1. Presented by NTOC Webcast Gary Piotrowicz, PE, PTOE OAKLAND COUNTY SIGNAL OPTIMIZATION PROJECT

2. WHERE IT ALL BEGAN  Oakland County Traffic Signal Summit  First meeting on August 9, 1999  Included MDOT, RCOC, Cities, Consultants, Universities, and Traffic Improvement Association  Three primary issues  Timely installation of signals  Clearance intervals  Signal Timing and Progression

3. CLEAR PROJECT NEEDS  Over 1500 signals county-wide  600 SCATS adaptive  900 fixed time/semi-actuated  Never had a comprehensive re-timing  Cycle lengths, splits, and offsets  Peak periods  Clearance intervals  Dramatic volume changes/shifts  Many new signals along corridors  Minimal resources to maintain timings

4. PUBLIC PARTNERS  Road Commission for Oakland Cnty.  Project Manager, Team Leader  City of Royal Oak  City of Pontiac  City of Ferndale  Wayne County  Road Commission of Macomb Cnty.  Michigan Department of Transp.  Traffic Improvement Association

5. FUNDING AND PHASES  CMAQ funds were obtained through SEMCOG, MDOT, and RCOC  Estimated project cost is $3.6M  Project split into 3 phases  Each phase was a geographic region  Phases 1 and 2 received money concurrently, completed in 2003  Phase 3 has started, to be completed in December 2005

6. SCOPE OF PROJECT  Coordination meetings with locals  Data collection  Optimization software  Synchro  SimTraffic  Implementation  Field review  Crash analysis  Identify geometry or signal improvements

7. DATA COLLECTION  Turning Movement Counts - AM, PM, Mid-Day, and others as needed  24-hour Counts  Geometry and Operations Data  Traffic Crashes/diagrams  Digital Photos  GPS locations

8. SAFETY COMPONENTS  Better signal timings….smoother flow…..safer roads  Clearance Intervals  Vehicle  Pedestrian  Crash analysis  Flash operations analysis

9. PROJECT BENEFITS  Benefit/Cost ratio of over 75 to 1  MOEs (benefits) from simulation  Decreased fuel consumption  Improved air quality  Reduction in traffic crashes  Over 12% reduction  Significant reduction in all types  Politically friendly  Quicker implementation  Wealth of data

10. LESSONS LEARNED  Need for a better signal inventory  Locations  Fire stations  Pedestrian only  Special issues  Implementation issues  Difficulties with older signal controllers (Eagle EF 140s)  Timing plan errors, timing plan input errors

11. LESSONS LEARNED, cont.  Project was too large and too fast  Did not have a full staff, several were new  More training for staff on Synchro  RCOC Engineers did not have time to become familiar with field conditions  Unforeseen Delays  Getting timing plans/missing  Review/approval times

12. LESSONS LEARNED, cont.  Data Sharing  All data, simulations, and bi-weekly status reports were shared electronically  Approvals/clarifications were done through email  Digital pictures were very helpful  Mid-course changes  Police needed to be contacted on days counts were being taken  Field review needed to occur immediately

13. CHANGES MADE FOR PHASE 3  Signal inventory is accurate  Zones were defined up front  Timing plans reviewed up-front  Engineers have been assigned Synchro zones early which will allow them time to better understand the existing conditions  More time built in for reviews of consultant submittals

14. CHANGES FOR PHASE 3, cont.  More of the consultant budget is focused on field reviews  Current status is updated on a web site  All project partners have easy access  Start of future signal management system

15. QUESTIONS??? gpiotrowicz@rcoc.org 248 858-7250