Transit Signal Prioritization (TSP) and RTS RTS Transit Signal Priority Work Group A Path to Successful Implementation 1 September 18, 2013.

1

Transit Signal Prioritization (TSP) and RTSRTS Transit Signal Priority Work Group

A Path to Successful Implementation

September 18, 2013

2

Agenda• Review of Technical Memorandum 1:

Goals, Objectives, and Needs Assessment for Rapid Transit System (RTS) Transit Signal Priority

• Next Steps– Ongoing Stakeholder Interaction– Systems Engineering Analysis (ConOps, Policy

Recommendations)– Technical Memorandum 2: Existing conditions, Signal

Systems & Operations on Corridors– Technical Memorandum 3: RTS Transit Signal Priority

Planning

Technical Memorandum 1:Needs Assessment & Goals/Objectives of TSP

I. INTRODUCTION1. BACKGROUND2. MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND THE STATE OF MARYLAND SYSTEM RESPONSIBILITIES3. ORGANIZATION

II. OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITYIII. THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY WITHIN RTS

1. PURPOSE OF TSP WITHIN THE RTS SYSTEM2. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND EVALUATION MEASURES3. TSP IN PAST & PARALLEL MONTGOMERY COUNTY PRIORITY TRANSIT

STUDIES/PROJECTS4. III.4 DIFFERENCES TO CONSIDER BETWEEN COUNTYWIDE AND RTS TSP

IV. STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR NEEDSV. POLICY ISSUES & CHALLENGESVI. Next Steps

Table of Contents

MNCPPC Functional Master Plan

Montgomery County Countywide TSP Study

• Carried out a state of the practice/lessons learned assessment on TSP across the country and past operational tests within the region

• Carried out a technology assessment and selection of recommended equipment for Montgomery County

• Developed a Concept of Operations for TSP implementation and operations

• Identified and ranked 18 potential corridors within the county for TSP implementation in the current system based upon inputs from WMATA, RIDE ON, the MTA, and transit and roadway operating characteristics.

6

Countywide TSP Corridors• 18 corridors initially identified • Over 800 traffic signals maintained by the County• Over 350 signals in the selected 18 corridors• ~ 200 Intersections selected based upon warrants

and then weighting of potential benefits

Countywide TSP StudyConditional Criteria

• Buses 5 minutes behind schedule.• First come first served basis (no special consideration

to direction, corridor, operator, or type of service).• A TSP request will be granted only when it can be

accommodated safely within the traffic signal controller phases at the intersection.

• TSP signal strategy options – green extension– red truncation.

• Lockout after a request is granted (3 cycles)

System Responsibilities• TSP requires collaboration and operating

agreements between traffic and transit operations.• Montgomery County, The State of Maryland, and

the City of Rockville own and operate the traffic signal system.– ~ 800 Signals– 64% of Signals on State Routes owned by the State

• Responsible for SAFE operation and overall performance of the signal/traffic system

• Must obtain approval and agreements from these entities for TSP equipment and operations

9

What is Transit Signal Priority (TSP)

Source: TSP Handbook

TSP is a traffic signal operational strategy that facilitates the movement of transit vehicles, either buses or streetcars, through traffic signal controlled intersections.

• Passive TSP adjusts signal timing/coordination for transit operations

• Active TSP is used to provide passage for transit vehicles at signalized intersections when requested.

• Conditional TSP requests priority only if certain conditions are met.

Active TSP is conditional priority, not to be confused with Emergency Vehicle Preemption which is unconditional priority

10

Conceptual Elements of Active TSP

Transit Signal Priority Strategies• Green Extension• Red Truncation• Phase suppression/rotation• Transit Only Phase

– Queue Jump (early green)– Diagonal Crossing (all red)

TSP within RTS SystemPurpose & Goal

• Purpose:

Help maintain consistent transit vehicle flows and travel times for RTS Service while reducing delays due to stops at traffic signals.

• Goal:

Improve expected Transit Travel Times for travelers using the RTS system through improving reliability and reducing delays without undo negative impacts to the overall transportation system performance or other travelers.

Corridor Level Objectives• Increase RTS travel speeds by reducing delay at traffic signals:

– Predicted signal delay (using simulation tools such as VISSIM) for TSP enabled RTS vehicles at intersections and along corridor

• Increase RTS on time performance by reducing travel time variability:‐– Predicted run times (using simulation tools such as VISSIM) for TSP enabled RTS vehicles

by type of right-of-way segment along corridor• Avoid undo impacts to non-RTS transit performance:

– Predicted signal delay (using simulation tools such as VISSIM) for thru and crossing non-TSP enabled transit service at intersections and along corridor.

– Predicted run times (using simulation tools such as VISSIM) for thru and crossing non-TSP enabled transit service by type of right-of-way segment along corridor.

• Avoid undo impacts to the overall transportation system and other travelers:

– Intersection Highway Capacity Manual volume to capacity ratio must be less than 1.– Available slack time (time remaining after minimum safe green times and pedestrian

crossings are met within each phase) at each intersection must be greater than five (5) seconds.

• Provide an increase in overall person throughput and level of service:– Predicted person delay (using simulation tools such as VISSIM) for all travelers at

intersections and along corridor (should not increase).– Predicted person throughput (using simulation tools such as VISSIM) for all travelers at

intersections and along corridor (should increase).

System Wide Objectives• Cost Effective:

– Benefit Cost Ratio greater than 1.• Compatible and Interoperable:

– Selected on board communications and other technologies that are compatible with existing and planned systems within Montgomery County (Traffic Operations, Ride On, WMATA, The Purple Line, etc.)

– Selected roadside communications and other technologies that are compatible with transit vehicles that may operate within the RTS corridors (Ride On, WMATA, The Purple Line, MTA Express Service, etc.)

– Selected network and software systems that interface with existing and planned systems within Montgomery County.

– Utilize applicable ITS Standards and non-proprietary data formats for all interfaces, dialogs, and data archives.

• Functional:– Meet all needs and functional requirements defined in the Concept of Operations (under

development).– Include system and subsystem component and software verification and validation tests

defined in the Systems Engineering Analysis (and pass these tests during implementation and testing).

– Include an acceptance validation and refinement period during operations (1 year) to modify parameters and ensure that they system is performing properly prior to final acceptance.

System Wide Level Objectives• Technically feasible and reliable:

– All technologies, communications, and software systems have been successfully deployed and accepted in North America.

– Positive reports on reliability and system performance from other locations where the technologies and systems have been deployed.

• Able to provide performance measures and reports:– Produce measures of TSP effectiveness for TSP enabled RTS vehicles including the

vehicle, location, and time of all signal delays, priority requests, and whether the request was granted.

– Performance measures of TSP impacts for all non-RTS transit service travelling through TSP intersections including stops and delay at the intersection.

– Performance measures of TSP impacts on the signal system including when TSP is requested, which requests are granted, the type of TSP treatment, and recovery time.

– Ability to monitor and provide reports (real time, daily, weekly) to the traffic operations center and the transit management center upon request.

Past RTS Studies:Countywide Bus Rapid Transit Study

(Parson’s Brinkerhoff, July 2011)

• TSP Limited to green extension and/or red truncation

• Included Queue Jump Recommendations

• Where Intersection LOS was C or D

Miles TSP Queue Jump

Special Turn Signal

3 MD 586/Veirs Mill Road 6.7 8 3 24a Georgia Avenue North 9.8 13 5 14b Georgia Avenue South 3.9 9 0 25 Rockville Metrorail-Life Sciences Center 5.3 8 0 37 MD 124/Muddy Branch Road 7.2 4 2 28 MD 185/Connecticut Avenue 9.5 8 1 2

10a MD 355 North 14.6 22 5 210b MD 355 South 8.8 17 2 211 MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue 8.8 9 0 212 Montgomery Mall/Old Georgetown Road 6.9 13 0 314 Randolph Road 5.5 8 0 018 MD 193/University Boulevard 6.4 6 3 019 US 29/Columbia Pike/Colesville Road 13.5 8 3 320 ICC 22.9 4 0 021 North Bethesda Transitway 5.1 2 1 223 Midcounty Highway 13.4 7 0 1

148.3 146 25 27

Corridor

Total

Past RTS Studies:RTS Concept Plans and Cost Estimates for the

Envisioned System (The Traffic Group, January 2011)

• Feasibility of high level BRT system with no ROW expansion

• Upper bound on potential for BRT within ROW

• Without regard to impacts to the other modes

Miles TSP Phase 1

1 MD 586/Veirs Mill Road 6.54 172 Georgia Avenue North 9.57 363 MD 355 South (Bethesda Metro - Rockville Metro) 7.93 394 Randolph Road 11.19 355 US 29/Columbia Pike/Colesville Road 10.27 23

PHASE 26 MD 185/Connecticut Avenue 6.92 187 MD 650/New Hampshire Avenue 5.57 158 MD 187/Old Georgetown Road 5.53 179 MD 193/University Boulevard 4.9 1710 North Bethesda Transit Way 4.58 1411 Key West Avenue 4.85 1412 MD 28/Norbeck Road 5.54 8

PHASE 313 Georgia Avenue South 3.52 1314 Muddy Branch 5.16 1215 MD 355 North (Rockville Metro - Milestone Manor Rd) 8.08 4016 MD 355 South (DC Line - Bethesda Metro) 1.71 917 Sam Eig Highway 1.03 3

102.89 330

Corridor

Total

Ongoing Priority Transit Efforts

• The Purple Line• The Corridor Cities Transitway• The MD 586 (Veirs Mill Road) Bus Rapid Transit

(BRT) Study from Rockville Metrorail Station to Wheaton Metrorail Station

• MD 97 (Georgia Avenue) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Study from the Glenmont Metrorail Station to Montgomery General Hospital

19

Transit Signal Priority ConsiderationsCountywide versus RTS

Countywide – Current Ops• Current service in mixed flow (no

other special treatment)• All transit in corridor treated equally

• Corridors selected on most potential transit benefit with least potential traffic harm

• First come first served transit priority request granted

• Person throughput auto and transit equal

• Traffic signals coordinated for all traffic

• Traffic coordination allowed to recover between requests

• TSP options:– Green extension (through)– Truncated red (through or cross)

Within RTS – Ops• Future service in tandem with RTS

ROW and other priority treatments• How should RTS, Express, Local & peak

in or out be given priority?• Corridors from County Transit

Functional Master Plan

• What service gets priority when there are multiple requests?

• Should RTS service get additional priority?

• Should signals be coordinated for RTS vehicle flow?

• How often should priority be granted?

• New Signal treatment Options:– Passive priority– Transit only phase

Stakeholders• Stakeholders considered:

– System Users– Traffic System Owner/Operators– Transit System Owner/Operators– Planning Organizations– Funding Bodies– Neighboring Jurisdictions

• Groups not considered:– Advocacy Groups– Consultants– technology/system providers

Rapi

d Tr

ansi

t Sys

tem

Use

rs

Oth

er T

rans

it

Gen

eral

Tra

ffic

(Thr

u, tu

rnin

g, C

ross

)

Pede

stria

ns &

bic

yclis

ts

Mon

tgom

ery

Coun

ty D

OT

Traffi

c O

pera

tions

MD

Stat

e Hi

ghw

ay A

dmin

istr

ation

City

of R

ockv

ille

City

of G

aith

ersb

urg

City

of T

akom

a Pa

rk

RTS

Syst

em

MoC

o Ri

deon

WM

ATA

MTA

Purp

le Li

ne

MW

COG

(ITS

Arc

hite

ctur

e)

MN

CPPC

Coun

ty C

ounc

il

Stat

e Le

gisl

atur

e

US

DOT

(FTA

& IT

S/JP

O)

Was

hing

ton

DC

Prin

ce G

eorg

e's C

ount

y

How

ard

Coun

ty

FairF

ax C

ount

y

Increase RTS Vehicle Speed Improve RTS Service Reliability

Avoid undo impacts to non-RTS transit performance

Avoid undo impacts to the overall transportation system and other travelers

Allow for safe crossings at intersections Provide an increase in overall person throughput and level of service

Traffi c Signal Operations and Coordination Impact on local jurisdiction signal systems and traffi c flow

Local City legal and policy authority Compatible traffi c signal controllers and devices Communications systems and networks to/from roadside controllers and devices

Sharing status information of TSP operations Which service has authority to issue requests for TSP

TSP conditional priority criteria (service, direction, passengers, traffi c LOS, etc. frequency)

On Board equipment compatibility and communications

ITS Architecture Consistency Federal ITS Systems Engineering Requirements Federal Planning Process (Small Starts) Capital Cost of RTS TSP Operations and Maintenance Costs of RTS TSP Montgomery County Planning Process & Coordination

Neighboring Jurisdictions

Need/Concern

Transit System Owner/OperatorsSystem Users Traffic System Owner/Operators Planning/Policy Funding Bodies

Stakeholder Needs/Concerns (See Handout)

Policy Issues & Challenges• Traveler Preferences and Weights.

– Person Trips versus Vehicle Trips– Who shares ROW– Who can request Priority– Which intersections– How often will requests be granted– What monitoring is needed

• Equipment Compatibility and Functionality• Independent or Integrated Operations.

Next Steps• Ongoing interaction with the RTS TSP stakeholders • Ongoing collaboration with the Service Planning and Integration

Work Group • Systems Engineering Approach to TSP implementation • Review of performance characteristics along the recommended RTS

corridors. • High level policy recommendations regarding TSP implementation• Recommended guidelines for implementing TSP on RTS corridors

– To the extent possible at this stage of the RTS system planning• Recommendations for inter-agency partnership and coordination

with regard to TSP operation and signal coordination. • Recommendations on technology and equipment• Prepare and deliver remaining deliverables.

RTS Transit Signal Priority StudyDeliverables

• Tech Memo 2: Existing conditions, Signal Systems & Operations on Corridors (Early – Mid September 2013) – Overall Transportation System Operations

• Montgomery County and SHA signal characteristics (controller, signal head, TSP capabilities, etc.)

• Transit Operational technologies & systems (MTA , WMATA, RIDEON, etc.)– Within each corridor:

• Characteristics (length, number of signals, HCM LOS, volumes, signal coordination, etc. )

• Existing and proposed ROW and other priority treatments• Existing and proposed transit service• Potential for TSP

RTS Transit Signal Priority StudyDeliverables

• Tech Memo 3: RTS Transit Signal Priority Planning Technical Memorandum (Mid – Late September 2013)Document Findings and Recommendations on: – Existing conditions and assumptions – TSP Policy and Corridors

• Recommended Montgomery County RTS-related TSP policies and procedures • Preferred minimum criteria and Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) for selection and

evaluation of TSP locations • Preliminary operational review of RTS study corridors

– TSP and Traffic Operations • Preferred active priority strategies • Preferred detection system parameters • Preferred traffic control system parameters, including coordination and recovery process

– Concept of Operations and System Control • Integration of TSP with other transit ITS, traffic engineering, and EMS pre-emption

systems • High-level Concept of Operations for TSP integration with the RTS system• Recommended system control architecture

Back Up Slides

27

1 Cycle

Phase

Phase

Phase

Traffic Signals 101• A Cycle consists of multiple Phases• Phases allocate time to movements competing for

shared right-of-way• Phase Length is a function of geometry, and vehicle

and pedestrian volumes (demand)

Cycle length is sensitive to many factors including coordination with adjacent signals; time of day; volume demand, and vehicle detection (e.g. loops)

28

Waiting at Traffic Signals represents an average of 15% of a bus’s trip time1.

Cause of signal delay include: Pedestrians Crossing Volume-related delay Accommodating side-street traffic Special phases (e.g. left-turns only).

Conditional Priority reduces severe delay and improves reliability

1. (“Overview of Transit Signal Priority.” ITS America, 2004)

Benefits of TSPImprove travel time reliability and schedule, reduce delay and reduce emissions, may increase ridership