4. Institutional Issues and Lessons Learned
In addition to the evaluation areas previously discussed, the evaluation team also worked with the project stakeholders to document institutional challenges, technical issues, and lessons learned encountered throughout deployment and operation of these systems. The information was gathered through a variety of methods, including reviewing meeting minutes and conducting formal and informal interviews with stakeholders and project partners.
4.1 Deployment Lessons Learned
One lesson reported with regard to technology is that it is important to conduct a field study during the design engineering phases prior to deployment of any project relying on radio frequency or other similar communications technologies. Unique capital requirements resulting from unforeseen field conditions is quite a common reality for ITS applications. Metra learned early on into the construction process (during the Radio Frequency Field Study, which they called for in the contractual specifications) that installation of repeater poles at various sites would be required to ensure uninterrupted, seamless wireless transmission between data controllers and signs. When relying on radio transmissions, topographical encumbrances and other radio transmission interferences should be expected. In the case of the Metra project, it was found that a highway vehicle weigh station located within the project radius would cause radio frequency interference.
It is also important to realize that permit issues can require a significant amount of time, particularly if multiple jurisdictions are involved; the Chicago project stakeholders experienced delays in obtaining some of their permits.
4.2 Technology Lessons Learned
One lesson reported with regard to technology is that, depending on what is available off-the-shelf, consider customized software if the project budget can accommodate it. At the time that Montgomery County began their project, they were not aware of any product on the market that did exactly what they needed. Since they did not have a large enough budget to have software designed for the specific purpose of this project, they had to modify commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) traffic control software, which was not ideal. Some specific limitations that the county faced as a result of not being able to have customized software are as follows:
- In order to change the messages displayed and to set the thresholds for when the messages display, the software communicates with the variable message signs via a cellular modem. Due to budget limitations, they have only one cellular modem. As a result, the modem must call the signs one at a time when relaying information, and they feel that this has led to moderate delays in updating the information on the signs.
- Since there was no test set for the system, it was difficult to determine if the software had a bug in the testing phase (i.e., if the project team wants to test the software, they have to do it with the live system).
- Montgomery County's system did not have the capability to update any of the signs independently of the others, which they found to be limiting. For their particular situation it would have been preferable to be able to update the signs independently. The reason for this is that the bus that provides service between the Norbeck park-and-ride lot and the Glenmont Metro Station ends morning service at 8:55 AM, so it is important that the signs do not recommend Norbeck after this time. As a result, Montgomery County had to make the decision not to display parking information on any of their signs after 9:00 AM.
- Montgomery County's system also does not allow for the built-in "threshold" to vary by day of week. This can pose a challenge since the number of vehicles remaining overnight in the lots tends to vary by day of week and because the fill rate also tends to vary by day of week. They found that the fill rate on Fridays is significantly lower than on other weekdays. Consequently the algorithm that works on other days of the week does not apply on Fridays. As a result, the county made the decision not to operate the signs on Fridays.
Another lesson is that it is important to be aware of the inherent limitations of the technology. Specific examples of this are as follows:
- In the case of the Montgomery County project, the team knew that the video detection technology they were using would have weather-related limitations. They have found that heavy rain results in erratic counts, and during the winter season the team found that snow plows dumped snow onto pedestrian walkways, causing pedestrians to enter the detection zone and be mistakenly counted as vehicles.
- The Chicago stakeholders also experienced challenges with snow and special events. After a sizable Chicago snow storm, some spaces in the lot become blocked with snow piles, which resulted in the system reporting that there were available spaces when in fact many were unusable. Chicago did find that special events can be accommodated with their system. For example, every summer a carnival takes place at the Hickory Creek station. To accommodate this, the Mokena police contact Metra in advance with an estimate of the number of spaces that will be occupied. Metra then adjusts the baseline "threshold" within the system and it adjusts the numbers accordingly.
- In the case of the Chicago project, the signs operate using an unlicensed radio frequency, which has resulted in a few minor problems caused by the antennas being blocked by streetlights since the antennas require line of sight. The use of antennas, however, was more economical than burying cable would have been. The project team expects, however, that this may be a recurring issue given the expected future development of the area surrounding these stations, which may result in more interference in the future.
- In retrospect, the Chicago project stakeholders feel that they should have selected a full matrix sign instead of the limited numeric dynamic signs that were selected. A full matrix sign would have provided the capability to display other information beyond parking space availability.
4.3 Operations and Maintenance Lessons Learned
An important consideration with regard to operations and maintenance is that, for this type of system to be reliable in the long run, staff should expect that they will likely need to change the settings manually at times. For example, Montgomery County found that the fill rate slowed significantly during the summer months when traffic is typically lighter; as a result, the county had to adjust the system's algorithms a few times a year to accommodate this variation. In order to do this, it is critical to ensure that those who will be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the system are trained on how to use the equipment if they were not involved in the software development and/or testing.
Another important consideration is that a monitoring system that is built into the design can save time and help the project team ensure system reliability. The Montgomery County staff elected to install a camera on the top of the Glenmont Garage to aid in remote monitoring of the system (see camera views in Figure 50[37]), and they have found it to be extremely useful in monitoring the system on a regular basis. They generally check in on the system at least once a week to see if it appears to working properly based on how full the top level of the garage looks as compared to how many spaces the system shows to be remaining.
For Metra, the remote user interface consists of a dedicated laptop that provides the information that is currently on each sign, a configuration of the lot assemblies, and also an error-checking mechanism (errors are indicated with a red dot). It also allows the user to update or shut off the signs remotely. Currently, the system does not fail often but it requires constant monitoring. They find that it works best to leave the system up and running consistently in the background.
Figure 50. Camera View of Parking Garage for Monitoring Montgomery County System.
It is critical to identify up front what agency (and what staff position in particular) will ultimately be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the system after it is in place (particularly as maintenance can be costly depending on the system). This could be the contractor who designed and/or installed the system if desired. It is also important to clearly denote where and how all maintenance activities should be documented. As an example, the Chicago project's maintenance schedule calls for the following activities:[38]
- On an annual basis, clean solar and LED windows.
- On a biannual basis, clean and inspect cabinets, replace filters, perform a count survey (to include verification of available parking spaces with sign display), perform a loop survey (to include verification of proper loop detection), perform a delineator survey, and adjust equipment setting.
One lesson to keep in mind regarding maintenance costs is that RTA and Metra have found that the solar batteries need to be replaced quite often. One of their signs is solar powered because there was no electrical line available at the sign location. At the time of design, it appeared that it was more costly to run an electrical line to the sign than to use a battery. In retrospect, however, the batteries required by the solar powered sign have been very expensive, and have less capacity than the electrical signs. Therefore, in the long run, extending the electrical line is likely to have been more cost effective.
A unique issue that the Chicago stakeholders faced was that at the time of their initial design, there were no American companies that created or manufactured this type of system. The project team contracted with a European developer since these types of systems were more prevalent in Europe at the time. Consequently, the team encountered issues with some of the manuals and programming being in another language, making software customization and software updates a challenge.
4.4 Contracting Lessons Learned
An important lesson with regard to contracting is that, in retrospect, the Chicago team feels that the lump sum contracting vehicle utilized may have not been the best choice for this type of system. The selected type of contract used meant that the city had to select the lowest bidder and it also meant that the contractor did not have an incentive to finish the project quickly once encountering problems. Looking back, the team believes that a cost plus fixed fee contract may have been more appropriate as this type of arrangement would have given vendors an incentive to complete the deployment more quickly, and it would have allowed the team to make a qualifications-based selection.
Another contracting lesson that the stakeholders passed on is that they feel that a design-build model might be more appropriate for this type of technology than a design-bid-build model.
4.5 Institutional Lessons Learned
It is also important to keep all potentially affected organizations informed of work planned as part of the project. Some of the stakeholders felt that without close coordination, their projects would not have been possible. They indicated that active coordination among the various levels of government helped stave off unnecessary future costs and potential relocation of systems. Below are some examples of coordination that the Chicago project stakeholders faced throughout the course of their project deployment:
- The Village of Tinley Park, which had been a strong proponent of the demonstration from the beginning, had plans for the installation of new custom street lights throughout the area which could have directly interfered with underground work being conducted by Metra. Synergies were realized in "dove-tailing" those efforts with Metra's field contractor, who coordinated the electrical connections with the Village's contractors.
- Future electrical hook-up and camera links for the Village of Tinley Park (a Public Works / Public Safety initiative) were included in later designs and installed at the Tinley Park / 80th Avenue site.
- Early on in the project one of the signs had to be moved due to concerns expressed by one of the localities regarding aesthetics.
- It was necessary to coordinate Will County roadway construction with transformer installation and underground work being done simultaneously by Metra.
- After the initial planning, but before installation was complete, an ongoing development posed a conflict with one of the sign locations: a drugstore that was under development proposed an entrance that conflicted with the proposed location for the sign.
The most important institutional lesson learned that both project teams passed on to the evaluation team is that it is critical to involve all appropriate stakeholders in a formal and collaborative manner throughout the planning, deployment, and operations phases of a multi-jurisdictional project such as this. Parking management systems are often integrated into urban or neighborhood environments and, as such, take time to deploy and require a diverse group of stakeholders. Late-breaking or unresolved stakeholder concerns can stall the effort indefinitely. To prevent stalling, the project stakeholders should obtain formal endorsement from the leadership of all jurisdictions involved. The mayor or county executive should seek city or county council endorsement and should designate a staff member or a specific public agency as their organization's champion for the system. This champion will exercise executive leadership with in the stakeholder group and will represent the project in any public policy discussions and funding processes. Identify and define the role of the champion and ensure that the project stakeholders work from a formal charter that binds the member organizations to the effort and provides a forum for resolution of issues.