by syd bowcott, urs corp bayne smith, urs corp. purpose of this presentation overview of project...

SAN MATEO COUNTY SMART CORRIDORS PROGRAMSYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS

BySyd Bowcott, URS CorpBayne Smith, URS Corp

Agenda

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

Purpose of this Presentation

Quick overview of the Project Discuss the system engineering process

used to develop the project

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

Background

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

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

StakeholdersStakeholder Current Role(s)

C/CAG Project Management

Caltrans Technical Lead/Incident Operations

SMCTA Funding/Administration

CHP Law Enforcement/Incident Commander

MTC Funding/Data Source

San Mateo County Operate and maintain arterials within its jurisdiction.

SamTrans Operate bus service on the arterials and freeways.

Caltrain Operate heavy commuter rail service and support private shuttle service

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Operate commuter rail service. Maintains fiber trunk link

Dumbarton Express Operate bus service on the arterials and freeways.

Local Emergency Response and Public Safety Agencies

Incident Responders

Local Cities/Towns (14) Operate and maintain arterials within its jurisdiction.

Consultants Design.

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

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

System Engineering Process

How did we get there??????

System Vee Diagram

Smart Corridor Process

Stakeholder Involvement Ranged From Widescale Outreach to Focused

Emphasis Steering Committee Document Distribution to all Stakeholders Workshops

Joint Reviews of Comments Traceability Matrix Updating Previous Documents

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

Challenges/Issues

Institutional Technical

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)

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

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

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

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

Next Step

Develop PS&E (June 2010) Advertise/Construction Develop System Update System Engineering Documents