250 likes | 385 Vues
ICM Houston – IH 10. John M. Gaynor, P.E., Director Transportation Management Systems Texas Department of Transportation, Houston District Houston TranStar. Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10. The corridor is home to more than 890,000 residents in about 350,000 households
E N D
ICM Houston – IH 10 John M. Gaynor, P.E., Director Transportation Management Systems Texas Department of Transportation, Houston District Houston TranStar
Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10 • The corridor is home to more than 890,000 residents in about 350,000 households • The corridor is projected to add over 1,000,000 more residents in the next two decades. • The corridor has over 617,000 employees and three major employment centers: • The Energy Corridor • The Westchase District • The Uptown Houston/Galleria
Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10 • Total VMT in corridor: 20 million miles per day (2002) • Estimated 380,000 transit passenger miles per day (2002) • AM & PM Peak Periods - IH 10 & US 290 HOVLs: • Carry 330+ buses (per day) • Carry 15,000+ vehicles (per day) • Carry 43,000+ passenger trips (per day) • 9270 parking spaces at Park & Rides on IH 10 & US 290 • 7500 daily parking utilization at Park & Rides (70-110%, avg. 80%+)
Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10 • Major Corridor Infrastructure • IH 10 (HOV+ML) • IH 610 • US 59 • US 290 (HOV+ML) • Westpark Tollway • Sam Houston (Beltway 8) Toll Road • State Highway 6 • State Highway 99 • Transit Capability • Rapid Transit (on HOV) • Express (coming soon) • Local
Operational – Why Houston needs ICM Corridor on IH 10 PR HCDR Detail Corridor PR PR T PR PR T T PR PR PR
Operational – Why Houston needs ICM on IH 10 • Significant Mainlane Congestion on IH 10 • Solid line shows speeds eastbound (2004) • Congested from 6 am to 8 pm
Operational - Local/Express Bus Transit Components US 290 Sam Houston Tollway State Hwy 6 IH 10 Westpark Tollway I 610
Operational – How ICM will help our Site • Currently there is good coordination between agencies. • TranStar is a common platform for ITS data, but system is largely reactive at this time (lots of data coming in, limited capability for control, but very robust incident management capability). • ICM will integrate more ITS data that spans modes and facilities. • The ICM system will ultimately take the real-time transportation system ITS data, compile it for more coordinated operational use among the partner agencies, then disseminate a consolidated transportation system information package that crosses agencies, travel modes, and travel facilities.
Operational – How ICM will help our Site • Goals for the ICM System on IH 10 in Houston: • All agencies operate with a systematic view of movement within the corridor • consideration that an individual agency’s goals and objectives will not trump, or conflict with, the effectiveness of the combined agency ICM objectives • Enhancement of corridor mobility and reliability • manage delay and utilize spare capacity within the corridor by temporal, route and/or mode shifts • Providing comprehensive traveler information in the corridor • Personalized for all modes, in real-time • Enhancement of incident management within the corridor • Incidents/crashes • Special, planned events , including construction • Emergencies
Institutional – Who are the Houston ICM Stakeholders • TranStar Partners: • State of Texas (TxDOT, TxDPS) • Harris County (HCPID, HCTRA, HCOEM) • City of Houston, Texas (Traffic, Police/Fire) • Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO/PD) • State, County, Local Law Enforcement • Smaller Cities/Villages (8) • Federal Agencies (FHWA/FTA/DHS/FEMA) • Private towing companies, information service providers, fleet operators • In all, 15 primary stakeholders and 14 secondary stakeholders were identified.
Institutional – How Our Site Defined Roles and Achieved Buy-in Among ICM Stakeholders • Houston is lucky! The TranStar partnership was established over ten years ago with many agreements in place and an existing organizational structure. • Some agreements in place; • TranStar Master Operating Agreement • Fiber sharing agreements (various agencies) • HOVL/Managed Lanes agreements • Incident Management agreements • Very little institutional disagreement existed about ICM • The “it’s our project” factor was not present – so who’s the champion?
Institutional – Existing Stakeholder ITS Infrastructure Subsystems Feeding ICM • Communication Networks (Fiber Backbone, Wireless Networks, and Hardwire (Copper) Communication Lines) • Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) • Automatic Vehicle Identification System (AVI) • Spot Speed and Traffic Volume Detection (via inductive loops and microwave radar) • Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) • Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) • Freeway Ramp Meters (Flow Signals) • Traffic Signals/Regional Computerized Traffic Signal System (RCTSS) • Roadway Weather Information System (RWIS) • Harris County Flood Sensors • Truck Rollover Ramp Warning System (for freeway-to-freeway connectors) • Automated Traveler Information System • Regional Incident Management System (RIMS) • Regional Integrated Traffic Management System (RITMS) • Queue/Congestion Warning Systems • Regional Maintenance Database Management System (RMDBMS) • Arterial Traffic Signal Systems (RCTSS) • Transit data, trip scheduling and trip planning
Technical – What our proposed ICMS will look like Data inputs from field devices as processed by individual subsystems. The ICM system then processes ICM data and packages near real-time corridor data for multi-agency operations and decision support as well as public consumption The ICM system processes subsystem data and prepares ICM multi-agency use
Technical - DMS Comparison of Freeway to HOV Travel Times on Katy Freeway · HOV Travel Times · Freeway Travel Times
Technical – How our ICMS will facilitate ICM • The deployment of the ICM concept will require the further integration of individual-agency ITS elements (not already integrated) • We will be able to achieve ICM across certain networks (for instance, freeway/tollway and HOV/transit network) now. • The AVI travel time system could be combined with METRO’s transit ITS data to produce a traveler information system to compare travel times (and potentially costs) associated with a choice between freeway mainlanes, HOV-carpool, or HOV-Bus Rapid Transit. • The limiting factor to a “complete” ICMS would be the lack of arterial travel time information to provide the arterial option(s).
Technical – How our ICMS will facilitate ICM • ICMS will allow for a more multi-modal view of the corridor • Easier coordination and cooperation • Access to multi-agency data, single user interface, common platform (but agencies can repackage if they wish) • Encourage transit use by providing new, more visible source of info • Encourage management of network junctions and interchanges • Induce discussions on policy and procedures that address resource sharing and operations of other agency systems • Provide a single point of traveler information multi-modal in nature.
Lessons Learned – Operational • Agencies are hesitant to turn over complete authority to another agency (or “corridor commander”) • ICM would (in a first generation) operate using a cooperative committee of TranStar agency managers (physically housed at TranStar) which would make operational decisions as a group. • Decision-makers would be supported with ICM-related data and the ICMS decision support system • Determination of system capacity (and availability) • Estimated spatial and temporal incident impacts • Suggested operational changes based on estimated impacts • Give all agencies a bigger picture of impacts to the corridor • Multi-agency control capability might become “easier” over time
Lessons Learned – Institutional • Challenges – Why do we need ICM in the first place? • Stovepipe deployments are agency specific, but there are data elements common and helpful to others to better manage “system” • What, again, are you going to do with my data? • Fear of loss of internal control • Quality control & reliability becomes more of an issue as more people look at (and use) your data, especially the public • The less-than-majority champion – finding the push. • Vision and priority comes from the top, but with ICM you have multiple CEO’s to deal with • Getting them all on the same page will move things along
Lessons Learned – Institutional Solutions & Advice • Have good direction from leadership (develops momentum) • Have a clear message about why working together is important and advantageous • Encourage agencies to think about being in their cohorts position – why something I have might be important to someone else! • Helps if team members have not spent entire career at one agency or location. • Important to have a regional ITS Architecture to use as a foundation.
Lessons Learned – Institutional Solutions & Advice • Think about it from the public user perspective – what does the public need to make good decisions (ask them) • Work through “what-ifs”, more importantly don’t limit yourself to the situations that you envision ICM to help • From the most minor incidents, planned or otherwise • To the most major evacuation or incident events • Having four agencies under one roof makes things easier, but doesn’t solve all the issues • Data from emergency/911 dispatch centers • Solving data acquisition from proprietary or legacy systems
Lessons Learned – Technical • Systems Engineering isn’t easy on simple projects, much less complex ones, but don’t let it scare you – focus on the end game! • Seek input from partners, but don’t be afraid to suggest new ideas, concepts, or procedures for agencies other than your own • But be willing to listen to others! • There will be a lot of gaps – that’s OK, but think big • Identify technical requirements by agency affected • (and there may be more than one agency impacted by a requirement)
For additional information please contact me, John M. Gaynor, P.E. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: (713) 881-3060 or Anthony (Tony) P. Voigt, P.E. Email: email@example.com Phone: (713) 686-2971