|
Final Report
Cross-Cutting Studies and State-of-the-Practice Reviews:
Archive and Use of ITS-Generated Data
April 30, 2002
Prepared for Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
Prepared by
P. Hu B. Boundy Tykey Truett Edmond Chang Steve Gordon
Center for Transportation Analysis Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6073 Managed by UT-Battelle LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 |
| 1. INTRODUCTION | 1.1 | |
| 1.1 BACKGROUND | 1.1 | |
| 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES | 1.2 | |
| 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION | 1.3 | |
| 2. BARRIERS TO AND BENEFITS OF ADUS | 2.1 | |
| 2.1 BARRIERS | 2.1 | |
| 2.2 BENEFITS | 2.10 | |
| 3. STUDY METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION SOURCES USED | 3.1 | |
| 3.1 STUDY METHODOLOGY | 3.1 | |
| 3.2 INFORMATION SOURCES | 3.2 | |
| 4. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE APPLICATIONS | 4.1 | |
| 4.1 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE REVIEW | 4.2 | |
| 4.2 CASE STUDIES OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE APPLICATIONS | 4.11 | |
| 4.3 BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS | 4.30 | |
| 4.4 OPPORTUNITIES | 4.31 | |
| 5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS | 5.1 | |
| 5.1 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE REVIEW | 5.1 | |
| 5.2 CASE STUDIES OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS | 5.8 | |
| 5.3 BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS | 5.26 | |
| 5.4 POTENTIAL OF ARCHIVED DATA | 5.27 | |
| 6. HIGHWAY SAFETY APPLICATIONS | 6.1 | |
| 6.1 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE REVIEW | 6.1 | |
| 6.2 CASE STUDIES OF HIGHWAY SAFETY APPLICATIONS | 6.12 | |
|
6.3 BARRIERS TO ARCHIVE, SHARE AND ANALYZE DATA PERTINENT TO HIGHWAY SAFETY |
6.22 | |
| 6.4 POTENTIAL FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY APPLICATIONS | 6.27 | |
| 6.5 OPPORTUNITIES | 6.37 | |
| 7. TRANSIT APPLICATIONS | 7.1 | |
| 7.1 STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE REVIEW | 7.1 | |
| 7.2 CASE STUDIES OF TRANSIT APPLICATIONS | 7.5 | |
| 7.3 BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS | 7.22 | |
| 7.4 OPPORTUNITIES | 7.25 | |
| 8. CONCLUDING SUMMARY | 8.1 | |
| 8.1 BENEFITS OF ADUS | 8.1 | |
| 8.2 BARRIERS TO ADUS | 8.3 | |
| 8.3 OPPORTUNITIES | 8.9 | |
|
2.1 |
An Example Overview of An Integrated Data System |
2.6 |
|
2.2 |
An Example of Unacceptable ITS-Generated Loop Detector Data |
2.7 |
|
3.1 |
ADUS Issues to Be Addressed in Phone Interviews |
3.10 |
|
4.1 |
Freeway Data Generation and Archiving |
4.4 |
|
4.2 |
Techniques to Generate Traffic Data |
4.5 |
|
4.3 |
Number of Agencies Responded to Freeway Data Requests by Requesting Institute |
4.9 |
|
4.4 |
Archived Freeway Data Usage 1999 and 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
4.9 |
|
4.5 |
Data on Traffic Signal and on Emergency Management |
4.11 |
|
4.6 |
An Example of Archived Freeway Data from NaviGAtor |
4.16 |
|
4.7 |
Example of Archived VMS Message |
4.17 |
|
4.8 |
Color Camera Priority Control Hierarchy Atlanta’s NaviGAtor System |
4.20 |
|
4.9 |
Area Coverage of CalTrans’ District 7 |
4.22 |
|
4.10 |
LADOT’s ATSAC Coverage |
4.23 |
|
4.11 |
Examples of Incident Report Posted on the Web |
4.25 |
|
4.12 |
An Example of CHP Traffic Incident Web Page |
4.26 |
|
4.13 |
Sample Data File of Archived Houston Weather Data |
4.30 |
|
5.1 |
Data Generated and Archived from Freeway Management System |
5.3 |
|
5.2 |
Techniques to Generate Traffic Data |
5.4 |
5.3 |
Number of Agencies Responded to Freeway Data Request by Requesting Institute |
5.7 |
|
5.4 |
Archived Freeway Data Usage 1999 and 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Surveys |
5.8 |
5.5 |
An Example of Archived Freeway Data from NaviGAtor |
5.14 |
5.6 |
Examples of Archived VMS Message |
5.15 |
5.7 |
Color Camera Priority Control Hierarchy Atlanta’s NaviGAtor System |
5.17 |
5.8 |
LADOT’s ATSAC Coverage |
5.19 |
5.9 |
Examples of Incident Report Posted on the Web |
5.21 |
|
5.10 |
An Example of CHP Traffic Incident Web Page |
5.22 |
5.11 |
Area Coverage of CalTrans’ District 7 |
5.24 |
6.1 |
Freeway Data Generate and Archiving |
6.3 |
|
6.2 |
Techniques to Generating Traffic Data |
6.4 |
|
6.3 |
Number of Agencies Responded to Freeway Data Request by Requesting Institute |
6.8 |
|
6.4 |
Archived Freeway Data Usage 1999 and 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Surveys |
6.9 |
|
6.5 |
Data on Traffic Signal and on Emergency Management |
6.10 |
6.6 |
Capabilities/Technologies Deployed at Highway Rail Intersections in 1999 |
6.11 |
6.7 |
TraCS Mobile Unit |
6.14 |
6.8 |
Archived Images from Red Light Enforcement Camera |
6.26 |
7.1 |
Selected Transit Data Collected and Archived |
7.3 |
7.2 |
Agencies That Have (or Plan to Have) Equipment Installed |
7.4 |
7.3 |
Uses of ITS-Generated Transit Data |
7.6 |
7.4 |
Coverage Area of the King County Metro (KCM) and Comparisons With Other Transit Agencies in the Same Area of Washington State |
7.8 |
7.5 |
Tri-Met Service Area |
.16 |
7.6 |
Example of Tri-Met Metadata File |
7.19 |
7.7 |
A Small Portion of the Archived BDS Data |
7.20 |
7.8 |
A Sample of On-Time Performance Report From Tri-Met BDS |
7.21 |
2.1 |
ADUS Barriers at Different Phases |
2.3 |
3.1 |
Seventy-Eight Metropolitan Areas in the Deployment Tracking Survey |
3.4 |
3.2 |
Proposed Case Studies and the Pertinent Topical Areas |
3.8 |
4.1 |
Number of Agencies That Generated and/or Archived Freeway Traffic Data |
4.3 |
4.2 |
Distribution of Agencies by Number of Data Elements Generated and Number of Data Elements Archived 1999 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
4.7 |
4.3 |
Distribution of Agencies by Number of Data Elements Generated and Number of Data Elements Archived 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
4.8 |
5.1 |
Number of Agencies That Generated and/or Archived Traffic Data 1999 and 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
5.2 |
5.2 |
Distribution of Agencies by Number of Data Elements Generated and Number of Data Elements Archived 1999 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
5.5 |
5.3 |
Distribution of Agencies by Number of Data Elements Generated and Number of Data Elements Archived 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
5.6 |
5.4 |
Potential of Archived Freeway and Arterial Traffic Data |
5.28 |
6.1 |
Number of Agencies That Generate and/or Archive Freeway Traffic Data Pertinent to Highway Safety 1999 and 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Surveys |
6.5 |
6.2 |
Distribution of Agencies by Number of Data Elements Generated and Number of Data Elements Archived: 1999 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
6.6 |
6.3 |
Distribution of Agencies by Number of Data Elements Generated and Number of Data Elements Archived: 2000 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
6.7 |
6.4 |
Potential of Archived Data for Highway Safety Applications |
6.31 |
7.1 |
Distribution of Agencies by Number of Data Elements Generated and Number of Data Elements Archived: 1999 ITS Deployment Tracking Survey |
7.2 |
7.2 |
King County Metro (KCM) Archived Transit Data Usage |
7.12 |
7.3 |
Potential of Archived ITS-Generated Transit Data |
7.26 |
8.1 |
Proposed Opportunities by Application |
8.10 |
|
ADUS |
Archived Data User Service |
|
AFC |
Automatic Fare Collection |
|
APC |
Automatic Passenger Counts |
|
APTS |
Advanced Public Transportation System |
|
ATIS |
Advanced Traveler Information System |
|
ATSAC |
Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control |
|
AVL |
Automatic Vehicle Location |
|
BDS |
Bus Dispatch System |
|
CAD |
Computer Aided Dispatch |
|
CapWIN |
Capitol Wireless Integrated Network |
|
CD |
Compact Disc |
|
CIRF |
Complaint/Incident Report Form |
|
CRB |
California Research Board |
|
CVIEW |
Commercial Vehicle Information Exchange Window |
|
CVISN |
Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks |
|
CVO |
Commercial Vehicle Operations |
|
DOT |
Department of Transportation |
|
DSI |
Data Source Interface |
|
DVRS |
Digital Video Recording System |
|
ECCO |
Electronic Citation Component |
|
EDR |
Event Data Recorder |
|
FARS |
Fatality Analysis Reporting System |
|
FHWA |
Federal Highway Administration |
|
FMS |
Fleet Management System |
|
FPS |
Automatic Fare Payment System |
|
FOT |
Field Operational Test |
|
HPMS |
Highway Performance Monitoring System |
|
ID |
Identifier |
|
IFTA |
International Fuel Tax Agreement |
|
IRP |
International Registration Plan |
|
IRS |
Internal Revenue Service |
|
ITS |
Intelligent Transportation System |
|
KCM |
King County Metro |
|
LADOT |
Los Angeles DOT |
|
MARS |
Mobile Accident Reporting System |
|
MOWI |
Mobile Operating While Intoxicated |
|
NCHRP |
National Cooperative Highway |
|
NHTSA |
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |
|
RLR |
Red Light Running |
|
SAFER |
Safety and Fitness Electronic Records System |
|
SAPD |
San Antonio Police Department |
|
TMC |
Traffic Management Center |
|
TRIP |
Travel and Recreational Information Program |
|
TSP |
Transit Signal Priority |
|
VSIS |
Vehicle Safety Inspection System |
The authors of this ADUS Cross Cutting Study would like to express their gratitude to the many individuals who have made this study possible by providing technical information, background and insight as well as samples of archived data. We would like to thank:
Mark Demidovich of the Georgia Department of Transportation for explaining the NaviGAtor system to us on various occasions and for providing us with data samples so that we could better understand their archiving processes,
Ken Turner and Steve Callas of Tri-Met for taking time to explain Tri-Met’s Bus Dispatching System (BDS) and the details of their data collection, processing and archiving and also for sending us data samples,
Ken Dueker for providing us with insights on how Tri-Met’s archived data are being put to use in the academic realm,
Robert Benz of the Texas Transportation Institute for his technical descriptions and background of the Houston roadway weather monitoring system,
Alan Hackman, Matt Seiler and Rick Bennett of the Missouri Department of Transportation for their expertise on the Branson TRIP Advanced Traveler Information System,
Tom Greidman of King County Metro for his technical expertise and for providing us with detailed examples of how their data is processed,
Richard Compton of NHTSA for sharing his knowledge of field test programs using data recorders installed in vehicles,
Glen Jonas of the AZTech TMC in Phoenix who has in the past shared his technical knowledge in the area of data collection and archiving,
Anson Norby, and James Okasaki, from LADOT for their help understanding the ADUS needs, and Verej Janoyan, Kang Hu, and Edward Fok from the City of Los Angeles for their discussions on the potentials of achieving data collected by the ATSAC Traffic Management Center, and
Mary Jensen of the Iowa Department of Transportation and Jack Lattrell for sharing how the National Model (TraCS) data are used to improve highway safety.