enters the TMC Management System simplifies the overall design of the system. (Travel time estimation occurs once and is used many times.) The savings are compounded when one considers that other traffic data users that receive data from the TMC Management System also benefit from the estimated travel times. Another benefit of this approach is that it creates a mechanism for testing features in the TMC Management System independently of the field devices. One could disconnect the field devices from the Travel Time Manager and create a travel time estimation module that fed in pre-defined travel time values meant to simplify testing. (A similar approach was used to test the CRS, but required development of an ad hoc process for feeding static travel time data to the CRS. See Section 2 for more information.) The well-defined interface between the Travel Time Manager and the TMC Management System also provides a mechanism for testing these modules independently. 3.6. Approaches to Reducing Maintenance Costs During the course of the i Florida evaluation, several ideas were discussed for reducing the overall costs of owning and operating traffic monitoring equipment. These ideas are discussed below. Consider total cost of ownership during the procurement process. The contract for the i Florida field devices included the cost for deploying the field devices and providing a maintenance warranty for two years after the deployment was complete. The expected cost of maintenance after this two-year warranty period would not be reflected in the procurement cost. Because of this, a system that has a lower procurement cost could have a higher life-cycle cost. In particular, a system that was less expensive to install but had higher maintenance costs could result in a low procurement cost (because only two years of maintenance costs are included), but a high life-cycle cost. A department may want to compare the full life-cycle cost of a deployment rather than the the procurement cost when evaluating deployment contracts. Consider participating in the FHWA ITS Benefits and Costs Databases. Considering the full life-cycle cost of a deployment requires estimating future failure rates for installed equipment and the costs of repairs. A good approach for doing so is to obtain information from other deployments of the technologies. FHWA established the ITS Costs database to help departments share information about the costs of deploying and maintaining ITS field equipment. Because of limited participation by agencies deploying ITS technologies, the information in this database is limited. Agencies should consider tracking costs and submitting their costs to this database so as to benefit others deploying similar technologies. Consider tracking the causes of equipment failures to help decrease maintenance costs. FDOT used a spreadsheet to track failed equipment and assign work orders for repairs. FDOTs maintenance contractor was expected to identify the root cause of failures that occurred. However, they did not provide this information to FDOT. This made it difficult for FDOT to identify common causes of failures so that they could take action to reduce the prevalancy of those causes. Even though FDOT was proactive in trying approaches to reduce failures, such as adding surge protectors and lightening protection. The lack of ready access to detailed failure data made it difficult to determine if these approaches were successful. 3.7. Summary and Conclusions The i Florida Model Deployment resulted in a significant increase in the number, types, and geographic distribution of field equipment that FDOT D5 was required to maintain. In January 2004, D5 was maintaining about 240 traffic monitoring stations. In 2007, this had increased to about 650 stations. This rapid increase in maintenance responsibility resulted in some problems with maintaining the equipment. The MTBF for most traffic monitoring stations was between 30 and 60 days. The availability of high priority equipment was typically available 80 to 90 percent of the time, with lower priority equipment having lower levels of availability. One of the maintenance problems FDOT faced was that the contracts for deploying the field devices did not include requirements related to how the equipment would be monitored. This meant that FDOT had to rely on manual methods for monitoring whether field devices were operational. In the case of the arterial toll tag readers, almost half of the readers had failed before manual monitoring began. When monitoring did begin, it required a significant amount of FDOT staff time to poll each individual reader each day to identify readers that had failed. The same held true with the other deployed devices-FDOT staff was required each day to review the status of each field device and copy status information into spreadsheets used to monitor system status. Thus, even though FDOT had taken steps to reduce the demands on its maintenance staff by requiring warranties on much of the i Florida equipment, monitoring the equipment for failures still required a significant amount of FDOT staff time. The amount of time required was larger when systems were first brought online, as FDOT developed procedures to integrate the new equipment into its monitoring and maintenance programs. During this process, FDOT did identify a number of lessons learned that might benefit other organizations planning on a significant expansion of their traffic monitoring field equipment: Establish a well-defined process for monitoring and maintaining field equipment before beginning a significant expansion in the amount of field equipment deployed. Consider streamlining the existing monitoring and maintenance process before expanding the base of field equipment. A simple system that works well for a small amount of deployed equipment may be less effective as the amount of deployed equipment increases. Ensure that the requirements for new field equipment include steps to integrate the equipment into the monitoring and maintenance process. These requirements should include tools andor procedures for monitoring the equipment to identify failures that occur. In the case of the arterial toll tag readers, the deployment contractor provided no such tools and weak documentation. FDOT had to develop procedures for monitoring the equipment after it had been deployed, and it took several months before FDOT had developed an efficient process for doing so. Newly deployed equipment should be integrated into the monitoring and maintenance process incrementally, as soon as each piece of equipment is deployed. The arterial toll tag readers were deployed and inspected over a period of four months in early 2005, but FDOT did not begin developing procedures to monitor that equipment until the deployment project was completed in May 2005. By the time FDOT began monitoring this equipment, almost half the devices had failed. Despite the fact that the deployment contractor was responsible for the equipment during this period, it appeared that the contractor did not monitor the equipment for failures. These requirements should include maintaining a sufficient inventory of spare parts so that repairs can be made quickly. The contract placed requirements on the repair time for serviced parts, but the contractor failed to meet these requirements because insufficient replacement parts were available to make the necessary repairs. As a result, when FDOT discovered the large number of failures in the arterial toll tag readers, it took many months before a sufficient number of replacement parts were available to conduct repairs. Plan for the increased demands on maintenance staff and contractors as new systems are brought online. If possible, avoid bringing several new systems online at the same time. Expect traffic monitoring equipment to be down part of the time. At FDOT, key equipment was available 80 to 90 percent of the time, with other equipment available less often. Decreasing the time to repair equipment is an effective approach for increasing the percent of time that equipment is available. Providing a mechanism to continue operations when equipment fails (e. g. redundant equipment, replacement of missing data from failed equipment with estimates based on historical data andor operator observations) is needed. One important source of failure in a fiber network is fiber cuts and damaged network equipment. FDOT identified a number of ways to decrease the number of fiber cuts that occur or the time required to repair cuts when they do occur. Ensure that the ITS Group is integrated in the construction planning process so that protection of fiber and network equipment is considered from the start in construction projects. Becoming integrated in the construction process may require both working with transportation department construction contract management staff and nearby city and county governments, which may be responsible for managing some construction projects. Consider installing fiber in visible, above ground locations (such as along fence lines) rather than underground. If installed underground, consider locating fiber near to existing underground utilities that construction contractors are accustomed to avoiding or near existing aboveground features (e. g. a fence line for a limited access highway) that serves as a visible marker that contractors will avoid. When prolonged construction activities are planned, consider re-locating fiber and equipment so as to avoid the potential for damage during construction. Because contractors will typically include a reserve for repairing damage to fiber in their bids, the cost of re-locating fiber and equipment may be offset by lower costs for the construction project. Because traffic monitoring equipment will fail, systems that rely on data from this equipment should be designed to work well when equipment fails. Historical data can be used to estimate travel times during normal operating conditions. Because TMC operators often have secondary sources of traffic data available to them (e. g. traffic video), they can estimate travel times or verify that estimated travel times based on historical data are accurate. Tools for replacing missing data with estimated values should be implemented early in the development process. Time spent developing a single tool to replace missing data with estimated values is likely less than the time that required to develop processes to deal with missing data in every module that uses that data. A tool to replace missing data with estimated values will allow the TMC software to be tested before field data is available. A tool to replace missing data with estimated values will allow the TMC software to be tested independently of the field equipment. FDOT did face significant challenges in maintaining its network of field devices, particularly when several new systems were brought online simultaneously in the summer of 2005. Noticeable drops in the availability of both new and existing field equipment occurred during that period. By the start of 2006, FDOT had reached relatively stable levels of availability for key field equipment and had developed a well-defined process for monitoring and maintaining that equipment. By 2007, the stability of FDOTs maintenance practices allowed the agency to spend more time focusing on ways to improve equipment availability. FDOT took a number of steps to reduce downtime in its fiber network. The agency also started experimenting with changes to equipment configurations that might improve reliability, such as removing lightning rods from some locations and improving grounding in others. FDOT was also transitioning to new software to manage TMC operations, and was including lessons learned with regard to how to handle missing data in the design of this software. 1 The information on the number of traffic management devices comes from maintenance spreadsheets used by FDOT to track the operational status of their field equipment. 2 Several months after developing this process, FDOT simplified it by focusing on the number of tag reads that had been successfully transmitted to the toll tag server. This reduced the time required to review the readers to about one hour per day. 3 The spreadsheets describe the operational status of the equipment at the time FDOT tested it-typically once per weekday in the morning with no tests on weekends. The spreadsheets also sometimes used a single spreadsheet cell to indicate whether any of several pieces of equipment had failed at a single location. These factors limit the accuracy of the reported reliability results. STRATEGIES AND APPROACHES FOR EFFECTIVELY MOVING COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS THROUGH THE EIS PROCESS United States Forest Service Background The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) shares a common concern with many State Departments of Transportation (SDOTs) regarding the length of time it takes to complete the environmental documentation process, particularly for complex transportation projects. In the State of Florida, the average length of time required to complete the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process now stands at 60 months. This amount currently falls short of the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) target of 36 months for the completion of an EIS. To compound the issue, FDOT presently faces the prospect of having to initiate and complete more EISs in the coming years than at any other time in their history. To bring these issues to light within FDOTs various districts, and to afford their field practitioners the opportunity to share with each other about similar experiences and situations, FDOT and the FHWA Florida Division Office organized a Peer Exchange to identify successful strategies and approaches for effectively moving complex environmental documents through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in a timely manner. FDOT and the FHWA Florida Division Office invited representatives from several SDOTs and the respective FHWA Division Offices in those states to discuss specific project experiences with counterparts from FDOT. State DOTs and FHWA Division offices participating in the Peer Exchange included Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Utah, and Florida (including FDOT Central Environmental Management Office (CEMO), District offices and Floridas Turnpike Enterprise). The out-of-state attendees described details of their EIS projects they conveyed the challenges and controversies faced, as well as lessons learned from their experiences. The representatives from various FDOT Districts also illustrated instances where they had employed unique approaches in order to move their projects along the environmental review process they presented best practices and discussed some remaining challenges that required resolution. Karen Brunelle of the FHWA Florida Division and Larry Barfield of FDOT CEMO hosted and organized the Peer Exchange, in collaboration with Louise Fragala of Powell, Fragala Associates, Inc. who facilitated the discussions. This report provides a summary of the presentations and discussions that took place during the Peer Exchange. The report begins with recommendations of successful tools and techniques to navigate the environmental review process quickly and effectively, followed by highlights of projects presented during the peer exchange. Recommendations for Successful Tools amp Techniques During the Peer Exchange, participants described one or two transportation projects in their states or districts that had gone through the environmental review process relatively quickly. They highlighted the challenges encountered, methods used to successfully and efficiently navigate the EIS process, and lessons learned from their experience. The practices described by the SDOTs represent a fundamental paradigm shift in the way agencies have conducted the business of environmental review over the last 10ndash15 years. SDOTs have embraced innovative and creative solutions to balance transportation and infrastructure needs with environmental protection and community concerns. The environmental review processes for the successful projects highlighted during the Peer Exchange were conducted in a collaborative and transparent manner, whereby SDOTs sought to include stakeholders early and often throughout development of the EIS. Such methods not only lead to a faster completion of the environmental review process, but perhaps more importantly, they result in the delivery of better quality projects, ones that fulfill the transportation needs of communities while maintaining protection of environmental resources at the same time. While each project had a unique set of circumstances, there were a number of tools and techniques utilized to streamline the EIS process that were common to several of the projects. As the discussion evolved, participants noted that the tools and techniques could be grouped into three main elements for navigating the environmental review process efficiently and effectively: communication, collaboration . and commitment . Communication Effective public involvement can help to generate support for a transportation project, or address public concerns and minimize opposition to a controversial project. Effective public involvement means that an agency listens and responds to all individuals and groups with issues and concerns about the project. The following tools and techniques for effectively involving the public were recommended by the Peer Exchange participants: Create a website dedicated to the project. Many of the expedited projects discussed during the peer exchange, including FDOT District 2s Bridge of Lions project, had a dedicated project website. Such websites can serve as a central clearing house of information and can be a one-stop-shop for the public to find the most up-to-date project information. Utilize a public involvement coordinator andor community liaison for projects that have particular community concerns. For a particularly contentious project in Southern Florida, FDOTs District 6 opened a public outreach office in the community and staffed it with a Community Liaison. The liaison played an integral role in improving FDOTs relationship with the local community, which had been strained by previous transportation projects negative impacts to the economic and social structures of the community. The community liaison worked closely with local residents to keep them informed of all transportation projects in the area, and to ensure that their concerns were addressed. Interact with the public. Standard public meetings or hearings often do not draw large crowds. To ensure that you are reaching a broad cross-section of the community, bring the project information to the people in their neighborhoods. One example is the Utah DOTs (UDOT) use of a quotTalk Truckquot mdash a billboard truck that went to various parking lots throughout the area during the day to provide the public with information on the project. Through the use of the Talk Truck, UDOT raised awareness of its Mountain View Corridor project and reached a far broader segment of the public than typical. At public meetings, use question cards. For the Mountain View Corridor project, UDOT offered the audience question cards to encourage the public to write their questions down the questions were then answered by the staff at the public meeting. Use simple, straightforward language and avoid technical terms. The vocabulary used by engineers and transportation professionals is not always familiar to the general public. Be sure to use plain language and put the information in terms that the public will understand. Conduct outreach to the press for projects. Often the opposition is the only one reaching out to the press. It is important to ensure that the positive aspects of the project are presented to the media as well. For example, the Maryland State Highway Administrations (SHA) public information officer worked with the press to ensure that a positive message regarding the Intercounty Connector Project (ICC) was presented. Provide opportunities to educate stakeholders on the transportation planning and project development processes. As part of the environmental review process for the US 2 project, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) developed three training modules mdash Transportation Planning 101, NEPA 101, and Funding 101 mdash to educate the public on the relevant issues. MDT presented these trainings at various public meetings and forums to provide the public with a common understanding on the transportation planning and development processes, creating an environment where all stakeholders could speak the same language. Educating stakeholders on the DOTs requirements will enable stakeholders to provide more informed feedback. Collaboration Working cooperatively with project stakeholders creates an atmosphere of partnership that may prove valuable in advancing the environmental review process. Including agencies early and often throughout the process enables issues to be identified and addressed early, thereby minimizing project delays. Communicating with agencies throughout the process reduces the likelihood that reviewing agencies will be surprised by any information or details in the actual environmental document, leading to a more efficient review. The following tools and techniques for effectively collaborating with stakeholders are recommended: Hold face-to-face meetings. Direct contact with agency staff provides an opportunity to build better relationships. As part of the Mountain View Corridor project, UDOT spent a great deal of time meeting with resource agencies, including holding monthly coordination meetings. UDOT noted that it was important for such meetings to be well planned to ensure that agencies felt it was in their interest to participate. While email communication serves a purpose, it should not be used as a substitute for speaking and meeting directly with agency staff. At the beginning of the process, work with partner agencies to develop and agree upon a project schedule. In its ICC project, the Maryland SHA and FHWA worked with partner agencies from the very beginning to secure buy-in on the accelerated project schedule. When asking agencies to respond to an expedited schedule, it is important that they be involved with developing the schedule. Establish regularly scheduled meetings with agencies to prepare for key decision points. As part of the ICC project, SHA established two special interagency coordination groups to facilitate problem-solving mdash the Interagency Working Group (IAWG) and Principals plus 1 (P1). Interagency Working Group (IAWG) mdash Participants included environmental managers and staff-level experts from the 21 Federal, state, and local resource and transportation agencies with jurisdiction over some aspect of the project. The group met 37 times to provide input and technical expertise and to guide the drafting of environmental documents and permit applications. Principals plus 1 (P1) mdash consisted of one executive-level official from each agency represented in the IAWG plus one staff assistant. The group met 11 times throughout the process to build consensus and resolve broad policy issues related to key project milestones and EIS document components. Involving agency decision makers in the meetings helps to ensure that decisions agreed upon by the group will be implemented. Use a neutral third partyfacilitator during interagency meetings in order to reach workable solutions when faced with conflicting ideas. SHA hired a professional mediator selected through the U. S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to facilitate all IAWG and P1 coordination meetings. The mediator served as the project neutral and played an integral role in encouraging agencies to work through complex issues. The professional mediator ensured that all agencies clearly defined their concerns and worked with stakeholders to develop innovative solutions. Utilizing a mediator can help opposing interests move past a roadblock to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Respect the fact that each agency has its own mission to achieve. Understanding the resource agencies missions, and in turn ensuring that they understand the SDOTs mission, helps the various parties understand where the other is coming from. Develop Community Advisory Groups or Task Forces. Both the Missouri DOT (MoDOT) and MDT established Community Advisory Groups as part of the project development and environmental review process. In Missouri, the public was concerned with specific details on what the constructed Paseo Bridge would look like. In order to address their concerns, MoDOT created an advisory group, which consisted of business, community, and neighborhood leaders. The advisory group played an integral role in the selection of the design-build contractor for the Paseo Bridge mdash the group rated the aesthetics of the proposed designs and controlled 20 aesthetics-related points of the total 100 points used to rank the proposals. Creating opportunities for the public to be more intimately involved in the project development process provides the public with a feeling of ownership over the project, and empowers them to help develop solutions. A collaborative working relationship between transportation and resource agencies requires mutual trust. How a SDOT works with other agencies on a day-to-day basis lays the foundation for developing this trust. Implementing the techniques highlighted above will help a DOT gain the trust of a resource agency staff, which in turn will make it easier to work with those agencies when major projects arise. Establishing a collaborative internal working environment is another essential element in streamlining the environmental documentation process. Tools and techniques to effectively collaborate with internal DOT staff include: Establish regular status meetings with the project team to share information. As part of Utahs Mountain View Corridor project, the team maintained a quotpunch listquot of items that need to be addressed. The project team held weekly status meetings, where items on the punch list were reviewed. Holding these regular meetings allows the project manager to identify areas that are in danger of falling behind schedule while at the same time providing motivation for staff to adhere to the project schedule. Involve legal counsel early in the process to ensure that the project is moving forward on the right track. The MDT legal staff is involved throughout complex projects. Having legal staff involved in key decision points is beneficial to expediting subsequent legal sufficiency review. Review the environmental document concurrently. Throughout the development of the Paseo Bridge project, MoDOT and FHWA were in constant communication. MoDOT did not wait until the document was put together before it was shown to FHWA instead it utilized a concurrent review process. Conduct internal review of the environmental document in a collaborative process. For its Mountain View Corridor project UDOT streamlined the internal review process by having all reviewers sitting down together to review and discuss the document. All reviewers were asked to come to the review meeting with prepared comments, and during the meetings staff identified the major topics to address in each chapter, shared and discussed their comments, identified a solution, and subsequently made the changes to the EIS document. While the review meetings were lengthy, the face-to-face process meant that each issue was only discussed once instead of the typical back and forth of emails that result when reviews are done individually. Commitment Demonstrated agency commitment to priority projects and project schedules provides the impetus for moving projects forward in a timely manner. Establishing consistency in how the environmental review process is managed and in the quality of information provided helps to build trust and bolster a SDOTs credibility with agencies and the public. Tools and techniques to demonstrate commitment to the environmental review process include: Secure executive support for a project to help identify the project as a priority. Many of the projects that experienced a streamlined environmental review process, including Marylands ICC, Missouris Paseo Bridge, and Montanas US-2 project, were identified by agency and government leadership as priority projects. This commitment from leadership can serve as a motivation for all stakeholders to participate in the process and agree to work together. In addition, prioritizing projects leads to a better utilization of staff time, both within the SDOT and in the resource agencies. When resource agencies understand that a particular project is a priority, they can plan their work loads accordingly. For high priority projects, assign the project as the project managers sole responsibility. For both the Paseo Bridge and the ICC projects, the project was the project managers sole responsibility. This allowed the project manager to dedicate 100 percent of his efforts to keeping the project on schedule. Establish a schedule and commit to following it. The MDT coordinated with Federal and State agencies in developing the project schedule and agreed to provide the agencies with a quotheads upquot on when they would be sending a document over for review and comment. In order to ensure adherence to the schedule, SHA built a dispute resolution process into the schedule to allow the project to stay on track even if issues were to arise. Conduct a gap analysis for projects where studies were conducted prior to the current environmental review process. In the ICC project, studies and information collected during a previous environmental review process were analyzed to determine which data was still valid. Outdated information was updated and new studies were initiated to fill in any remaining gaps. The gap analysis eliminates redundancy of work while ensuring that the best data is being used. Create and maintain a solid Administrative Record. The SDOT should develop a plan on how to organize both electronic and paper files from the very beginning of the environmental review process. This is critical to overcoming any legal challenges that may arise against the validity of the environmental document. For example, SHA anticipated legal action as part of its ICC project, and as a result they involved the Attorney Generals Office early to help with the preparation of a strong administrative record right from the beginning. When the agency did get sued as anticipated, the U. S. District Court ruled that because of the thoroughness and transparency of the process, as documented in the Administrative Record, there was no legal or equitable basis to prevent the ICC from being built. Utilize consultants to develop expert project teams. For complex projects choose the best qualified team available from the SDOTs available consultant pool. In the ICC project, SHA utilized an open-ended contracting approach to secure a high-quality project team. From the consultants with whom SHA has an open contract with, the best consultants were chosen to work on specific elements of the project including environmental, engineering and revenue studies. Similarly, the MDT hired experienced NEPA preparers, who were critical in helping to keep the project on track. The consultants knew the right questions that needed to be addressed in the study, and they played a critical role in pushing both internal and external stakeholders to provide input and address issues in a timely manner. Be responsive to public and agency comments. In order to build trust with the public and agencies it is important to not only listen to their comments but to also respond tor their comments as much as possible. A response of quotcomment notedquot is not a sufficient answer. In the Mountain View project, UDOT reviewed each comment, identified a solution, and then shared the response with the resource agencies prior to releasing the draft environmental document. Track environmental commitments and follow through to implementation. In the case of the ICC, innovative approaches to minimization, mitigation and stewardship played major roles in the project. In order to ensure that the environmental commitments were met, multiple project-team members including the engineering contractor, the design-build contractor, and SHA were required to establish an environmental coordinator position. The environmental management team worked with the design-builders environmental manager to confirm that plans and construction methods were in compliance with stated commitments. In addition, an independent environmental monitor held environmental oversight responsibility. This effort demonstrated, to the public and resource agencies, the commitment of the SHA to the stewardship of the resources affected by the project. By establishing credibility on tracking and fulfilling environmental commitments, a transportation agency can establish its reputation as a trustworthy partner. EIS Experiences and Best Practices from Peer Exchange Participants Representatives from SDOTs and FHWA Division Offices in Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and Utah gave presentations on particular projects in their respective states that had moved through the environmental review process quickly. Maryland mdash Intercounty Connector The Intercounty Connector (ICC) is an east-west, 18 mile multi-modal highway connecting I-270I-370 and the I-95US-1 corridors. The concept of the ICC has been included in local master plans since the early 1950s. Two previous NEPA studies, one conducted in 1983 and another initiated in 1997, were abandoned after the Draft EIS was released, due to reviewing agencies concerns over potential environmental impacts, as well as considerable mistrust between local government planners and Federal resource agencies. In contrast, the third and final NEPA study, which began in 2003, was completed and the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by FHWA in less than 3 years. Wesley Mitchell of SHA and Dan Johnson of the FHWA DelMar Division identified several key principles that led to the successful completion of the ICCs third environmental review process. As highlighted in the recommendations section of this report, the keys to the ICCs projects success included: Figure 1: This 4.5 acre wetlands creation project at a former soccer field is one example of how environmental features were incorporated into the ICC. Being named the Governors top state transportation priority and being designated a high-priority Federal transportation infrastructure project under Executive Order 13274, Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews. The commitment from both the State and Federal leadership encouraged all stakeholders to participate in the process and agree to work together. Ongoing coordination and cooperation with partner agencies. This collaboration was managed through the two interagency working groups, the Interagency Working Group (IAWG) and the Principals plus 1 (P1). Utilizing a professional mediator to facilitate all IAWG and P1 coordination meetings. The mediator served as the project neutral and played an integral role in encouraging agencies to work through complex issues. Utilizing an open-ended contracting approach to securing a high-quality project team. Conducting gap analysis on the studies and information collected during the 1997 NEPA process to determine which data was still valid. Outdated information was updated and new studies were initiated to fill in any remaining gaps. Implementing innovative approaches to minimization, mitigation and stewardship mdash The ICC explicitly included environmental stewardship as part of the projects stated purpose and need. In order to fulfill the ICCs stated purpose, context-sensitive design approaches were used to minimize or altogether avoid adverse impacts to critical environmental resources in the development of project alternatives. In addition, the ICC including stewardship elements to respond to existing environmental resource needs, that went above what is required for as mitigation. Missouri mdash Paseo Bridge The Paseo Bridge is an innovative Design-Build project that is part of a corridor improvement project along I-2935 in Kansas City, Missouri. It was designed to address capacity issues and to enhance deteriorating infrastructure. Two primary challenges existed. The first was that the project was one of three Design-Build pilot projects in the state. The Design-Build was a new approach for MoDOT, and it presented unique challenges during the EIS process. For example, the level of specific details typically provided to the public during the environmental review process are not provided for a Design-Build project because the specific details of the project design are not known until a contractor has been selected, which follows the approval of the EIS. The second challenge was that the MoDOT adopted a practical design approach for the project, whereby MoDOT was careful not to promise more than it was financially capable of delivering. This approach was new for MoDOT and the community MoDOT had historically promised big projects with complex financial implications. Minimizing the scope of the project was something MoDOT had to communicate to the stakeholders. Even though the project involved the new approaches of using Design-Build and a practical design approach, the Paseo Bridge project completed the EIS process in 2 years and 9 months, compared to the average timeline for the NEPA process in Missouri of 5 years. Lee Ann Kell of MoDOT and Ed Cordero of the FHWA Missouri Division attributed the streamlining of the environmental review process to the following factors: Figure 2: The Community Advisory Group played a lead role in rating the aesthetics of the proposed bridge designs. Identification of the Paseo Bridge as a priority project by both MoDOT and the FHWA Division Office. Identifying the project as a top priority enabled stakeholders to work together and keep the project moving forward. Ongoing coordination and communication between MoDOT and FWHA. Addressing the publics concern regarding what the constructed bridge would look like by creating a Community Advisory Group, and including them in the selection of the Design-Build contractor. The Advisory Group controlled 20 aesthetics-related points of the total 100 points used to rank the proposals. Include legal staff early in the process to explain the risks. Once identified, mitigate risks through community coordination. Montana mdash I-15 Corridor and US 2 The Interstate 15 Corridor project is a traffic improvement project in the Helena Valley. The first EIS for this project was developed in the early 1990s, and construction began in 1999. A subsequent legal challenge to the validity of the environmental document resulted in the projects termination. When the project was reinitiated in early 2000, a new corridor-wide EIS was employed. The new EIS process carried several challenges. As a result of the projects previously failed attempt, the community harbored some mistrust of MDT and the new project carried its own set of public controversies. In addition, the MDT Director wanted the EIS for the project to be completed in two years, which put significant pressure on the project team to adhere to the schedule. While the average for EIS completion in Montana is 5.21 years, the I-15 EIS, from the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the ROD, was completed in 2.48 years. According to Tom Martin of MDT, the streamlined EIS process for the I-15 project resulted from the following: Endeavoring to rebuild the publics trust by initiating public involvement early in the process. MDT established a Citizens Advisory Committee, created a local project hotline for opinions and questions, distributed quarterly newsletters, and held public workshops every 4ndash5 months during the data collection period. The prompt and extensive public involvement helped MDT to regain the publics trust. Developing consensus on the projects purpose and need, the project alternatives, and the evaluation and screening of alternatives with the Citizens Advisory Committee and agencies before making any final decisions. Working with stakeholders together as team helped to reduce friction. Utilizing an experienced NEPA consultant. The consultants knew the right questions that needed to be addressed in the study, and they played a critical role in pushing both internal and external stakeholders to provide input and address issues in a timely manner. Working closely with the consultants during the entire process. They established monthly project status meeting, which was not something they did in the past. The monthly status meetings were such a success that they are now used for every EA and EIS project in MDT. Creating an issues tracking and response tool to ensure that all concerns were addressed. Craig Genzlinger of the FHWA Montana Division spoke about another streamlined EIS project, the US-2 from Havre to Fort Belknap, which was completed in 2.31 years. The purpose of the US-2 project was to replace aging infrastructure and improve mobility for the purpose of promoting economic vitality. The public strongly supported expanding US-2 into a 4-lane highway. The state legislature passed a bill to build a 4-lane highway on US 2 however, the project was not in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The lack of understanding regarding the transportation funding process and NEPA created a challenge in the EIS process. Genzlinger identified the following as critical factors to streamline the EIS process: MDT leadership identified the US-2 project as a priority. Coordination with Federal and State agencies in developing the project schedule and providing the agencies with a quotheads upquot on when they would be sending a document over for review and comment. In addition, MDT and FHWA met frequently and worked closely throughout the process. Public education on the transportation process through three training modules mdash Transportation Planning 101, NEPA 101, and Funding 101. The trainings created an environment where all stakeholders could speak the same language, and understand the processes involved. MDT and FHWA completed concurrent reviews of the consultants work in order to streamline the process. Utah mdash Mountain View Corridor In 1995, Utahs Governor envisioned a legacy parkway. Planning for the parkway quickly became controversial one alternative had wetland impacts, while the other alternative would impact housing. As a result, public opinion regarding the project turned into a debate that seemingly pitted human concerns against environmental concerns. In 2001, construction on the parkway stopped due to the ongoing controversy. The Mountain View Corridor, which is under the umbrella of the larger legacy parkway project, encompasses a 35-mile area across more than 13 jurisdictions. The proposed corridor was designed to address population growth and travel demand within the project area for the year 2030. Similar to previous projects, the Mountain View Corridor project was controversial and met with much public opposition. Figure 3: The public gathers around one of UDOTs quotTalk Trucksquot to learn about the Mountain View Corridor project. Despite the numerous challenges facing the Mountain View Corridor, the project was able to move through the environmental review process in a streamlined fashion due to the following actions taken by UDOT: Utilization of innovative methods such as a quotTalk Truckquot mdash a billboard truck that went to various parking lots throughout the area during the day to provide the public with information on the project mdash as well as other public involvement efforts such as purposeful outreach to interest groups. Having the public write down their questions during public meetings, instead of using an open format question-and-answer segment. This technique ensured that all meeting participants had an equal opportunity to ask questions, and reduced the likelihood that any one individual would dominate the discussion. Providing a forum for opposing stakeholders to share their interests with each other. This technique helped to generate understanding, if not agreement, between the opposing sides. Creating a quotpunch listquot of items that needed to be accomplished in order to get to the next phase. The team held weekly status meetings, and a team member was assigned the task of keeping everyone on schedule. Providing for a method of accountability helped to motivate staff to stay on schedule. Instead of creating an EIS in the standard format, UDOT created separate chapters for each environmental resource. The chapters were then organized into six separate groupings, and UDOT released each of the six sections separately. This format allowed resource agencies to only review the chapters that pertained to their area of interest. Conducting internal reviews via face-to-face meetings. Prior to the meetings, all reviewers were asked to come to the review with prepared comments. During the meetings, staff identified the major topics to address in each chapter, shared and discussed their comments, identified solutions to problems, and subsequently made the changes to the EIS document. While the review meetings were lengthy, the face-to-face process meant that each issue was only discussed once instead of the typical back and forth of emails that result when reviews are done individually. Florida and the Environmental Review Process mdash Project Examples The following section presents highlights of current projects from several FDOT District offices mdash these include a history of each project, as well as key successes, challenges, or lessons learned. The projects are in various stages of completion, and while some have moved through the environmental review process relatively quickly, others have faced unique challenges. Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process Floridas Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process, developed in 2000, is an integrated approach to accomplishing transportation planning and project development for major capacity improvement projects in Florida. One of the benefits of the ETDM process is that it provides a forum for resource agencies to raise issues early in the process, allowing for a dispute resolution process to resolve them before the project moves forward. The ETDM process enables agencies and the public to provide early input to the FDOT and MPOs about the potential effects of proposed transportation projects. ETDM has two main components: the technology and the interagency agreements. The agreements define how the ETDM process will be implemented, how each agencys requirements will be satisfied through ETDM and identifies the resource needs of each agency to implement ETDM. Additional information on the ETDM process is available at etdmpub. fla-etat. orgest . District 1: State Route (SR) 29 SR 29 in Immokalee, Florida, also known as Panther Road, has two active projects, one an Environmental Assessment (EA) and the other an EIS. Immokalee is a small, rural, and highly agricultural region with a wide range of socio-economic groups. FDOTs District 1 had to balance the needs and desires of the local residents with those of the areas landowners who have differing views for how to develop the region. An additional challenge was that through FDOTs ETDM process, both projects were flagged by resource agencies due to potential impacts on conservation land and panther species. As a result of being quotred flaggedquot in ETDM, a dispute resolution process was initiated for both projects. The District utilized the Land Suitability Mapping (LSM) process, based on techniques and concepts developed by Ian McHarg in the 1970s in his book quotDesign with Nature. quot LSM is a process of layering Geographic Information Systems (GIS) datasets together to comprehensively assess the potential effects and benefits of a project. Using social, cultural, natural environment, and physical environment data layers and datasets, FDOT identified features that should be avoided if possible, which allowed them to eliminate some corridors while highlighting potential areas for corridor development. Analyzing available data enabled FDOT to address the resource agencies concerns. District 1 also underlined the importance of listening to the public, including both the residents and landowners. FDOT joined in Immokalees visioning process, meeting with the mayor and city and county officials. By talking with a broad group of stakeholders in order to figure out what each were looking for, the District generated positive goodwill and developed significant relationships. District 2: Bridge of Lions The Bridge of Lions, designated as a National Historic Landmark, is located in the historic district of St. Augustine, Florida. Built in 1927, the bridge was in need of upgrades. A debate ensued on whether to rehabilitate the existing bridge or replace it. Additionally, there was strong public and national interest in the project mdash various stakeholders formed blocs of advocacy groups, formal public hearings were very well attended (in excess of 600 people for the last meeting), and more than 8,000 letters were received from the public. Other key stakeholders such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) had competing priorities which FDOT had to balance as well. To address stakeholders competing desires and concerns, FDOT implemented some unique activities as part of the EIS process. FDOT developed a dedicated project website, one of the first projects to do so in the state. This helped FDOT answer the publics questions and provide them with information throughout the process. Another unique aspect was that FDOT and the USCG held a joint public hearing (the USCG was the only permitting agency involved in the project). An important lesson learned was the need to create and preserve a good administrative record, which prevented unnecessary lawsuits from stakeholders. District 3: Gulf Coast Parkway FDOTs District 3 serves a predominantly rural region, and the Gulf Coast Parkway (GCP) project presented the first opportunity for District 3 to do an EIS. Funded by the Transportation Outreach Program (intended for economically disadvantaged counties), the GCP started a feasibility study in 2001. The Purpose and Need of the GCP took into account several factors, including the need to reduce travel time provide a more direct route between US 98 and freight transfer facilities on US 231 within Bay County improve access to Gulf and Bay counties and improve security for the Tyndall Air Force Base Reservation by providing an alternative route to US 98 through Tyndall. The project had originally been managed by a public-private, nonprofit agency mdash Opportunity Florida. However, the project was put on hold in 2001 until July, 2008, when FDOT was able to issue a notice to proceed with the consultant. In the meantime, the project completed the ETDM process in April, 2007, and in August, 2007 the corridor report was revised and resubmitted. The GCP was set into motion because of a 25 million earmark in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). One challenge was that FDOT had to go back and revisit the alternatives because the original ones had been developed during a separate, non-Federal process. District 4: SR 7 Extension District 4 has substantial experience with conducting EISs, and is currently processing 24 Project Development amp Environment (PDampE) studies. The SR 7 Extension project, a proposed 4-6 lane corridor, is a controversial project located in Palm Beach County. From September, 2005, to August, 2007, FDOT conducted a Corridor Study to determine the best path for extending SR 7. Four corridors were considered in addition to the No-Build option. One of the options mdash Corridor 4 mdash would bisect the Pond Cypress Natural Area, the Grassy Waters preserve (a catchment area for the city of West Palm Beach), and a mitigation area for Acreage Reliever Road. While the public had an expressed preference for the Corridor 4 option, the permitting agencies identified critical issues with this same corridor and preferred the other options. As a result, FDOT initiated an informal dispute resolution process to address the conflicting views. Although one outcome of the dispute resolution process was that the number of agencies disputing the project increased from 1 to a total of 6 agencies, FDOT made a policy decision to eliminate the Corridor 4 alternative and was able to achieve consensus on moving forward with one recommended corridor mdash Corridor 3 mdash with the support of the resource agencies. Using ETDM demonstrated several benefits, including early agency involvement and a high level of participation, the elimination of infeasible corridors, and time and money savings. District 5: SR 40 SR 40 crosses the Ocala National Forest and other protected lands. Beginning in 1988, District 5 initiated several PDampE studies to explore improvements to SR 40. Each of those studies was eventually stopped due to concerns regarding potential environmental impacts. The District lost the trust of the U. S. Forest Service (USFS) and various public and environmental groups. When the project was revisited in the early 2000s, District 5 decided to take a proactive approach to address project issues. FDOT initiated a collaborative feasibility study, whereby it made joint recommendations with stakeholders regarding the feasibility of project alternatives. Participating stakeholders included Federal and State resource agencies. To handle the public involvement process, FDOT utilized a team of consultants as neutral facilitators. The facilitators struck a delicate balance between incorporating the views of numerous agencies wildlife biologists and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, without allowing any one group to dominate the meeting. Through multiple public meetings, FDOT slowly built back its credibility with the USFS. FDOT learned that having a good public involvement plan goes a long way mdash by the time they had a public meeting, a lot of issues had already been addressed. District 6: I-395 Overtown was once a thriving community known as the Harlem of the South. In 1957, the Overtown community was almost decimated by the development of the I-95 and I-395 freeways. The constructed roadway had a disastrous impact on the economic and social structure of the community. The community continues to shoulder the lingering effects of those negative impacts, and as a result there is also persistent anger towards and distrust of FDOT. The I-395 project, which proposes safety upgrades and a new access point to the Port of Miami tunnel, has been met with much public opposition. As part of the I-395 study, District 6 is working hard to rebuild trust in the community. FDOT opened a public outreach office in the Overtown community, which is staffed with a Community Liaison who works closely with the local residents to keep them informed of all transportation projects in the area. In addition, FDOT conducts extensive public outreach efforts including conducting community visioning workshops, organizing Project Advisory Groups, and holding numerous, one-on-one meetings with various community stakeholders. FDOT recognizes the importance of making a genuine effort to built trust with the community, and has learned to not assume that they know what is best for the community. As a result, while the alternatives analysis process has taken time and effort, the results will better address the communitys concerns. Appendix A: Peer Exchange Attendees FHWA mdash DelMar DivisionOffice of Highway Policy Information (OHPI) ndash Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) ndash HPMS Reassessment 2010 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 3.0 Best or Most Common Practices used by States 3.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the various practices that address the issues and challenges associated with data collection, processing, and reporting for high traffic-volume routes. Table 3.1 aligns the issues to the practices adopted by states to overcome or mitigate them. The practices are grouped into four major categories: (A) general (the issues apply to all categories), (B) data collection equipment, (C) data collection, and (D) data processing, quality control, and quality assurance. The descriptions are based on the information gathered through the interviews of sample states and supplemented by information from the published literature. The practice areas are illustrated with examples of use by states. Additional sources of information relevant to the practices are also identified. Furthermore, additional documentation for each practice area is included on an accompanying CD. Where possible, hyperlinks to these documents are provided. The documents on the CD include traffic monitoring guidelines, HPMS field guides, contractor specifications, training materials, equipment evaluations and specifications, and data quality assessments. Table 3.1: Best or Most Common Practices used by States Category Practice Issues Addressed Examples A1. Training and Guidelines Safety to field crew Equipment installation, calibration, amp maintenance Data quality control and assurance Institutional issues DOTs Traffic Monitoring Handbook Pennsylvania HPMS Quality Review NYSDOT Annual Training Workshop Indiana DOTs assessment of traffic monitoring program B. Data Collection Equipment B1. Equipment Selection, Calibration and Maintenance Technological limitations of detection equipment safety of field crew on high-volume routes Equipment failures and damage High quality data on high-volume routes DOTs pocket guide to installing road-tubes TxDOT, WsDOT, Georgia DOT and Michigan DOT equipment testing TI and Vehicle Detector Clearinghouse evaluation of equipment B2. Use of Non-Intrusive Equipment Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Installation and maintenance costs Equipment damage ndash loops and sensors Congested and stop-and-go traffic conditions construction and incidents Microwave detection use in New York, Ohio, California, and Virginia California Microwave Specifications TTI, Vehicle Detector Clearinghouse evaluations of equipment C. Data Collection C1. Use of Safety Strategies Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Data collection on high-volume routes Congested and stop-and-go traffic conditions WsDOT Safety Zones Florida DOT Safety Guidelines C2. Ramp Balancing Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Data collection on high-volume routes Congested and stop-and-go traffic conditions Ramp Balancing in California, Georgia, Texas, and Washington C3. Use of Innovative contractual Practices Improved data quality situational issues, e. g. funding lack of interagency cooperation Maryland Contractor Specifications NYSDOT Contractor Specifications Ohio DOT Task-Order Contract for Maintenance Virginia DOTs performance based service agreements C4. Use of ITS Data Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Limited coverage of traffic monitoring program Congested and stop-and-go traffic conditions Construction and incidents Californias Detector Isolation Assembly California PeMS database ODOTs use of ARTIMIS data Michigan DOTs use of MITS data Illinois DOTs use of CATS data WsDOT use of ITS data in Spokane D. Data Processing and Quality Control D1. Data Processing and Quality Control Procedures Raw data analysis and AADT estimation Assumptions and business rules Data quality control and assurance issues California Validity Criteria Virginia Quality Edits D2. Adjustment Factors and Growth Factors Raw data analysis and AADT estimation Assumptions and business rules Californias Adjustment Factor calculation WsDOT short count guidelines 3.2 Best or Most Common Practices A1. Training and Guidelines for Traffic Monitoring Personnel Issues Addressed Safety to field crew Equipment installation, calibration, and maintenance Data quality control and assurance Institutional issues Description Improving HPMS data collection on high-volume roads is often pursued by training and providing guidelines to personnel and agencies, since high-volume routes have special requirements with regards to placement of equipment and data quality verification. Several agencies provide focused training to the staff involved in data collection and processing. Examples of Use by States Staff training was identified as an important element to ensure that good quality and reliable traffic data are collected. For example, Virginia DOT (VDOT) conducts annual program meetings, quarterly reviews, and other equipment-related training to enhance the skills and experience of the field staff and contractors. VDOT also publishes a pocket guide for conducting traffic counts, including guidance on best practices for installation and site selection (Guide to Installing Road-Tubes in Virginia CD) . On-going training helps field personnel in selecting areas with the best characteristics needed to collect accurate traffic data. New York State DOT (NYSDOT) trains county personnel, contractors, and state personnel on traffic monitoring in an annual workshop. The workshop is open to all and serves as a valuable forum for all the parties involved with traffic monitoring in the state to meet and discuss concerns, opportunities, and emerging approaches. Florida follows certain guidelines for multilane facilities as laid out in the Traffic Monitoring Handbook CD . These guidelines are used by the Central and District Offices as well as their consultants and contractors performing traffic surveys for FDOT use. It may also be used by local governments and other agencies. Guidelines are presented in a multimedia-rich format with audio-visual presentations and accompanying text. The guidelines incorporate site selection, safety procedures, type of counts and durations for short-counts. Similar details are offered for permanent weigh-in-motion (WIM), classification, and volume stations. The guidelines also document adjustment factor calculations, factor development, and AADT estimation Maryland and Virginia have detailed specifications for short-term counts performed by a contractor, including quality levels, installation, and data collection procedures. Maryland has detailed specifications and requirements for contractors to follow, including a review of data by a professional engineer. If short-term counts are found to be in error, the agency requires contractors to recount the section. Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) assesses HPMS data and publishes an annual quality review report. The main objectives of the quality report are to ascertain the current state of HPMS data quality and ensure that errors found are corrected, determine if any common problems areas exist and identify training needs, and determine if any organizational or procedural changes to HPMS program are warranted. To this end, random HPMS field views of randomly selected sample sections in several counties are checked. Approximately one third of the data-collecting agencies in Pennsylvania are reviewed each year (Heltebridle, 2002). Some of the improvements attributed to the quality reviews include development of the PennDOT HPMS Data Collection Guide, HPMS conferences, yearly quarterly review reports, and invitations to MPOs and city officials to attend conferences. However, it is not clear if AADT values are checked as a part of the quality reviews. Indiana DOT (IDOT) conducted a detailed assessment and update of its traffic monitoring system to ensure that IDOT is in agreement with the new traffic-monitoring guide requirements (Labi and Fricker, 1998). The assessment focused on the management systems, the continuous counts, coverage counts, vehicle classifications, database systems, office factoring, and field procedures used by IDOT. The document also discusses the HPMS program, involvement of MPOs in traffic data collection, and traffic-monitoring activities of other states. Additional Information on CD Heltebridle, L. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PennDOT Quality Reviews . Presentation at HPMS Issues Workshop, Chicago, August, 2002. Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office, Traffic Monitoring Handbook . October 2002 Virginia Department of Transportation, Guide to Installing Road-Tubes in Virginia B1. Equipment Selection, Calibration, and Maintenance Issues Addressed Technological limitations of vehicle detection equipment Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Equipment failures and damage High quality data on high-volume routes Description Agencies are trying to maximize performance of existing technologies such as axle and volume traffic counters using road tubes or inductive loops. Improving performance of these detectors is primarily achieved through a combination of installation, calibration, and maintenance practices as well as through technical improvements. Examples of Use in States Accuracy of Counters The accuracy of counters declines in high-volume conditions, especially using pneumatic road tubes. The accuracy of classifiers also declines in congested or especially in stop-and-go conditions. The following are potential solutions to the problem and illustrated by examples. Make sure local practice complies with standards for installing pneumatic tubes for roadway traffic counters and classifiers (See ASTM E1957, quotStandard Practice for Using Pneumatic Tubing for Roadway Traffic Counters and Classifiersquot). Tests conducted by Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) on Peek ADR-6000 demonstrated that it can accurately classify vehicles in stop-and-go conditions and even when vehicles change lanes over the detectors. Washington state DOT (WSDOT) conducts coverage counts by pneumatic road tubes using Peek ADR-1000 equipment. The software includes tailgate logic to improve classification accuracy in cases where vehicles are close together and might otherwise be classified as a single vehicle (truck) instead of two cars. Florida DOT (FDOT) discourages the use of pneumatic road tubes and recommends installation of permanent sensors as part of construction projects on multilane facilities. California DOT (Caltrans) has a battery of quality checks for equipment and data. It also recommends hiring quality staff to ensure high-quality data. VDOT uses tight classification tables and requires vendors to use the same. Field personnel are experts with the equipment. Illinois DOT (ILDOT) had great success with Hi-Star Numetric sensors in collecting traffic volume and classification data on highways carrying traffic less than 75,000 AADT. These sensors are easy to install and are excellent for volume data and fairly good for vehicle classification. Maintenance, Calibration, and Testing Pneumatic tubes are a stable technology and are the mainstay of short-term equipment in many states. States interviewed are comfortable in using this technology, while recognizing its limitations. In order to increase the efficiency of road tubes, states require staff and contractors to select appropriate locations to minimize some common problems (e. g. stop-and-go traffic, parking on road tubes, pavement surface deterioration), secure the tubes to the roadway, and check the settings on the counter. The use of high-quality surge suppressors and adequate equipment ground on-site minimizes the risk of damage to pneumatic road tubes due to lightening. Also, the use of gas-discharge tubes for primary protection of phone lines. In order to reduce the risk of premature loop failure due to pavement rutting or other pavement factors, avoid the use of inductive loops in thin pavements (less than 4 inches thick) or in pavements that need rehabilitation. Their installation in such pavements will often induce even more problems. Improve pavement maintenance and use deeper saw cuts to allow milling as needed. The use of high quality loop detector wire with a thick PE or PVC tube such as IMSA Spec 51-5 and twist loop lead-in wire at least 6 turns per foot to reduce cross talk is recommended. VDOT provides a Pocket Guide (quotGuide to Installing Road-Tubes in Virginiaquot) CD to their field staff to aid in road-tube installation. The guide provides guidance on installation techniques based on traffic conditions and some general best practices. As such, VDOT routinely uses methods like quotblockerquot and quotindependent arraysquot to separate the vehicle actuations in adjacent lanes in order to successfully gather traffic data in high-volume routes using pneumatic tubes. An example installation of an independent array using two tubes, two traffic counters, and blockers in the middle of the lane is shown in Figure 3.1. Further details can be found in, Lane Array and Road Tube Best Practice Guidelines . (VDOT, 2002). Figure 3.1: Independent Array Installation of Road-tubes (Virginia DOT) In Ohio, data collection crews are instructed to review data prior to submitting to central office for processing. The crew is instructed to check for high volume, multiple hours of zeros, and to reset the counters if necessary. The existing count contract includes a reset clause. When Ohio DOT (ODOT) determines that there is an error with the count, the contractor is required to make a reset. If reset is within a given range of the original count, ODOT pays the contractor for the two counts. If a difference in the count is significant, ODOT pays for one count. All new equipment is tested for accuracy and calibrated before installation. ODOT is currently initiating a research project to create a piezo-weigh-in-motion (WIM) bench tester. Texas DOT (TxDOT) tests axle counters annually using a test highway section and ground truth measurements, including manual and video counts that are then corroborated with axle counters. In Washington, tube counters are set and validated prior to every count. A manual count (100 axles or 5 minutes of traffic, whichever comes first) is performed and compared to the data from the traffic counters. Similarly, each of the continuous count sites is validated once a year by a manual traffic count (three hours in duration) Michigan DOT (MDOT) tests short-count equipment set-up for accuracy prior to data collection. ATR data are downloaded daily and reviewed in week-long chunks. Any abnormalities in the data are identified by the reviewer, and the maintenance staff is sent to check the device. In addition, ATRs are also polled daily to test for communication problems. MDOT tries to schedule counts either before or after construction when possible during the traffic-counting season (Mid-April to Mid November). Caltrans inspects ATRs only if unable to poll the ATR or if the data are erroneous. However, extreme care is taken in installation and calibration. Extensive calibration is performed before accepting any new equipment. In Virginia, trained operators check equipment for accuracy during the initial setup operation in all cases. All equipment currently in use has a visual display with real-time results. Each new count setup requires an evaluation of performance before continuing on to the next count. Road-tubes are checked before each setup and replaced as needed. Advanced loop logic functions provide information when piezo-sensors begin to fail so that preventive maintenance can be planned. Equipment performance is continuously reviewed, and hardware and firmware upgrades are added as needed. In-house software is used to examine all data collected to determine the performance of equipment and sensors. New rules and parameters are added to the review process as needed. Any performance issues are addressed by making calibration changes to the detectors setup. Any changes in performance are addressed immediately. Locations with extreme stop and - go traffic are avoided. Georgia DOT (GDOT) randomly tests ATRs for accuracy using video logs that are then compared to the collected data. GDOT has a tolerance level of 5 percent variance from the ground truth and only equipment that meets this threshold is used. Adjustment factors for AADTs can be estimated better if ATRs are accurate and installed properly. For short-term counts, historical trend analysis is used with a tolerance level. GDOT also requires crews to report on conditions in the field, including changes from the previous count cycle. New Jersey regularly recalibrates WIM sensors. Regular crack sealing is done at piezoelectric axle sensors. Most service involves the communication link, such as resetting or reprogramming modems, replacing surge suppressors, or cleaning the cabinet interior. Occasionally, unexplained problems require replacing circuit boards or the equipment (e. g. communication boards, loop detector boards, or other ancillary boards). Massachusetts reported that equipment is checked on an ongoing basis, performing testing throughout the year. The DOT emphasizes operational instructions to field staff on a continuous basis. Staff are required to wait after equipment is installed to ensure it is working before leaving the site, and to check if it is still working accurately before shutting it off and picking it up at the conclusion of the count. Technology Improvements Maryland uses two road-tube-based products from Progressive Engineering Technologies (i. e. PET Switch, Road Ramp) for traffic monitoring on high-volume roads. The PET Switch System uses an intelligent road tube that is configured to distinguish between lanes and allows the collection of speed, axle classification, and volume data simultaneously in up to four lanes. RoadRamp, a portable axle-sensing system with a separate axle sensor in each lane, guarantees more accurate lane classification and reliable traffic counts on busy, multi-lane sites. VDOT has specified that all traffic-counting equipment include a visual display component that enables the field personnel to check visually if the equipment is set-up, calibrated, and working correctly. VDOT also works closely with vendors to develop a tight classification table and requires vendors to use this table for their classification algorithms. Any vehicle that registers as an unclassifiable (Class 15) will be reported back to the center and reviewed. VDOT also works with the vendors (e. g. PEEK) to develop a tailgating logic especially for high-volume roads with close headways to better classify vehicles (e. g. determining whether four counted axles represent two cars or one truck). VDOT uses in-house software to cross check set-up parameters in counters to ensure that manufacturers correctly code in the required information. NYSDOT has specifications describing the requirements for portable microprocessor based ATR to be furnished to NYSDOT, and other governmental units within New York State for use with loop-piezo-based sensors. Technical requirements include construction, materials, hardware, software, environment, vehicle detection, and operations. One of the breakthroughs, which enhance vehicle detector output by utilizing inductive loop signatures, is now available in the Peek ADR-6000. The software enhancement techniques involve several algorithms designed for use in roadside vehicle detection equipment and which may apply to vehicle classification, toll applications, and incident detection. Recent tests by the TTI indicated that the Peek ADR-6000 was very accurate as a classifier, counter, and speed detection device and as a generator of simultaneous contact closure output. However, its recent introduction into the U. S. market and being adapted from a toll application are factors in its need for further refinement. The classification result for a data set of 1,923 vehicles indicated only 21 errors and resulted in a classification accuracy of 99 percent (ignoring Class 2 and 3 discrepancies). This data sample occurred during a peak period and included some stop-and-go traffic. For count accuracy, the Peek in this same data set only missed one vehicle (it accurately accounts for vehicles changing lanes) (Middleton and Parker, 2002). Additional Information on CD NYSDOT, Highway Data Services Bureau, LoopPiezo Automatic Traffic Recorder Specification . September 2001. Virginia DOT, Lane Array and Road Tube Best Practice Guidelines . December 2002 FHWA, Traffic Detector Handbook - Chapter 6 Draft ndash Sensor Maintenance Florida Department of Transportation, Standardization of Count and Classification equipment set-up and configuration process . prepared by PB Farradyne, 1995 New Jersey Department of Transportation. Traffic Monitoring Standards . January 2000 Ohio Department of Transportation, Service, Acceptance and Warranty Requirements B2. Use of Non-Intrusive Equipment Issues Addressed Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Installation and maintenance costs Equipment damage ndash loops and sensors Congested and stop-and-go traffic conditions Construction and incidents Description Non-intrusive sensors require less exposure of workers to traffic hazards and are sufficiently accurate for traffic volume monitoring applications except in very congested and stop and go conditions. The use of non-intrusive data collection equipment for traffic data collection has been investigated by various states primarily to realize two major advantages: relative ease of installation and improved safety of traffic personnel. Non-intrusive traffic detection technologies include infrared-, microwave-, laser-, acoustic-, and video-based sensors. Examples of Use by States While some of the states are experimenting and testing some types of non-intrusive equipment, other states are now beginning to review that option. The following sections summarize state practices and experiences with non-intrusive equipment. ODOT uses Electronic Integrated Systems (EIS) Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor RTMS (rtms-by-eis) units in five locations to collect traffic volume data. ODOT has also tested video (Autoscope) and acoustic sensors. ODOT observes that the main disadvantages are that set-up is difficult and that RTMS only reports two vehicle classifications: long vehicles (trucks) and all others. VDOT is actively researching several non-intrusive technology devices. To date, only the RTMS sidefire radar has been approved for use. It can be used as a portable detector and has the required accuracy. VDOT has reviewed other non-intrusive products but none has met their current needs. Caltrans tested RTMS extensively but did not obtain favorable results, citing long set-up times and occlusion problems. Caltrans recognizes that these technologies have improved since and has developed guidelinesrequirements for non-intrusive detectors. The draft guidelines are intended to help California personnel to make an educated estimate of whether microwave sensors can fulfill their requirements. The document contains checklists of requirements that must be met, test results of various microwave models, technology descriptions, and installation overviews. The Detector Evaluation and Testing Team (DETT) of the California Department of Transportation has recently tested two non-intrusive detectors, RTMS and Wavetronix SmartSensor. Results indicate that overall count accuracy was almost always within 95 percent of true counts and within 98 percent on some lanes. Speeds were also within 95 percent. One difference between the Wavetronix and the RTMS X3 detectors was the difficulty of setup and calibration. The Wavetronix only required 15 to 20 minutes total to set up, whereas the factory representative took about one hour per lane for the RTMS (Middleton et al. 2004). ILDOT is a strong proponent of length-based classification and has worked with FHWA to report length-based classification for HPMS. The use of length-based classifications encourages the use of non-intrusive detectors. Often the inability of such devices to classify vehicles into 13 vehicle categories is mentioned as a major impediment to their increased use. ILDOT tested various non-intrusive equipment including microwave and acoustic sensors. NYSDOT tested 3M Microloops for bridge deck applications. NYSDOT also tested SAS-1 acoustic sensors for their low-power requirements and low cost advantages. The main advantage stated by New York is the safety of traffic personnel. The Traffic Monitoring Unit of the NYSDOT has successfully developed a permanent acoustic traffic monitoring site. This site was developed in-house to support nonintrusive sensor technology with applications in data collection and ITS activities. Further details are presented in Chapter 4 of this report. In addition to using the acoustic sensors as permanent stations, NYSDOT also has four mobile platforms equipped with the sensor for portable counts including coverage counts, special counts, and some ITS design applications. Each is used to collect volume data on high-speed, high-volume, multi-lane facilities where typical collection methods cannot be used due to safety concerns or equipment limitations. New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) indicated the following non-intrusive equipment use and research: Peek-Vision pole-mounted video data collection was installed. Institutional considerations required the mounting to be roadside rather than in the median. Pole height was limited by available service equipment. Communication was via land line rather than the fiber-optic network originally planned. Staff constraints precluded sufficient evaluation or implementation. 3M Microloop system was installed and operated satisfactorily. The Detector Recorder system could not be set to record data on the hour it was always plus or minus several minutes although 60-minute intervals could be recorded. Initially, there seemed to be interference from nearby power lines. The manufacturer adjusted the systems frequency to alleviate the problem. Staff constraints precluded followup with the manufacturer to rectify the recording time or further implementation. Although RTMS sensors have been installed as part of ITS incident management initiatives, NJDOT does not use count data from these sensors yet. The New Jersey Highway Authority tested an acoustic detector. NJDOT was never advised of the results. Sources of further information The Vehicle Detection Clearinghouse, a multi-state, pooled-fund project managed by the Southwest Technology Development Institute (SWTDI) at New Mexico State University (NMSU) and sponsored in cooperation with the U. S. DOT FHWA, is a valuable resource for o documentation about technology, evaluation and testing results, and details on use of technologies by states. On the Internet, the clearinghouse is located at nmsu. edu FHWA sponsored Field Test of Monitoring of Urban Vehicle Operations Using Non-Intrusive Technologies (FHWA-PL-97-018). The final report of the evaluation is available in html format at dot. state. mn. usguidestarnitfinalabout. htm Additional Information on CD California Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations, Microwave Vehicle Detection Systems (MVDS) Guidelines . DRAFT, 2003 U. S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration, A Summary of Vehicle Detection and Surveillance Technologies used in Intelligent Transportation Systems . produced by the Vehicle Detector Clearinghouse (VDC) for FHWA ITS Joint Program Office, Fall 2000 Peter Martin et al, Detector Technology Evaluation . November 2003 New York State Department of Transportation, Permanent and Mobile Platform Acoustic Site Summaries. C1. Use of Safety Strategies Issues Addressed Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Data collection on high-volume routes Congested and stop-and-go traffic conditions Description A primary concern in the monitoring of high-volume routes is the safety of data collection crews. Various states have developed strategiesguidelines to ensure safety of the agency personnel and the traveling public. Some of the strategies include setting of safety zones, training, and guidelines for field personnel. Examples of Use by States Washington State identified different zones for data collection. These zones were not identified strictly based on traffic volume but a combination of traffic and roadway characteristics (Figure 3.2). Green Zone, May set counter any time, 1 person Yellow Zone, May set counter any time, 2-person crew required Blue Zone, May set counter during off peak times, 1 person Purple Zone, May set counter during off peak times, 2-person crew required Red Zone, no personnel without traffic control, 2-person crew required Source: Interviews with WsDOT, 2003 Figure 3.2: Washington DOT Zones for Data Collection FDOT has the following safety procedures in their traffic monitoring handbook (Florida DOT, 2002): All traffic-count personnel must be provided a minimum of two weeks of training by accompanying an experienced field technician who is collecting traffic data. All personnel must be provided training in first-aid techniques and be familiar with safety procedures before they are allowed in the field. All vehicles used for traffic data collection will be equipped with the minimum equipment specified. All traffic count personnel shall adhere to the following procedures: Seat belts shall be worn during operation of vehicles. Orange safety vests and UL-approved safety glasses or safety prescription glasses shall be worn during field operations. Reflective safety vests shall be worn during low-visibility situations. Vehicle lights shall be used in the following manner: Turn signal and yellow roof mounted strobe lights shall be activated as the traffic count vehicle approaches the work site, usually five hundred to one thousand feet (500 ndash 1000) in advance of the site. Four-way flashers shall be activated at the work site and the flashers and strobe lights shall remain activated until the proper turn signal is activated to leave the work site. Strobe lights shall be turned off after the vehicle safely re-enters traffic flow. All traffic count personnel shall conform to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Rules amp Regulations. vehicles shall be parked where there is adequate space to park the vehicle safely. The vehicle should be parked a minimum of four feet from the edge of the pavement. All traffic count personnel shall exercise extreme caution when entering the roadway to set or retrieve traffic sensors. Under no circumstances shall traffic sensors be placed in the roadway when it is raining or foggy. All traffic count personnel have the right to request that their supervisor assign additional help to assist them if they deem there is a need for a two-person crew to set equipment safely. Only state vehicles are authorized to cross the Interstate medians. All other vehicles are subject to moving violations Night work should be done only when traffic flow dictates it to be necessary, and then only with two or more technicians. One person should spot while the other is working near the pavement. Reflective vests must be worn at all times when working at night. These procedures are also reinforced through a video about safety included in the handbook. New Jersey emphasizes installation safety on high-volume roads. The necessity of obtaining vehicle-type classification data by visualmanual methods rather than automatic vehicle classification (AVC) technology also requires special emphasis on safety for high-volume roads. Special consideration is usually given to volumes over 15,000 per lane per day. Typically classification using AVCs is not undertaken where more than one lane cannot be monitored by one machine. Also, if the state or the contractor determines that lane closures are needed to safely install and remove traffic monitoring sensors, the contractor is required to submit a quotrequest for police assistancequot to the appropriate state police coordinator and procure the services of a New Jersey DOT-approved Maintenance and Protection of Traffic contractor. According to ILDOT, data collection staff cannot safely install data collection equipment on high-volume roads (AADT greater than 70,000). Road segments with traffic volumes greater than 100,000 AADT are in the Chicago area. In these areas traffic data are collected with loops and at toll way facilities by the toll way authorities and Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS). When it is determined that a road carries sufficiently high traffic volume to preclude the safe installation of data collection equipment, manual count is used. However, manual counts are not a recommended practice because it noted to be expensive and could potentially suffer from accuracy and reliability problems. Similarly, Texas and New Jersey also perform manual classification counts where it is not possible to install traffic data collection equipment either because of safety considerations or because of equipment limitations. Massachusetts employs safety procedures to protect DOT staff and the general public. Installation of inductive loops on high-volume routes are coordinated with pavement construction and maintenance programs. Additional Information on CD Washington Department of Transportation, Safety Zones for Traffic Monitoring, Regions: Eastern, North Central, North Western, South Central, South Western, Olympia Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office, Traffic Monitoring Handbook . October 2002. Florida Department of Transportation, Safety Video for Field Personnel . included in Traffic Monitoring Handbook, October 2002. C2. Ramp Balancing Issues Addressed Safety of field crew on high-volume routes Data collection on high-volume routes Congested and stop-and-go traffic conditions Description Ramp balancing using counts on onoff ramps combined with control counts on the main line are used in locations with high traffic volumes where it is not possible to conduct mainline counts safely. The TMG defines ramp counting as the process of counting traffic volumes on all entranceexit ramps between two established mainline counters, such as permanent ATRs or other installations, and then reconciling the count data to estimate mainline AADT. A limitation of the ramp-counting approach to estimate mainline volume is that, travel-lane volumes cannot be estimated because traffic entering the road cannot be allocated to lanes. This limitation is not a concern for data collected to meet the specifications of the HPMS, but it may have implications for other programs that depend on lane-specific traffic volume information. Examples of Use in States California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, and Washington use ramp-balancing approaches that were developed based on the guidelines and recommendations of the TMG. California uses ramp balancing extensively on high-volume roads where there are no permanent counters and crew cannot safely install portable counters. Caltrans has an Excel spreadsheet that contains formulae to calculate AADT volumes based on daily ramp counts. Instructions to complete the worksheet are also provided to the field staff and are shown in Figure 3.3. MDOT uses a ramp-counting program in S. E. Michigan (Detroit area). State personnel count at ramp entry and exit locations instead of counting mainline segments. These are then used in combination with the ITS detectors and the loops on the mainline to obtain the AADTs for the segments between two entry and access points. The ramp-counting program is conducted according to the TMG guidelines. Georgia DOT was one of the first state agencies to use step-down (ramp balancing) approaches to counting traffic on mainlines of limited access highways. In Texas a database system (STARS) is expected to automate the ramp-balancing process. The ramp-balancing programs are being set up based on the TMG guidelines. Washington DOT calculates adjustment factors differently for the ramp balancing and has a quality check of less than five percent variation from the control points and estimated counts as recommended by TMG guidelines. Additional Information on CD U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of Policy, Traffic Monitoring Guide . 2001 Section 3, Chapter 4. Caltrans Ramp Balancing Process Worksheet, Blank Computational Worksheet . from Joe Avis, Chief, Traffic Data and Photolog Unit, Division of Traffic Operations Freeway ramp balancing is performed to calculate mainline Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) between 2 control stations. This process also calculates Ramp AADTs. The latest LRIMADT and daily reports for ramps will be needed. The following are instructions for filling out the Freeway ramp balancing computation worksheet: The instruction number corresponds to the number identified on the sheet. Enter beginning Control Station AADT. This number is posted on the LRIMADT report. It is critical for this number to be accurate, therefore the control station must be free of erroneous data. Enter ending Control Station AADT. This number is posted on the LRIMADT report. It is critical for this number to be accurate, therefore the control station must be free of erroneous data. Enter post mile for ramp Enter description for ramp. Enter ramp volumes. Enter NB or EB off Enter NB or EB on Enter SB or WB off Enter SB or WB on Sum NB or EB off ramp volumes, (Back off) Sum NB or EB on ramp volumes, (Ahead on) Daily volume vs recent MaxMin ndash count too low or too high Daily directional splits Figure 3.4: Californias Checklist for Editing Traffic Counts 5 Virginia uses a detailed quality assessment procedure that includes six different categories of quality as shown in Figure 3.5. Data from ATRs are processed and determined to fit into six quality groups ranging from data not acceptable to VDOT to data acceptable for all purposes. Some error messages from the automated count processing system used to process data at VDOT are also shown in Figure 3.5. 1) VDOT Traffic Monitoring System Data Quality Codes 0 Not Reviewed 1 Acceptable for Nothing 2 Acceptable for Qualified Raw Data Distribution 3 Acceptable for Raw Data Distribution 4 Acceptable for use in AADT Calculation 5 Acceptable for all TMS uses 2) Sample data messages from automated system ounter Set Non Existent or Redundant for Count Period. More than one direction (1, 7) is assigned to lane 1. 96 Raw Data Records are outside of Counter Definition Specifications. 9051 Vehicles recorded in a direction other than Primary and Secondary. Expected data from 2 Counters, found 1 Data Set is Incomplete. Counter Number 1 Lane Number 4 is not complete. Total Day Count for all lanes combined is Zero. No Data Found for Counter Number 1, Lane 3. Units of Axle or Vehicle not available for some or all of this count data. This Continuous Count Data was collected on a Sunday This Continuous Count Data was collected on Labor Day Travel (09012002) Counter Number 1 class table name VDOT0901 is invalid. Maximum elapsed zero time for any lane is 4.00 Hours. Percent Unclassified Vehicles (11) is greater than 10.00 for Counter Number 2, Lane 1. Total Percent Unclassified Vehicles (7) is greater than 5.00. Percent Double Trailers (10.26) is greater than 10.00 for Counter Number 1, Lane 2 on this NHS highway Total Percent Double Trailers (3.37) is greater than 2.00 on this NHS highway. Unclassified Data. Lane Total Percent Class 8 (37.01) is greater than 5.00 for Counter Number 1, Lane 3. Max Lane Percent Unclassified Trucks (40.00) gt 25 Total Percent Class 20 of Total (0.56) gt 0.5000 Total Day Count for Primary Direction (1) of 48 is less than 40 of Total Day Count of 19077 ADT for 2001 was 15000 This Daily Count Total: 12182. Preliminary AADT estimate of 18007 based on this count of 17625 is 93 of the 2000 A Quality ADT (19392). Raw Data Sensor Layout does not agree with Counter Sensor Type for Counter Number 1, Lane 2. Figure 3.5: Virginias Quality Flags and Error Messages from the Information System 6 FHWA initiated a pooled fund study with Minnesota, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Indiana, New York, Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, New Mexico, California, Idaho, and Montana to develop a system for consistent traffic data quality edits. Although concluded before all its intended objectives were met, the study compiled a list of all data-screening tools used by one or more of the participating states as they are applied to short or continuous volume, vehicle classification, andor WIM data for the selected data products. The report included a set of logically consistent, state-of-the-practice rules for traffic-data screening derived from five, multiple-day knowledge-engineering sessions attended by more than 60 traffic-data screening experts. The report also included traffic-data screening algorithms, definitions, and pseudo-code statements to support the development of rule-based testing software (MnDOT, 1997). Sources of further information Triplett, R. and Avis, J. Sensor Sharing Among Applications . NATMEC, Orlando, Florida, 2002. Available from NATMEC Proceedings CD Additional Information on CD Fekpe et al., Traffic Data Quality Workshop and Action Plan . Report to FHWA, 2003 Ohio Department of Transportation, Traffic Keeper-Ohio (TKO) Traffic Edit Guidelines, Service, Acceptance and Warranty Requirements New York State Department of Transportation, Highway Data Services Bureau, Traffic Count Editor: User Manual and System Documentation . February 2003 Florida Department of Transportation, Survey Processing Software (SPS) User Manual . June 2001. D2. Adjustment Factors and Growth Factors Calculation Issues Addressed Raw data analysis and AADT estimation Assumptions and business rules Data quality control and assurance issues Description Adjustment factors are used to convert short-term volume counts to AADT. These factors include seasonal factors which account for daily, monthly, weekly variations in data axle correction factors use when axles instead of vehicles are counted and growth factors when counts are not available. Most states interviewed indicated that estimating these adjustment factors are based on the recommendations of the TMG. Some states have detailed documentation of the methods used to calculate these factors. It was observed what while adjustment factors were calculated based on factor groups, these groups were mostly determined by functional classifications rather than by traffic volumes. There is no difference in the procedures for calculating the adjustment factors based on traffic volumes. Examples of Use by States ODOT uses a total of 84 factors (12 months 7 days) which are generated using 3 year rolling averages from ATRs for each functional class. These factors are calculated using a mainframe program. These are updated yearly. FDOT calculates two traffic adjustment factors using proprietary TranStat database software and can be accessed through the DOT Infobase under IMS from the Traffic Characteristics Inventory (TCI) databases. TCI contains both current and historical information. The continuous counts and the seasonal classification counts provide the necessary information to establish traffic adjustment factors. In the absence of any continuous counts within a county, TranStat borrows seasonal factors from adjacent county sites and assign seasonal factors for these sites. These adjustment factors are later applied to the short-term counts to estimate AADT, K30, D30, and T. Details are available in FDOTs quotProject Traffic Forecasting Handbook quot CD. FDOT also has a video on AADT estimation procedures in their traffic monitoring handbook TxDOT uses seasonal factors from ATRs and truck factors from classification stations. 12-month rolling summaries are used to generate adjustment factors. TxDOT plans to move towards calendar year based averages. California has a slightly different approach to adjustment factor calculation. During any 12-month period there are consistent variations in traffic volume by month, day, and hour. The changes that may occur in this consistent pattern for a specific count location are attributable to normal growth in traffic volume and random incidents affecting the site. Given these consistent variations, factors can be developed for any day of the week, month of the year, and season fluctuation to be used in estimating AADT. These factors are defined below 7 . The L factor measures the level of traffic by the day of the week. The seven-day average equals 1.00. The factors typically range from 0.80 to 1.20. The daily traffic volumes are related to AADT by L (level) factor. The L factor is calculated by the following formula: (Annual average daily count for one day of the week ----------------------------------------------------------- 7-day annual average daily traffic (AADT) Where: 7- day counts are taken for 4, 8, or 12 months on a symmetrical basis in a year. The R factor measures the Range of fluctuation between average summer and average winter traffic. This factor is calculated by day of week as well as a 7- day average. The factors typically vary from 0.00 to 0.70. For a few control stations that have higher traffic in the winter than in the summer, the factor is negative. There are a few control stations with extreme summerwinter fluctuations causing the factor to be higher than 0.70. The R factor is calculated by the following formula: Where: N the number of months counted. 7-day counts are taken for 4, 8, or 12 months on a symmetrical basis in a year. The I factor measures the Incremental changes in the R factor from month to month in the fluctuation from summer to winter. The factors typically vary from 0.00 to - 10.00. If the R factor is very close to 0.00 the I factor is larger. How much a month is quotRquot differs from the Average quotRquot. This is needed to adjust the specific day profile counts R factor. The I factor is calculated by the following formula: Where: V Monthly average daily traffic A Annual average daily traffic. R 7-day R factor. These factors are recomputed every year. The station AADT is then calculated by dividing Profile Count Volumes (counts for which one day of complete data is available) by the average L factor for back and ahead traffic stations (ATRs) for the same day of week, plus average R factor for back and ahead ATRs for the same day of week, multiplied by the incremental regional factor, I, for back traffic station. WsDOT has developed a short count Factoring Guide CD document available from the WsDOT website. The document contains information on the sensors used, the types of counts and the adjustment factors used. Adjustment factors are updated every year. A preliminary factor is applied to short term counts during the year and re-factored based on data from ATRs at the end of the year. The Factoring Guide discusses how WsDOT calculates and applies seasonal, day of week, and axle-correction factors. It does not discuss the fact that WsDOT creates expansion factors for application to manual count traffic data in order to estimate daily traffic from manual counts (which are conducted for less that 24 hours). These factors are based on short-duration classification count and annual traffic report data. Michigan calculates adjustment factors from 2 year rolling averages of Permanent Traffic Recorders (PTR) data. Factors are calculated for 3 patterns of traffic (Urban to Recreational). These factors are calculated and adjusted every year. ILDOT uses a 4-year rolling average from ATR counts for seasonal factors (monthly factors) calculated from ATR data for five categories ndash urban interstate, urban noninterstate, rural non-interstate and recreational roads. No Day-of-Week (DOW) factor is used as IDOT schedules only 24 hour counts on a weekday and does not count on weekend and holidays. The Chicago area does not have different adjustment factors as of date but IDOT is working towards developing a new set of factors for the Chicago area. To this end, IDOT has added 38 new ATRs in the Chicago region between 1998 and 2000. Virginia uses ATRs to determine the adjustment factors (7 days (DOW) times 12 months). The factors are computed yearly. Axle correction factors are also calculated. ATRs are also used to develop growth factors for AADT estimates created from short-term counts not being counted in the current year of the three-year cycle. In Massachusetts, seasonal adjustment factors are developed from the permanent inductive looppiezo cable stations. The axle correction factors are developed from the TMGHPMS required 300 vehicle classification stations (100year on a 3 year cycle). The factors are developed and updated each year. They are entered into a MS Excel spreadsheet by group for seasonal adjustment factors and functional classification for axle correction (truck) factors, and then analyzed to develop the listed adjustment factors. In New Jersey, pattern factors (Seasonal Adjustment Factors) are computed by grouping continuous monitoring stations into broad functional class groups (i. e. rural interstate, other rural, urban interstate, other urban, and recreational). For each station, the monthly average weekday is compared to the AADT, as is done for the group as a whole. Stations at which three or more months deviate from the group average by more than 20 percent are rejected from the group and considered as recreational pattern. The stations in each group are then analyzed and it the variation exceeds 20 percent, the station is considered ungrouped. This process is iterated until the stations within each group conform to the group pattern. Axle Correction Factors are computed by grouping all available vehicle type classification data by functional classification. The sum of vehicles by type is divided by total vehicles to determine percentage of vehicles by type. By using axles per vehicle type, average axles per vehicle is determined, and when divided into 2, the Axle Correction Factors are determined. These are averaged for three years of classification data to provide a three-year moving average. The pattern factors (Seasonal Adjustment Factors) are updated annually. The Axle Correction Factors are updated annually based on a three-year moving average. Additional Information on CD U. S. Department of Transportation, Office of Policy, Traffic Monitoring Guide . 2001 Section 3, Chapter 4 Washington Department of Transportation, Short Count Factoring Guide . June 2004 Florida DOT, Project Forecasting Handbook . June 2000, Chapter 2 Florida DOT, AADT Estimation Video . Traffic Monitoring Handbook, 2002 3 Interview with Tom Schinkel, Virginia Department of Transportation for FHWAs Traffic Data Quality Workshop project, October 1, 2002. 4 NYSDOT, Zone 3 Contractor Specifications, June 2003. 5 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Guide for Staff to review traffic data, from Joe Avis, Chief, Traffic Data and Photolog Unit, Division of Traffic Operations. 6 Virginia DOT, Average Daily Traffic volumes on Interstate, Arterial and Primary Routes, Glossary of Terms, 2001, available at virginiadot. orgprojectsresources(IAP)AADT. pdf 7 Information provided by Joe Avis, Caltrans.