1. San mateo county smart corridors programsystems engineering process By Syd Bowcott, URS Corp Bayne Smith, URS Corp

2. Agenda • Purpose of this Presentation • Overview of Project Area • Background • Project Goals • Stakeholders • Proposed System • System Engineering Process • Institutional Issues • Technical Issues • Lessons Learned

3. Purpose of this Presentation • Quick overview of the Project • Discuss the system engineering process used to develop the project

4. San Mateo County • Population 712,000 • 450 Square Miles • Two major north/south freeways • Two major east/west freeways • 14 cities • 3 traffic signal systems in 3 cities • Most signals are uncoordinated

6. Background • Major Incident on Highway 101 • Freeway closed both directions 31 hours • Extensive diversion to local roadways • Estimated similar incident 2% of time/year

7. Project Goals • Traffic Incident Management • Proactively manage traffic already diverted from the freeway to minimize impacts on local arterials, and return regional traffic back to the freeway as soon as possible • Interagency Coordination • Provide the capability for shared control and operation of the Smart Corridors components by the agencies • Traffic Operations and Management • Improve traffic flow within the corridor during normal operation. Share traffic information between the agencies to improve coordination and management of traffic during normal operations

8. Stakeholders

10. Project Statistics • Estimated Cost $25m (phases 1 and 2) • Length of initial implementation-13 miles • Upgraded Traffic Signals (180 in initial phase) • CCTV (170) • Trailblazer Signs (110) • DMS (4) • Blankout Signs (no left turn) • System Detectors • Communications Network (fiber, wireless, copper)-Ethernet Based

11. Methodology of Operation • Normal conditions • owning agency operates their system • Cross jurisdictional signal coordination • Incident conditions (approx 2% of time) • No active diversion from US 101 • Caltrans assumes control of all Smart Corridor elements • Local jurisdictions can monitor

12. System Engineering Process • How did we get there??????

13. System Vee Diagram

14. Smart Corridor Process • Stakeholder Involvement • Ranged From WidescaleOutreach to Focused Emphasis • Steering Committee • Document Distribution to all Stakeholders • Workshops • Joint Reviews of Comments • Traceability Matrix • Updating Previous Documents

15. Smart Corridor Process (cont’d) • Identify alternate routes • Traffic engineering versus politics • Develop ConOps • Develop SEMP • Develop Functional Requirements • Develop High Level Requirements • Develop Detailed Design Document • Develop Interface Control Document • Detailed Design Requirements Test Plan

16. Challenges/Issues • Institutional • Technical

17. Institutional Issues • Breakdown Fiefdoms • Needed to show benefits: • Cities would now have a coordinated signal system • Upgrading onstreet equipment • Cities could use equipment in non incident times • No money out of their pockets (capital or maintenance)

18. Institutional Issues (cont’d) • Unease With Higher Levels Of Government • Overcome by: • Retaining local control 98% of time • Open invitations to meetings • Ability to review documents • Fallback if there are problems • Joint Operation • Developing a MOU • Defines ownership • Defines maintenance responsibility/costs

19. Institutional Issues (cont’d) • Design Coordination • Caltrans, Two Consultants • Joint development of specifications • Submission of plans at 30%, 65% and 95% levels • Extensive emails • Forced to coordinate due to road ownership and technical oversight by Caltrans

20. Technical Issues • Integrating Multiple Controller Types • Ranged from NEMA to 170 to 2070 • Replaced incompatible controllers/cabinets • Required new system to work with controllers • Locating TBS in Residential Areas • Limit sign size • Place on property lines • Place next to existing poles • Constructing an Extensive Communications System • Used wireless extensively • Utilization of existing conduit • Trenched roadway near face of curb • Minimal closures

21. Technical Issues (cont’d) • Provision of a Central System • Existing statewide CNET to be replaced • Interim-use existing Caltrans ATMS • Develop RFP for San Mateo/Statewide • Having Control in Oakland • 20 miles away • BART fiber • Integrating Existing Signal Systems • Replace existing system • Integrate with new system • New system used only during incidents

22. Next Step • Develop PS&E (June 2010) • Advertise/Construction • Develop System • Update System Engineering Documents