1 / 22

San mateo county smart corridors program systems engineering process

San mateo county smart corridors program systems engineering process. By Syd Bowcott, URS Corp Bayne Smith, URS Corp. Agenda. Purpose of this Presentation Overview of Project Area Background Project Goals Stakeholders Proposed System System Engineering Process Institutional Issues

duy
Download Presentation

San mateo county smart corridors program systems engineering process

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.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. San mateo county smart corridors programsystems engineering process By Syd Bowcott, URS Corp Bayne Smith, URS Corp

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

  3. Purpose of this Presentation • Quick overview of the Project • Discuss the system engineering process used to develop the project

  4. 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

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

  6. 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

  7. Stakeholders

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. System Engineering Process • How did we get there??????

  11. System Vee Diagram

  12. Smart Corridor Process • Stakeholder Involvement • Ranged From WidescaleOutreach to Focused Emphasis • Steering Committee • Document Distribution to all Stakeholders • Workshops • Joint Reviews of Comments • Traceability Matrix • Updating Previous Documents

  13. 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

  14. Challenges/Issues • Institutional • Technical

  15. 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)

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Next Step • Develop PS&E (June 2010) • Advertise/Construction • Develop System • Update System Engineering Documents

More Related