View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
June 16, 2004
Dr. Robert BertiniMichael Rose
Evaluation of the “COMET”
Incident Response Program
Oregon Department of Transportation
Presentation Outline
• Research Objectives• Freeway Management in Portland• What are Incidents?• What is Incident Response?• Incident Response in Portland• Incident Data for the Region• Estimation and Costs of Incident Delay• Conclusions
Research Objectives
Demonstrate the use and display of archived data from multiple sources as a tool for evaluation and monitoring of freeway operations.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the “COMET” incident response program in Portland, Oregon
Develop tools to facilitate efficient deployment of resources and programs in other places
Transportation System Management
• 75 CCTV cameras
• 18 variable message signs
• 118 ramp meters
• 436 inductive loop detectors
• Digital archives of incident logs
• AVL Archives of COMET movements
• An extensive fiber optic communications system
In the Portland metro area ODOT currently operates an extensive
advanced traffic management system from the TMOC including:
Traveler Information
Variable Message Signs
Traffic Cameras
Traffic Reports
www.tripcheck.com
What are Incidents?
• Crashes, breakdowns and other random events on our highways• They contribute to more than half of the delay on our highways • Lead to major road closures increase drivers’ exposure to hazardous conditions • Cause secondary crashes • Divert maintenance resources and reduce overall productivity
What is Incident Response?
• A proactive strategy for dealing with incidents• Roving response vehicles • CCTV network of traffic cameras • An operations center monitoring the cameras • Communications network linking the vehicles and the operations center
Benefits of Incident Response
• IR programs are the eyes and ears of highway system
• They are proven strategy for reducing duration of incidents. They reduce delay, fuel consumption, accident exposure, air pollution and environmental impacts
• Decrease emergency vehicle response times
• Reduce secondary crashes
• Improve safety for emergency and highway maintenance personnel
• Improve relations between the driving public and the local transportation agency
Typical Delay Curve
Time
Cumulative Vehicles
Capacity Flow
Actual Incident Duration
Demand Flow
Total Delay
Incident Flow
Clearance Time
Det
ecti
on
Res
pons
e
Recovery
Capacity Flow
Inci
dent
Eff
ects
Cle
ared
Inci
dent
Cle
ared
Inci
dent
Occ
urs
Ver
ifie
d C
all R
ecei
ved
IR A
rriv
ed
Tow
Tru
ck C
alle
d
Tow
Tru
ck A
rriv
ed
Reducing incident duration by ½ reduces incident delay by ¾.
Reducing incident duration by ½ reduces incident delay by ¾.
Incident Response in Portland
The incident response program, known as “COMET”, began service in March 1997, and now covers the Portland metropolitan area nearly 24 hours a day with 11 specially equipped incident response vehicles.
Incident Response in Portland
The vehicles are equipped with:
• Variable message sign
• Basic traffic control equipment
• Gasoline and automotive fluids
• Basic automotive tools
• Communications system
• Automatic Vehicle Location system
Patrol Region
Data Sources
• Incident Database
• Automated Vehicle Location
• Automatic Traffic Recorders
• Inductive Loop Detectors
• Archived Weather Data
2001 Incident Data
70,976 incident records
21,708 incidents
6,334 Incidents on I-5
860 Crashes on I-5
Removal of 49,286 duplicate records
3 week sample for delay
estimation
660 incidents
3,188 Crashes11,078 Stalls
Incident Frequency Map
Low
Medium
High
2001 Incidents
Stall50%
Debris16%
Crash15%
Tag & Tow11% Other
7% Construction, Congestion & Other Closure
1%
Incident Types
N=21,728
0 Lanes66%
1 Lane31%
3, 4 or More1%
2 Lanes2%
Lane Blocking Incidents
N=18,920
2001 Incident Location
Right Shoulder59%
Right Lanes14%
Left Lanes10%
Left Shoulder6%
Center Lanes4%
All Lanes3%
Gore Area3%
Off Road1%
N=13,464
Crashes & Stalls
Account for 65% of incidents in the region
Average Number of Lanes Blocked
0.64
0.31
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Crashes Stalls
Average Number of Lanes Blocked
0.64
0.31
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Crashes Stalls
Average Duration in Minutes
65
47
01020304050607080
Crashes Stalls
Average Duration in Minutes
65
47
01020304050607080
Crashes Stalls
Crashes by Time of Day and Day of Week
Day of Week
Fridays had the highest crash frequency in 2001
198
451
519488
445
530
230
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Day of WeekN
um
be
r o
f C
ras
he
s N=2860
5437
51 4319
74
127
174
207
147126
137 142
179 182
240
272
236
147
6448
61 5934
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Time
Fre
qu
en
cy
N=2860Time of Day
The highest crash frequency was during the evening peak
Incidents by Month
215 208 236 269 222 234 186 242 195304 293 257
789 764803 803 917
714919
892
745
937 1009
774
497445
425462
621
444
585 514
423
547538
492
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Month
Nu
mb
er
of
Inc
ide
nts
Crash Stall OtherN=18920
1501 15341464
1417
1760
1392
16901648
1363
1788 1840
1523 Mean1576
Rainy Days and Crashes
6550
79
144
50
101
36 4335
174 181194
150158 157
172
133150
199
160
112
66
130125
0
50
100
150
200
250
Month
Nu
mb
er
of
Cra
sh
es
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nu
mb
er
of
We
t D
ay
s
Crashes on Wet DaysCrashes on Dry DaysWet Days1152 Crashes on Wet Days
1712 Crashes on Dry Days113 Wet days
Ongoing Incidents 1 Day
12:00AM
2:00AM
4:00AM
6:00AM
8:00AM
10:00AM
12:00PM
2:00PM
4:00PM
6:00PM
8:00PM
10:00PM
12:00AM
Time of Day
1
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81In
cid
en
t C
ou
nt
Incident Time and Duration on November 18th 2002
N=83
0
2
4
6
8
10
12:00AM
1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00AM
11:00AM
12:00PM
1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00PM
11:00PM
Time
Nu
mb
er
of
Inc
ide
nts Incidents Scheduled IR Vehicles
Ongoing Incidents - One Year
Average Ongoing Incidents by Day of Week vs. IR Vehicles
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Time
Num
ber
of In
cide
nts/
IR V
ehic
les
Sunday Monday TuesdayWednesday Thursday FridaySaturday IR Vehicles Weekday IR Vehicles Weekend
3 Week Incident Delay Estimation
3 week sample for delay
estimation
660 incidents
164 delay causing
incidents
Filtering
Manually matched incidents to ATRs
Determined the capacity reduction using incident data and tables from the Highway Capacity Manual
Average flow data for the specific hour of the incident were drawn from the 2001 ATR database.
The result was 112,000 vehicle hours of delay caused by incidents during the 3 week period
Estimated cost of additional fuelconsumption due to delay $150,000Estimated cost of lost time due to delay $2,800,000Total Estimated cost of delay for 3 weeks $2,950,000
Estimation of Annual Incident Delay 2001
-Extrapolated from 3 week sample-
• Estimated vehicle hours of delay: 1,940,000 hours
• Estimated cost of additional fuel consumption due to delay: $2,500,000.
• Estimated cost of lost time due to delay: $48,500,000.• Total Estimated cost of incident delay: $51,000,000.
• If each incident were to increase in duration by an average of 1 minute the annual cost of delay increases by: $1,400,000
• The cost to operate COMET for one year is about $750,000
For COMET to be cost effective the duration of each incident needs to be reduced by an average of 32 seconds.
For COMET to be cost effective the duration of each incident needs to be reduced by an average of 32 seconds.
Efficiency Curve
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Average Reduction of Incident Duration in Minutes
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
Inc
ide
nts
As
sis
ted
Benefits are Greater than Costs
Costs are Greater than Benefits
Conclusions
• Comet is clearly beneficial. The responders only need to reduce the duration of each incident by just a few minutes to have a positive effect on the flow of traffic.
• It is impossible to measure and assign a dollar value to the numerous other environmental and public relations benefits of the program.
• Archived data is a rich and useful source of information.
• Ongoing improvements to database entry and dispatching need to be made as traffic volumes and patterns change.
Thank You
•U.S. Department of Transportation•Transportation Northwest (TransNow)•Oregon Department of Transportation•Portland State University Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
•Dennis Mitchell, Jack Marchant, Richard Santa Ana and Eric Anderson of ODOT
•Barnie Jones, Rob Edgar, Galen McGill and Edward Anderson at ODOT for their support
The full report is available online at:http://www.its.pdx.edu/opbenefits.html
Michael Rose: [email protected]
Dr. Robert Bertini: [email protected]