Fdot Moving Meverages

3. Manutenção de uma rede de dispositivos de campo Antes de iniciar a implantação do modelo i Florida, a maior parte do equipamento de monitoramento de tráfego D5 foi implantado ao longo da I-4. Os dados dos detectores de loop foram utilizados em tempos para estimar os tempos de viagem, mas as operadoras eram tão propensas a basear as estimativas nas observações das câmeras de trânsito. Os sinais de mensagens dinâmicas (DMS) e as mensagens 511 foram usados ​​apenas no I 4, e os operadores do Centro de Gerenciamento de Tráfego Regional (RTMC) registraram estes em tempo real. Como a maioria das operações de gerenciamento de tráfego foi feita à mão, os operadores de RTMC podiam se adaptar a dados faltantes de dispositivos de campo com falha. Com o início da Florida, a situação mudou. As estradas gerenciadas no RTMC aumentaram de cerca de 40 milhas de I-4 para Orlando para mais de 70 milhas de I-4, um comprimento igual de I-95, cinco rodovias de pedágio perto de Orlando, sete principais armas de Orlando e uma série de Outras estradas em todo o estado. Também foram necessárias operações mais detalhadas para cada uma dessas estradas, incluindo a necessidade de informações de tempo de viagem 511 e DMS em tempo real. Uma vez que esta carga de trabalho adicional não pode ser facilmente atendida usando os métodos anteriores, i Florida incluiu software para automatizar muitas atividades de gerenciamento de tráfego. As informações de tempo de viagem seriam postadas automaticamente nos sinais de mensagem e no sistema 511. Planos de sinal podem ser criados para automatizar postagens de mensagem se ocorreu um incidente e para lembrar os operadores para remover mensagens de sinal quando um incidente foi cancelado. O aumento da confiança em métodos automatizados provocou uma maior dependência da confiabilidade do equipamento de campo. Antes da Flórida, um operador de RTMC encontraria uma outra maneira de publicar informações quando o equipamento falhara no entanto, os sistemas automatizados não eram tão flexíveis, de modo que as falhas de equipamentos eram mais prováveis ​​de resultar em mensagens perdidas nos sistemas de informações de viajantes. O resultado final foi a transição de um departamento com uma quantidade moderada de equipamentos não críticos implantados no campo para um departamento com uma grande quantidade de equipamentos críticos implantados no campo. Esta seção do relatório descreve como o Departamento de Transporte da Flórida (FDOT) modificou suas práticas de manutenção para acomodar esta transição. 3.1. Dispositivos de campo FDOT D5 Antes da implementação da i Florida, a instrumentação de campo mantida pelo FDOT District 5 (D5) consistiu principalmente em detectores de loop, câmeras e DMS ao longo da I-4 em Orlando, com um conjunto menor de dispositivos similares implantados ao longo da I-95 Leste ou Orlando. À medida que a implantação da Florida, a complexidade do equipamento de campo implantado aumentou de três maneiras diferentes: o número de dispositivos aumentou, o número de diferentes tipos de dispositivos implantados aumentou e o tamanho da região em que esses dispositivos foram implantados aumentou. O número de dispositivos implantados aumentou de cerca de 240 em janeiro de 2004 - a primeira data para a qual os registros de estoque de manutenção estavam disponíveis para a Equipe de Avaliação - para mais de 650 em junho de 2007 (ver Figura 11). 1 Este número inclui apenas dispositivos de gerenciamento de tráfego e exclui equipamentos relacionados às redes FDOT usadas para conectar-se a este equipamento. Figura 11. O número de dispositivos de gerenciamento de tráfego FDOT D5 O número de diferentes tipos de dispositivos também aumentou. Em janeiro de 2004, o equipamento incluiu detectores de loop, câmeras de tráfego e DMS. Em 2007, o FDOT também havia implantado um radar (no local de detectores de loop), sinais de rastreio, sinais de limite de velocidade variável (VSL), leitores de listas de pedágio e leitores de placas (ver Figura 12.) Figura 12. O número de tráfego FDOT D5 Dispositivos de gerenciamento, por tipo A distribuição geográfica do equipamento implantado aumentou. Em janeiro de 2004, a maioria dos dispositivos implantados estavam localizados na I-4 (cerca de 190 dispositivos), com cerca de 30 dispositivos localizados na I-95 e 11 dispositivos na SR 528. Em 2007, dispositivos adicionais foram implantados nessas estradas e Outros dispositivos foram implantados em todo o estado (por exemplo, 25 câmeras e unidades de radar para suportar o Sistema de Monitoramento Estadual (ver Seção 8) e câmeras de vigilância em duas pontes). Observe que os dispositivos listados acima incluem apenas equipamentos de gerenciamento de tráfego e excluem switches e outros equipamentos de rede necessários para operar o sistema. A lista também inclui apenas o equipamento que a FDOT estava ajudando a manter, por isso exclui equipamentos que estavam sendo ou foram implantados, mas ainda estavam sendo mantidos pelo contratante de implantação. 3.2. Práticas de Manutenção do FDOT D5 Antes da implantação do modelo i Florida, o FDOT monitorou o equipamento implantado e gerenciou o processo de manutenção. Cada dia, um operador de RTMC analisaria os loops, câmeras e sinais e gravaria em uma planilha se o equipamento estava funcionando. As falhas de loop foram observadas através da digitalização de uma lista de leituras atuais para garantir que os dados estejam disponíveis em cada loop. Os erros da câmera foram observados ao acessar o feed de vídeo de cada câmera para garantir que ele estava operacional. Os erros de registro foram observados usando as câmeras para visualizar cada sinal. Quando uma nova falha foi observada, a FDOT despacharia o pessoal para fazer o reparo (para o equipamento mantido pelo FDOT) ou emitir uma ordem de trabalho para o reparo (para o equipamento mantido pelo contratante). Para o equipamento de campo implantado como parte da i Florida, uma abordagem diferente foi usada. Na maioria dos casos, os contratos de implantação de equipamentos incluíram um período de garantia que abrange todo o período operacional previsto da Flórida até maio de 2007, durante o qual o contratado seria responsável pela manutenção do equipamento. Isso foi importante para o FDOT porque a implantação de tantos novos equipamentos teve o potencial de superar a capacidade do FDOT de monitorá-lo e mantê-lo. A FDOT esperava que, incluindo um período de garantia, a responsabilidade fosse monitorar e manter o equipamento no contratado. A FDOT descobriu um problema com a abordagem da garantia. Enquanto os contratos incluíam linguagem que exigisse níveis de disponibilidade especificados para o equipamento e tempos de reparo máximos quando o equipamento falhou, eles não incluíram o idioma especificando como a disponibilidade do equipamento seria monitorada. O plano implícito no FDOTs era que os operadores de RTMC seriam capazes de monitorar a disponibilidade do equipamento de campo quando um equipamento de campo falhou, um operador de RTMC observaria a falha porque os dados que ele ou ela precisavam não estariam disponíveis. Quando o Sistema de Relatórios de Condição (CRS) não funcionou como esperado (consulte a Seção 2), os operadores de RTMC às vezes não conseguiram verificar se o equipamento estava funcionando porque as falhas do CRS impediram o acesso aos dados do equipamento. Se os dados faltantes fossem anotados, não estava claro se os dados faltantes eram devidos a falhas de equipamentos, falhas no CRS ou falhas em outros lugares do sistema. Nos contratos de equipamentos de campo, incluem requisitos para ferramentas para monitorar o estado operacional do equipamento implantado e para ajudar no monitoramento do equipamento assim que a implantação for concluída. Isso foi particularmente verdadeiro com os leitores de etiquetas de pedágio arterial. As leituras de etiqueta de passagem passaram por várias etapas de processamento para gerar estimativas de tempo de viagem antes de atingir o CRS e FDOT teve problemas para rastrear a causa raiz de tempos de viagem arterial faltantes ou imprecisos. As falhas do leitor foram observadas pela FDOT quando o CRS estava pronto para receber os tempos de viagem arterial gerados pelos leitores no verão de 2005. Quando o servidor de tempo de viagem não informou os tempos de viagem para a maioria das armas, identificar a causa raiz da falha exigiu que O pessoal da FDOT revisa manualmente uma série de etapas de processamento e transmissão de dados. No caso dos leitores de tag de pedágio, esta revisão foi complicada por uma documentação limitada sobre como operava a rede de leitores. FDOT eventualmente descobriu que cada leitor incluiu um utilitário de autodiagnóstico que poderia ser acessado remotamente por meio de um navegador da Web - a documentação do leitor de tag de pedágio não descreveu esse recurso. Cada leitor também criou um arquivo local de todas as leituras de etiquetas que havia feito. Para identificar os leitores falhados, a equipe do FDOT analisaria os diagnósticos locais de cada leitor todos os dias e analisaria uma amostra de leituras de etiquetas feitas, observando quaisquer erros de diagnóstico ou menos leituras do que o esperado em uma planilha. Esse processo, quando aplicado aos 119 leitores de tag de pedágio da Flórida, exigiu cerca de 4 horas por dia para completar. 2 Esta pesquisa finalmente revelou o fato de que quase metade dos leitores de etiquetas de pedágio arterial falharam. (Consulte a Seção 5 para obter mais informações.) Se os requisitos para a implantação do leitor de tag de pedágio incluíram uma ferramenta para monitorar e relatar o estado operacional de cada leitor, então FDOT não precisaria desenvolver um método ad hoc para fazê-lo e Poderia ter detectado essas falhas com mais facilidade e as corrigiu à medida que ocorreram em vez de ter acumulado o número de dispositivos com falha enquanto o sistema não era monitorado. O FDOT também observou que as falhas recorrentes às vezes ocorreram com algum equipamento em locais específicos. FDOT suspeitava que altas taxas de falha às vezes fossem relacionadas a uma causa raiz (por exemplo, condicionamento de potência inadequado ou temperatura elevada do gabinete) que não estava sendo resolvida reparando a parte falhada. No entanto, os contratos de garantia não exigiram análise de causa raiz ou reparos mais extensos se ocorrerem várias falhas em um site. A FDOT estava considerando se deve adicionar essa linguagem a futuros contratos de garantia. 3.3. Confiabilidade do equipamento Uma parte do processo de manutenção do equipamento FDOT foi a geração de cada dia de uma planilha que documentou se o equipamento estava funcionando. Embora o objetivo principal dessas planilhas tenha sido ajudar a gerar ordens de trabalho para reparar o equipamento falhado, o FDOT também arquivou cada planilha. A FDOT forneceu à equipe de avaliação cópias destas planilhas arquivadas para o período de 2 de janeiro de 2004 a 2 de julho de 2007 e a equipe de avaliação converteu as informações nessas planilhas em um banco de dados para que os dados de falha do equipamento pudessem ser analisados. 3 Isso permitiu a estimativa de três medidas de confiabilidade do equipamento: disponibilidade, freqüência de falha e tempo de reparo. Cada uma dessas medidas foi analisada para os seguintes grupos de equipamentos de campo: Sistema de Informação de Motorista de Vigilância (SMIS). Este grupo inclui equipamentos implantados ao longo da I-4. No início de 2004, isso consistiu em cerca de 87 estações de detector de loop, 68 câmeras e 36 sinais de mensagens. Em maio de 2007, isso consistiu em 128 estações de detector de loop, 77 câmeras e 56 sinais de mensagem. Estrada inteligente da área de Daytona (DASH). Este grupo inclui equipamentos implantados ao longo da I-95. No início de 2004, isto consistia em cerca de 13 estações de detector de loop, 14 câmeras e 6 sinais de mensagem. Em maio de 2007, consistiu em 23 estações de detecção de loop, 25 câmeras e 3 sinais de mensagem. Bridge Security. Este grupo inclui as câmeras implantadas para suportar o projeto i Florida Bridge Security - veja a Seção 12. Isso consistiu em 29 câmeras implantadas em duas pontes. Em todo o estado. Este grupo inclui câmeras e unidades de radar implantadas como parte do Sistema de Monitoramento Estadual - veja a Seção 8. Isso consistiu em 25 unidades de radar e 25 câmeras implantadas em locais de estações em todo o Estado. Sistema de evacuação de furacões (HES). Este grupo foi implantado ao longo de SR 528 e SR 520 para suportar evacuações de furacões. No início de 2004, isso consistia em cerca de 5 estações de detector de loop, 4 câmeras e 2 sinais de mensagem. Em maio de 2007, isso consistiu em 16 estações de detector de loop e 4 câmeras. VSL. Este grupo é composto por 20 sinais VSL implantados em 16 locais em uma parte da I-4 em Orlando. Pioneiro. Este grupo consiste em 44 sinais de mensagem pioneiros implantados nas interseções principais ao longo da I-95, interseções que podem ser usadas se o tráfego for desviado da I-95 durante um incidente. Arterial. Este grupo é composto por 14 câmeras implantadas nas principais interseções em Orlando. Essas medidas foram calculadas de forma independente para cada tipo de equipamento (por exemplo, câmeras, estações de detecção de loop) dentro de cada grupo. 3.3.1. Disponibilidade do dispositivo de campo Uma medida da disponibilidade de dispositivos de campo foi calculada como o número de dias durante um período especificado que FDOT relatou que um equipamento foi operacional (ou seja, não houve erros relatados) dividido pelo número de dias que FDOT relatou em uma peça De equipamento. (Os períodos para os quais nenhum relatório estava disponível foram ignorados.) Observe que isso pode exagerar a medida em que o equipamento não estava disponível porque qualquer erro relatado foi tratado como se o equipamento não estivesse disponível. Por exemplo, se um dos cinco loops na localização de um detector falhasse, a localização do detector foi tratada como se os dados desse local não estivessem disponíveis. A Figura 13 mostra a disponibilidade dos loops, câmeras e sinais que no grupo SMIS. Note-se que, em geral, o equipamento estava disponível entre 80 e 90 por cento do tempo, embora menores níveis de disponibilidade ocorressem em 2005. Os níveis mais baixos de disponibilidade em 2005 correspondem a um momento em que o FDOT tentava simultaneamente gerenciar reparos no pedágio arterial Rede de leitores de tags e ir ao vivo com o CRS. Com recursos limitados disponíveis, essas novas responsabilidades pareciam afetar a capacidade do FDOTs de manter a rede SMIS existente. A Figura 14 mostra a disponibilidade para o equipamento de campo DASH. Note-se que este grupo apresentou menores níveis de disponibilidade, o que pode ser atribuído ao fato de ser mais novo e o FDOT teve menos experiência em mantê-lo. O gráfico da Figura 15 mostra o nível de disponibilidade das câmeras de segurança Bridge. Como este sistema era secundário em importância para os sistemas que mais diretamente apoiavam as operações de gerenciamento de tráfego, os menores níveis de disponibilidade neste sistema eram prováveis ​​porque FDOT colocava menos ênfase em mantê-lo. Figura 15. Disponibilidade do Equipamento de Campo de Segurança da Ponte A Figura 16 mostra a disponibilidade do equipamento no Sistema de Monitoramento Estadual. Como o FDOT descobriu que este sistema não era muito eficaz para fornecer informações de viajantes em todo o estado (ver Seção 10), a agência reduziu a ênfase em mantê-lo. Isso, e o fato de que os custos de manutenção foram altos devido ao custo de viajar para locais em todo o estado para realizar atividades de manutenção, provavelmente resultou em baixos níveis de disponibilidade para este equipamento. Figura 16. Disponibilidade do equipamento de campo de monitoramento estadual A disponibilidade do equipamento HES está representada na Figura 17. Este equipamento, que foi usado para suportar evacuações de furacões e informações de viajantes em SR 520 e SR 528, foi menos crítico para FDOT do que o Instrumentação na I-4 e I-95 para operações de gerenciamento de tráfego do dia-a-dia. A Figura 18 mostra a disponibilidade dos sinais VSL implantados na I-4 em Orlando. Como as operações da VSL não foram implementadas em Orlando, é possível esperar níveis mais baixos de disponibilidade para esses sinais. A Figura 19 mostra a disponibilidade dos sinais do pioneiro usados ​​nas interseções principais localizadas perto de I 95. Figura 19. Disponibilidade do Equipamento do Campo Trailblazer Finalmente, a disponibilidade das câmeras de trânsito implantadas nas artérias de Orlando é descrita na Figura 20. A Figura 21 mostra o nível De serviço para os leitores de etiquetas de pedágio arterial. (A definição para esta medida do nível de serviço é dada no Apêndice A.) A disponibilidade de equipamentos de campo implantados pelo FDOT normalmente variou entre 80 e 90 por cento em 2007. Para o equipamento SMIS, a média de 2007 foi de cerca de 80% para os detectores de loop , 87 por cento para câmeras e 92 por cento para sinais. Para o equipamento de campo DASH, as médias correspondentes foram 77 por cento, 82 por cento e 79 por cento. Para os leitores de etiquetas de pedágio arterial (ver Seção 5), a disponibilidade foi de quase 90%. A disponibilidade de outros equipamentos, que a FDOT considerou menos crítica para suas operações, apresentou menores níveis de disponibilidade. Uma conclusão que pode ser extraída dessas observações é que o equipamento de campo de gerenciamento de tráfego não estará disponível uma fração significativa do tempo, e os sistemas que usam dados desse equipamento devem ser projetados para acomodar essas falhas. Consulte a Seção 3.5 para obter sugestões sobre a concepção de sistemas para acomodar falhas no dispositivo. 3.3.2. Tempo de reparação Outra medida relacionada à confiabilidade do equipamento de campo é o tempo de reparo, medido como o número de dias sucessivos em que os registros de manutenção relataram um erro para o equipamento, em média, sobre a coleta de equipamentos em cada grupo. A Figura 22 mostra o tempo médio de reparo para o equipamento SMIS. Figura 22. Tempo médio de reparo para o equipamento de campo SMIS Em 2007, o tempo médio de reparo foi de cerca de 6 dias para detectores de loop SMIS, cerca de 5 dias para câmeras e cerca de 6 dias para sinais. Figura 23. Tempo médio de reparo para o equipamento de campo DASH O tempo médio de reparo em 2007 foi de cerca de 18 dias para as estações de detector de loop DASH, cerca de 9 dias para câmeras DASH e 25 dias para sinais. Para o equipamento de campo HES, o tempo de reparo médio de 2007 foi de cerca de 12 dias para estações de detecção de loop, 16 dias para câmeras e 9 dias para sinais. Para os sinais de VSL, o tempo médio de reparo foi de 16 dias em 2007. Para o Sistema de Monitoramento Estadual, os tempos médios de reparo foram muito maiores, com média de cerca de 29 dias para detectores e 64 dias para câmeras em 2007. 3.3.3. Tempo médio entre a falha O tempo médio entre a falha (MTBF) foi estimado pelo tempo médio que um equipamento foi marcado como sendo no serviço nos registros de manutenção do FDOT. Observe que um equipamento pode ser marcado como fora de serviço por diversos motivos, incluindo a falha do equipamento, a falha de utilidades do equipamento ou a falha na rede para fornecer conectividade ao equipamento. Assim, os MTBF reportados são para o equipamento incorporado na rede FDOT, não para o próprio equipamento. A Figura 24 descreve o MTBF para o equipamento de campo SMIS. Figura 24. Tempo médio entre falhas para o equipamento de campo SMIS O MTBF, o tempo de reparo e a disponibilidade para o equipamento de campo FDOT estão resumidos na Tabela 1. Tabela 1. Tempo Médico Médio entre Falhas para Equipamento de Campo FDOT, 2007 Observe que existe um relacionamento aproximado Entre o MTBF, tempo de reparo e disponibilidade: em média, cada equipamento deve funcionar MTBF dias antes de serem necessários os reparos e os reparos exigem o tempo de reparo para completar. Assim, a coluna Obs em Disponibilidade é a disponibilidade observada (ver Seção 3.3.1) ea coluna Est é a disponibilidade estimada usando a fórmula acima. Considerando esta fórmula leva à seguinte observação. Como o MTBF geralmente é significativamente maior do que o tempo de reparo, reduzir o tempo de reparo por um determinado número de dias terá um impacto maior na disponibilidade do que aumentar o MTBF no mesmo número de dias. 3.4. Manutenção de uma rede de fibra Uma das fontes comuns de falhas do dispositivo no FDOT foi cortes de fibra, que deixaram dispositivos de campo desconectados do RTMC. A principal causa de cortes de fibras na rede FDOT foi a construção de atividades. Um projeto de intercâmbio, por exemplo, resultou em mais de 90 cortes de fibras ao longo do projeto de 3 anos. Em um caso, um empreiteiro estava no local reparando a fibra quando a fibra estava literalmente afastada de suas mãos como resultado de um segundo corte ocorrendo no mesmo feixe de fibras. Antes de 2007, o FDOT ITS Group desempenhara um papel reativo no processo de proteção e reparação de suas fibras. Todos os contratos incluíam cláusulas que exigiam que os contratados reparassem prontamente qualquer fibra que estivesse danificada, mas os empreiteiros muitas vezes faziam pouco esforço para evitar danificar a fibra. A FDOT acreditava que, em alguns casos, isso era porque o contratado talvez não estivesse ciente da localização exata da fibra. Outras vezes, parecia que o custo de reparar a fibra era menor que o custo e a inconveniência de tentar evitá-la. Quando ocorreu um corte de fibras, as consequências às vezes foram ampliadas porque o Grupo ITS não foi notificado imediatamente para que os reparos pudessem começar. A maioria dos empreiteiros teve poucas interações com o grupo ITS e não tem certeza de quem entrar em contato se ocorrer um problema. Se um corte de fibra ocorreu durante horas fora do horário, o empreiteiro, com certeza quem entrar em contato, pode não denunciar o corte imediatamente. Enquanto isso, os monitores de rede observariam a perda de conectividade e começaram a entrar em contato com os funcionários da FDOT por e-mail, pager e celular. Os funcionários do FDOT executariam testes para localizar o problema e identificavam a origem do problema como fibras danificadas em uma zona de construção. Em alguns casos, as atividades de construção em curso teriam enterrado a fibra danificada no momento em que o FDOT respondeu, e FDOT teria que executar testes adicionais para determinar a localização exata do corte e re-escavar a fibra danificada antes que os reparos pudessem ser feitos. Em 2007, o FDOT começou a assumir uma posição mais pró-ativa no enfrentamento do problema dos cortes de fibras. O objetivo era reduzir o número de cortes de fibras e reduzir o impacto quando um corte foi feito. Como primeiro passo, o FDOT identificou algumas das causas que levaram a cortes de fibras, identificando o seguinte: a fibra de ITS geralmente não estava incluída nos planos de construção. Até recentemente, o Grupo ITS não estava integrado ao processo de planejamento de construção da FDOT. Em alguns casos, a fibra ITS não estava incluída nos planos de construção e as questões geralmente não eram identificadas até que os planos estivessem quase concluídos. Quando foi incluído, geralmente foi incluído nos planos de 30%. Nesse ponto, o custo de modificar os planos era maior do que se tivesse sido feito anteriormente no processo de planejamento e algumas abordagens para evitar danos à fibra ITS não eram mais viáveis. O Grupo ITS declarou que seu objetivo era ser totalmente integrado como parte do processo normal do DOT de identificar, projetar e construir projetos. Integre o Grupo ITS no processo de construção para ajudar a garantir que a consideração da rede de fibra esteja incluída nos planos de construção. A localização exata da fibra ITS geralmente não era conhecida. Às vezes, a implantação real e os desenhos construídos diferiam demais para serem guias úteis para saber se as atividades de construção prejudicariam a fibra. O FDOT também descobriu que usar o fio de tonificação para localizar a fibra geralmente não era suficientemente preciso para evitar cortes de fibras. Os contratantes muitas vezes não tinham certeza de como entrar em contato com a FDOT para obter mais informações se algo no campo lhes causasse a preocupação de que elas pudessem danificar algumas fibras. Não tem certeza de quem entrar em contato, os contratados freqüentemente prosseguem com as atividades de construção. Se um corte de fibra ocorreu, o empreiteiro ainda pode ter certeza de quem entrar em contato e o dano não será reportado até FDOT detectá-lo. Depois de analisar essas causas, o FDOT identificou várias etapas que poderia tomar para proteger melhor sua fibra. Essas etapas foram: O Grupo ITS começou a desenvolver um inventário mais preciso da localização de suas fibras. Este inventário baseado em GIS permitiria ao FDOT fornecer informações mais precisas sobre a localização da fibra para os contratantes de construção antes que a construção comece. Grandes projetos passam pelo processo de gerenciamento de projetos do consultor FDOTs. O FDOT modificou os procedimentos para esse processo para que o Grupo ITS seja notificado no início do processo de planejamento e possa participar de reuniões de planejamento precoce entre o FDOT e o contratado. Isso ajudou a garantir que os planos de construção levassem em conta a infra-estrutura ITS. Também deu à FDOT a chance de tomar medidas para reduzir a quantidade de dano à infra-estrutura ITS se ocorrerem danos. Projetos menores (projetos de área local e projetos especiais) não passaram pelo processo de gerenciamento de projetos do consultor FDOT. Para garantir que a proteção dos recursos do ITS foi considerada nesses projetos, a FDOT começou a desenvolver relacionamentos com os vários órgãos do governo da cidade e do condado que gerenciaram esses projetos. Um membro do pessoal do Grupo ITS começou a participar de reuniões semanais de revisão de projetos nessas organizações pelo menos uma vez por mês. Isso ajudou a desenvolver relações entre o Grupo ITS e aqueles que gerenciam os projetos de área local e os contratados do projeto da área local. Instalar fibra em locais visíveis em vez de subterrâneo pode ajudar os contratantes a evitar danificar a fibra. O Grupo ITS começou a considerar mudanças que poderiam fazer na sua rede antes de um projeto começar a reduzir a probabilidade e os impactos dos cortes de fibras. Considere tornar a fibra visível. Em geral, a FDOT localizou a fibra subterrânea como meio de protegê-la de danos. Fazendo fibra difícil de ver, no entanto, tornou mais propenso a danos durante as atividades de construção. FDOT observou que os empreiteiros tipicamente evitavam danos na fibra aérea porque é visível para eles. O FDOT começou a reposicionar a fibra ao longo de algumas estradas de acesso limitadas do subterrâneo ao terreno acima da linha de cerca durante projetos de construção de longo prazo em estradas de acesso limitado. FDOT acreditava que fazer a parte da fibra de uma obstrução visível (ou seja, a cerca) ajudou a protegê-la de danos inadvertidos. Considere localizar a fibra perto das características que os contratantes provavelmente evitarão durante as atividades de construção. A FDOT observou que, com a fibra aérea, a presença de linhas de energia nas proximidades faz com que os contratantes fossem mais cautelosos. O FDOT começou a considerar as vantagens de colocar novas fibras perto de outras características que os contratados já eram propensos a evitar, como as tubulações subterrâneas. Considere deslocalizar a fibra antes da construção começar. Em muitos casos, a FDOT considerou que não era real esperar que um empreiteiro evitasse cortar fibras durante atividades de construção prolongada. Múltiplos cortes de fibra que podem ocorrer resultarão em custos para reparar a fibra, interrupção dos serviços de ITS e conexões de fibra de menor qualidade (já que as emendas necessárias para reparar a fibra reduzem a qualidade geral da fibra). Como a maioria dos empreiteiros incluiu em sua oferta uma reserva para pagar por danos que podem ocorrer, o potencial de cortes de fibras realmente resulta em custos de construção aumentados para FDOT. O FDOT começou a considerar a mudança da fibra para longe do local de construção, a fim de reduzir os custos gerais e melhorar o serviço ITS. Em um recente projeto de reconstrução de interseção (em SR 436 e SR 50), tanto o equipamento ITS quanto a fibra estavam localizados no site. A FDOT decidiu que seria mais rentável re-rootear a fibra e mover o equipamento STI do que mantê-lo durante a construção. O Grupo ITS coordenou com a Cidade de Orlando, o Condado de Seminole e a Autoridade de Expressway de Orlando-Orange County (OOCEA) para usar a fibra escura próxima dessas organizações, permitindo que a FDOT redirecione a fibra ao redor da interseção SR 436SR 50. Os fortes relacionamentos entre FDOT8217s do seu Grupo e estas outras agências foram fundamentais para alcançar esse nível de cooperação e compartilhamento de recursos. Essa abordagem foi econômica porque exigia a implantação apenas de uma pequena quantidade de novas fibras. Considere aumentar a quantidade de folga incluída nas implementações de fibra. O FDOT começou a prática de incluir grandes quantidades de excesso de folga em áreas onde eles esperam depois implantar equipamentos de campo adicionais. Esse subsídio pode reduzir a quantidade de retrabalho exigida quando o novo equipamento é implantado. A FDOT recentemente teve que retrabalhar várias milhas de infra-estrutura devido à folga inadequada implantada em projetos anteriores. Pode ser mais rentável relocar a fibra antes da construção para reduzir a probabilidade e os impactos dos cortes de fibras do que fazer reparos quando ocorrem cortes. O FDOT também observou que alguns contratados são mais cuidadosos para evitar danificar a infra-estrutura ITS do que outros. Outra causa de cortes de fibras observados pelo FDOT foi cortar atividades. Era comum que os empreiteiros trabalhassem na fibra para não desligar as tampas dos cubos de fibra. Se uma máquina de cortar a cabeça sobre uma tampa do cubo que não fosse aparafusada, ele poderia levantar a tampa e quebrá-la ou, se a tampa do cubo não fosse encastrada, acerte a tampa diretamente e quebre. Uma vez que a cobertura foi quebrada, a sucção da máquina de cortar puxa o feixe de fibras para dentro das lâminas do cortador, cortando a fibra. 3.5. Projetando sistemas de gerenciamento de tráfego para acomodar falhas de equipamentos Uma das lições aprendidas em considerar a manutenção dos dispositivos de campo i Florida é que a falha de dispositivos de campo implantados deveria ser esperada. No FDOT D5, era comum que entre 10 e 20 por cento dos dispositivos em sistemas chave fossem baixos a qualquer momento. O software TMC deve acomodar essas falhas quando elas ocorrerem. Esta seção do documento descreve uma abordagem que pode ser usada para acomodar falhas no dispositivo. Os conceitos fundamentais por trás da abordagem são: dados em falta devem ser substituídos por dados estimados para todos os dados-chave usados ​​na tomada de decisões de transporte. Na maioria dos casos, estimativas razoáveis ​​de tempos de viagem e outros dados podem ser gerados (por exemplo, a partir de dados históricos, da revisão do tráfego do vídeo de tráfego). Basear as decisões de transporte em dados estimados é provavelmente mais eficaz do que basear-se em nenhum dado. As especificações originais do FDOT exigiam que os tempos de viagem estimados fossem usados ​​sempre que os tempos de viagem observados não estavam disponíveis. Quando o CRS foi lançado pela primeira vez e não incluiu esse recurso, um grande número de mensagens 511 indicadas O tempo de viagem no nome da estrada do local 1 ao local 2 não está disponível. A Equipa de Avaliação considerou que havia mais tempo dedicado a criar uma abordagem apropriada para abordar os dados do tempo de viagem em falta no sistema 511 do que seria necessário para implementar um método para substituir os dados faltantes em todos os sistemas com valores estimados. Os dados estimados devem ser marcados como tal para que o software de suporte à decisão a jusante possa, se necessário, considerar o fato de que os dados foram estimados. Para que o processamento de dados a jusante se diferencia entre dados reais e dados observados, os dados devem ser marcados em conformidade. Os dados estimados devem ser produzidos o mais cedo possível no fluxo de dados. É difícil projetar software para acomodar dados faltantes. O preenchimento de dados faltantes com dados estimados no início do fluxo de dados permitirá sistemas a jusante a partir desse ponto para assumir que os dados estarão sempre disponíveis. Todas as fontes de dados disponíveis que podem ser usadas para estimar dados em falta, como dados históricos gerados pelos detectores e vídeos de trânsito que podem ser analisados ​​pelos operadores da TMC para avaliar a validade dos dados estimados, devem ser utilizados e os mais apropriados nesse momento utilizados . O software TMC deve fornecer ferramentas para ajudar os operadores da TMC a preencher dados perdidos com valores estimados. Os operadores de TMC, com acesso a muitos recursos de dados de tráfego, estão melhor equipados para ajudar a preencher dados em falta e revisar os valores estimados para a correção. O software TMC deve informar os operadores de dados ausentes e permitir que os operadores especifiquem parâmetros para controlar como os dados em falta devem ser estimados. A Figura 25 representa uma abordagem para substituir observações de tempo de viagem ausentes com valores estimados. Figura 25. Processo para substituir observações de tempo de viagem perdidas com estimativas No processo acima, os dispositivos de campo geram medidas que são processadas pelo Travel Time Manager para produzir estimativas de tempo de viagem para segmentos rodoviários. 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 fluc tuation 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.