Railway Crossing Information System Railway Crossing Information System ITS Canada Presentation May 29, 2013
Agenda Project Scope Problem Statements - Rail Operation & Traffic Impact Concept of Operations Detection Technology Testing Detection Technology Testing Motorist Advisory Sign Design Human Factors Analysis Design Challenges Status
Project Scope Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Program – $307 Millions that includes: 4 new overpasses being built 4 major at-grade crossings affected 8 train detectors 9 advisory signs 9 advisory signs Central control system Four agencies involved: City of Langley Township of Langley Surrey Ministry of Transportation
Problem Statements - Rail Operation Average train length = 2,200m (7,200’) Max train speed = 56km/h (35 mph) [16m/s] Corridor length = 4.4 km Average rail transits through corridor = 22/day Approximately 1 event/hr, 6:00am – 6:00pm Approximately 1 event/hr, 6:00am – 6:00pm Based on RBRC study, by 2021 Train length predicted to increase approx. 10% Number of transits predicted to increase by 40%
Problem Statement - Traffic Impact Based on 200 th St traffic signal pre-emption data Crossing occupied between 1-4 minutes Significant queuing can occur at all crossings, with 200 th St. southbound often the worst Can take 10 minutes or more to clear the resultant Can take 10 minutes or more to clear the resultant queues and congestion City of Langley’s rule of thumb – 5:1 ratio 3 minute blockage = 15 minutes of congestion/disruption
Key Plan
Sign Location Analysis Conceptual design looked at travel times and route diversion options VISSUM macro-simulation model to assess diversion potential
Sign Location Analysis Sign locations re-evaluated during design phase to assess cost-benefit, develop optional strategy in response to budget constraints
Concept of Operations Train detected as it approaches crossings & tracked within the corridor Train data transmitted to Central Control System Central System predicts time of arrival Central System predicts time of arrival & blockage at crossing Crossing status information transmitted to Motorist Advisory Signs Motorists’ decision for diversion
Concept of Operations Train detection Detectors located along RBRC corridor Detect train speed, direction, and length Positioned in advance of crossings to provide sufficient notification, taking into account train sufficient notification, taking into account train lengths and advance notification to users of pending closures Located off rail ROW
Concept of Operations Predictive Algorithm Train movement tracked along corridor Based on train speed, direction, and length data, the following are calculated: Train arrival time at each crossing Train arrival time at each crossing Estimated crossing blockage duration Train position confirmed using: Mid-corridor train detectors Crossing pre-emption signals, where available
Concept of Operations Sign Activation Motorist advisory signs activated to provide notification to drivers Temporary turn restriction signs activated as part of the applicable rail event (by rail pre-emption) of the applicable rail event (by rail pre-emption) Status of signs set based on data provided by detectors and calculated by algorithm Status of signs updated at regular intervals, based on progression of train along corridor
Concept of Operations
Concept of Operations Driver Diversion Drivers respond to sign status information and make appropriate route decisions Appropriate messaging content is critical to guiding driver behavior guiding driver behavior 10% diversion required to achieve minimum project cost-benefit ratio threshold of 1.4
Concept of Operations Central Control System Key functionality: control NTCIP signs interface with traffic detectors and field controllers controllers log and export train data integrate with the ATMS robust, mature, and reliable platform predict train arrival & blockage time at crossing
Train Detector Testing Accurate and reliable train detection information is pivotal for project operation A number of candidate technologies were investigated during the preliminary design phase investigated during the preliminary design phase Pilot test was recommended due to unknown performance of candidate technologies when used for train detection
Train Detector Testing The primary objectives of the pilot test were: Confirm the feasibility of implementing a train detection system that will satisfy the RCIS requirements Evaluate the performance of candidate detection technologies and Evaluate the performance of candidate detection technologies and create a short list of recommended options Identify any site characteristics that can be used to better inform the detailed design
Train Detector Testing Most trains were long intermodal trains but there were also occasionally short trains that were only a few locomotives long Identifies the need to detect shorter trains and treat them differently in system design Some trains contained a large number of empty double-stack train cars Chosen detection technology must be capable of detecting the low profile of Chosen detection technology must be capable of detecting the low profile of these train cars Trains do not maintain a constant speed during their travel and may accelerate or decelerate significantly Continuous monitoring of train velocity may be required
Train Detector Testing Sensors installed as part of the pilot test: One (1) Axis P1346-E Fixed IP Day/Night Video Camera One (1) Axis Q1921-E Fixed IP Thermal Video Camera Two (2) Seco-Larm E-931-S35RRQ Photoelectric Beam Sensors Two (2) Seco-Larm E-931-S35RRQ Photoelectric Beam Sensors One (1) Banner Engineering R-GAGE QT50RAF-US Radar One (1) Autoscope Solo Terra Video Detection System One (1) Wavetronix SmartSensor HD Radar Sensor
Train Detector Testing 1. Worked with detector manufacturer to refine radar sensor detection area 2. Results show 2. Results show improved detection accuracy and reliability
Train Detector Testing Radar detector configuration has proven to reliably detect trains System will use two pairs of radar units per TD Approximate accuracy is as follows: Presence: near 100% Presence: near 100% Speed: +/- 3-9% Direction: near 100% Length: +/- 3-9%
Motorist Advisory Sign Design Message purpose Notify drivers of rail crossing status to inform route choice Trade-offs Increased sign intelligence = larger sign structure Increased sign intelligence = larger sign structure and higher cost Increased message complexity = increase in time to comprehend
Motorist Advisory Sign Design Sign Options Option 1: Option 2b: ���� ����� ����� ���� ����� ���� ���� ����� ���� Option 2a: Option 3***: ����� ���� ���� �����
Motorist Advisory Sign Design Motorist Advisory Signs Static and dynamic graphical elements All signs will display 3 crossings, except Sign #1 Crossing order is specific to the sign location
Human Factors Analysis Results Summary of Findings Minor changes to sign face layout Several sign locations adjusted
Human Factors Analysis Results Crossing names Vertically stacked centered above crossing names status 50% reduction in Vertical dividers Horizontal divider the number of between status between status chevrons readings readings and train 26
Comprehension Test Results High percentage of comprehension (82% to 93%) suggests signs are likely very effective at letting drivers know if the crossing ahead is open or closed. At least 50% of drivers who had never detoured in the past said they are more likely to detour. the past said they are more likely to detour.
Motorist Advisory Sign Design Sign Design Evolution:
Sign Rendering - MAS03
Sign Rendering - MAS04
Sign Rendering- MAS05
Design Challenges Detector technology Unique requirements necessitated extensive research and field testing Budget constraints Necessitated prioritization of signs Necessitated prioritization of signs Construction in an evolving urban environment Utility conflicts Property constraints Sign impact to adjacent residential dwellings Future road widening
Status Design substantially complete Working with stakeholders to finalize agreements and permitting RFP process to commence this Summer Project completion date: Q1/Q2 of 2014 Project completion date: Q1/Q2 of 2014
Recommend
More recommend
