1 / 25

ICM Houston – IH 10

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

Télécharger la présentation

ICM Houston – IH 10

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. ICM Houston – IH 10 John M. Gaynor, P.E., Director Transportation Management Systems Texas Department of Transportation, Houston District Houston TranStar

  2. 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

  3. 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%+)

  4. 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

  5. Operational – Why Houston needs ICM Corridor on IH 10 PR HCDR Detail Corridor PR PR T PR PR T T PR PR PR

  6. 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

  7. Operational - Local/Express Bus Transit Components US 290 Sam Houston Tollway State Hwy 6 IH 10 Westpark Tollway I 610

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. Technical - DMS Comparison of Freeway to HOV Travel Times on Katy Freeway · HOV Travel Times · Freeway Travel Times

  15. Technical – Traveler Information on Next Generation PDA

  16. 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).

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. Lessons Learned - Regional ITS Architecture Needed

  22. 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

  23. 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)

  24. For additional information please contact me, John M. Gaynor, P.E. Email: jgaynor@houstontranstar.org Phone: (713) 881-3060 or Anthony (Tony) P. Voigt, P.E. Email: a-voigt@tamu.edu Phone: (713) 686-2971

  25. Questions???

More Related