HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - RFP - P739 ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (6)J.
b'g' V'3&' R
ON of Iort Collin5
9f#P.Ll�2 6W WJXGSI{HISPo�SI�4Ifi�tl
ATTACHMENT"A"
The City of Fort Collins
The City of Noit Collins
Natural Resources Depaitment
P O Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
(970)224-6085
June 30, 1999
R III
AV. SYSTEM OPF,RATION
The majority ofiespondents operate all aspects of their traffic system in-house, including system operation
(76%), computer software maintenance (44°/,), computer hardware maintenance (67%), and signal repair
(80%), as does Fort Collins Computer software is maintained by suppliers 33% of the time, signals are
repaired by a signal repair company 21 % of time
Table 4 Approaches to System Operation
In -House
Consultant
Supplier
Other
Signal
Other gov
Repair Co.
agency
Operates the
50
1
0
4
NA
NA
SYSTEM
Software
29
7
22
5
NA
NA
Maintenance
Hardware
44
2
10
NA
NA
Maintenance
signal repair
1 53
1
2
0
14
1 6
Whereas most of the system operations are performed In -House, more cities use a consultant to assist in the
system planning and design Most (42%) use a consultant to conduct feasibility studies, although many
(32%) conduct them in-house, andl2% combine staff and consultants to conduct feasibility studies Plans
and specifications for the traffic signal systems are done most commonly in-house (33%), then by a
consultant (30%), then cooperatively with staff and a consultant (23%) Sixty-two percent of respondents
determine the signal timing plans solely in-house, while another 27% work together with a consultant to
update signal timing plans
Table 5 Approaches to System Design
In -House
Consultant
Supplier
NA
Contractor
Other gov
Feasibility
29
36
2
5
NA
NA
Plans/Specs
37
35
7
4
NA
NA
Design
35
32
14
4
NA
NA
Signal Timing
Plans
63
19
2
NA
3
9
V. SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Sixty respondents (91%) conduct some type of routine signal inspection on an average of every 6 6
months, although the scope of the inspection varies Six cities have a weekly inspection routine, seventeen
conduct an annual inspection, and three conduct a biennial signal inspection The City of Fort Collins
conducts signal inspection every six months which appears to be a reasonable time frame compared to
other jurisdictions
M
Frequency of
routine signal inspections
(Total responses= 60)
30
Rif
tv$f"�'vt144�,IE' tE3',i
p 25_'Fhilt,i„(a[:`u'`t';uiY]alihW-MEit?�`tE'�'v�id'!aF'EE'i�i++I*{',`MiII reu t�5lia`�h�',E`Etiiv tiv�u!`:.v?,!??
E�a;'�S',`"!a�'!4'vti�lk,(nh;;i;°y''!,M�,It't4l,a,,
X 20
�`, _„t3'6uy,IslR, 9nlh"EtIIIT.Iddf{l thl`GIEh(flE;tl�5hi3!{35hI, ri�f{E�h;i',"h'4r,;,r�t'y„O
y
rJ - v +! ors m,;,hp,ri;,;3�nrinll mtf�h,,;in;{,x�t{d�ryp;�iii3rtn,n)tm w,nt fEi%1N;�t, t�%#vp;i t,?!„tr, `„ t
y
10
,¢ �"3u•,nii"'�?`?'n�'";IMF;'Si!~ti�;�'��stl3r,iin€xY;,', Itm,,;,,t, a a" Q 1rd:wr ,�4 r)d 4 �n tt ,R �1 °1, nk{i�„ie=, 5P 5'31 ItEaEtn„E I,{
,-,%,�„�?ivE
tl 5
CD
a
yIAEl,ifl9;dit{ 9'!h; it;i,ry'
� 0 _ ! ,a,EEIEE��itrtl3E Et5I b6hI I`ih„=
Routine Lamp Replacement
(Number of responses = 43)
40„
„
30
�i`ma � liaivi� eaiera,�tEm,�,Ti
d in
•+
- kj, '(YS�,�F'vAl�h`I�hE ilriEtiiW�ir,t iiY �i! i �`� °m�'>f;�^;im' 'i,
Yii _" a
, t sh ,, � , 551v., �flyN i.;a.tE;i,tEd' 9r{A9'Iihl'1sil *4
Q7
20
, i4tnp mn� ekW,a.k,o,gnn� , , E ta..tIP. Ei {' ° i iil,tl N"
,t��vty4',+It{(El�il�,1,3�E.,E�i�E„p1C�d�,,';�i�:Eii{aEvli;
p
1=
-a'. �'ti!',�„�n �xa.s r��,
N
:Q X 10
- �„,�,�l,-"— � i...,_ , �, �.4I, w
ilTa'�i�ti�i�'i' (:Iy�`€ a�' �� n4 i �£tiida'id`n,tp` e Rtli4 $+E'•w'7J�'`
N
liSEit i;3
.t"j.,'T(nn,i i 8 d is
d' 0
.
_=,,_'Y.d1�;Ii;t;airif°'lt,i'E,h��?,y,�i,,,n4aS'i'i''?7iti°'Ylut((`°�,'.,-",ia'E9�'",i�,,n
1
Replacement
Frequency of Lamp Cleaning
(Number of responses = 48)
80
X
60
>
c 40
C
c E
uni 1uit,t it': tin ih,,kt E( Vi, tiiti'iiV Iffi'n, jU,'i��eti
N 20 - �ht , i"Yti'7 h,{�,`,m"iw:� , Iaitld, �Y;,�,th�tll,��;,4t,,� ki En+t—•'h;^` "ii.°,'�;hM....t,;{
p°„'
Win
„,faeh'dN{l
O *:1 .,- i5"MI9d 9y lullPEEkt3Ey��°=
Figure 6 Signal
Inspections
Forty-four respondents
(67%) replace lamps
periodically before
they burn out on an
average of every 17
months
Figure 7 Lamp
Figme 8 Lamp Cleaning
73% of all respondents
ioutinely clean signals on an
average of 16 4 months The
City of Fort Collins cleans
signals every 24 months which
is slightly higher than the
overall average
8
Frequency of Timing Plan Updates
Total responses = 18
40 ty 4viy4',b5k',; yyt t` sykt i!'�eyg;,,G, (t�JJfisebta i n (C dt56�'64l ........ '
tei'�4, iy i�'ihix4 nn5ti m i44id+IA'd i44,445 ii5ti°4,i�4N'��'y�,y,,yy t'Ft�1'�tia'ii�'y'E',�, i'i4''t . 3
N i ,Its;','I 9I'`tLR#+1h„5+t't't;14tt',y4,,t`ry �'nu i'� 6G`,'t;6I',I;;; ?,,,x„3h; i ' $J
35,�s�;;�`�;,3t;t,I.�;;�,v
0 30 €=- m „'fi,, ;,;,IEpEll;tl�1;€;,i;;;,t , ,,;rt!ilEilE(`i`PI€Eiaa;
,M,m ` ,»`arc, M `nY, m �,,;N{;,Eu)i� u..,,«�mIiW� �tE-(IEIEIfHIE(ii�;rt�;n,
X 25 —
5t,t:dmn did i�i'- �>]i1o,; ^x mt _i, iSPtiY'ildt;tV;'^'t Aa'Iiti,y
20 -,�€Tii�{3vE LNfL,Iy',I,r,,'_lllti_s jdit!!t''!V;lPlE,;t'n;lr�p,,,F;,hi t�tdltil'(1
tltEi'�`SlIEi!ll,l,l, �a,t,,l�a,tr ', "''E`Elj4;l;;if�it�dnr ajtiT'i+.ydv,€ ;IEI fit,
�FiLt6
d 15 ,,;ra`,i,�
„i l E,rrj ;m; , �n�lil511111 kix1,
1w't'Gr,`K i i` it'El i vi::l,` , " a
k t ,, tip, !
10 rv,i�ne', ,6, nm,,m,,�t,,,Ih1}; jj;"jl �r+u,.,,r�;HtRE'�Ij �t €k N140lr
dr;md x5'yl�t",aljl,INsI!{,a5"rd�``d„'rrI€Ifi�t,i,i e(,I, y.�;E��'€iini ,,,; iaEa uar
fl- 5't;=,-i,r'i";,,,,e-„r"wt''";ijs`!„`t;inr,,€!"„t��'?�Itldldti3A�n I'iiy`e�,�
3iz,� '1��!
1„„em;cr,•,di','t't'!i=��ftv,I;';,E,;!a,,,60,p,, iy1„i'3'
0 ,_ a;"3t� f= ! "vd t, ygR3;(t� y+,;v�;r;5'',!„!,l Elt, „y,„ , m,,, 1; i;EI "64
Fiming Updates
Only 18 respondents
(27%) indicate a routine
schedule for re -timing
signals, with the average
time being every 20
months The majority
(62%), including the City
of Fort Collins, re -time
signals in iesponse to
public complaints
fl
I
J
K
L
M
N
O Figure 9 Signal
Only 27% of respondents have a signal head replacement progi am, and only 45% maintain a computerized
signal inventory The City of Fort Collins does not have a replacement program and they do not maintain a
computerized signal inventory
Annual emergency calls range from 1 to 1380, with an avi rage of 284 call per year Fort Collins reported
156 calls per year Respondents defined "emeigency calls" differently
Signals Timing Philosophies
A vast majority of respondents (85%) use the "time of day/day of week" strategy when timing signals, as
does Fort Collins
Timing Strategy
,( ", a, `TATIt" 4.a6h'€;,;,,,yy„ 'i ' _
time of day , _ so ,,,, :3a lm,ttt;; r' '`,,,�,- - ;,�, 56
„t tt,! , t;tit,u �' I
'I'P'; Y,(P n�9n't���'it 'tin ldn ei ,€LAB; tilj; 7u"T,, 1, �'
Y";'rat tSI'';, !t"t���n,I'`t�' „,3j,�pt,r,,,,,
traffic I- „ ,a•", , ?';i„
response
'�El,try,pntd�'n li�,
E 61'I''" '�,, �,�,Iry,;�� ,i;;�i'rI�i'i!'!�'i'�
adaptive 9;,,,,. 11,41'{
a„
0 20 40 60
Number of responses.
Figure 10 Timing Strategy
The City of Fort Collins does not use traffic responsive or adaptive control as they are limited by the signal
system Traffic responsive control is the ability to change the timing plans "on -the -fly" based upon traffic
9
C,
M
conditions These could be special events, high shopping days, etc Most jurisdictions are specifying some
type of traffic responsive control for new signal systems
Signal Timing Constraints
An overwhelming majority of respondents (92%) use the following signal timing constraint "vehicle first,
with pedestrian timings when peds push Ped button"
If pedestrian crossing times are used all the time, this can have a significant impact on traffic flow By
using a pedestrian push button, pedestrian clearance times are only provided when the need is there Most
jurisdictions realize the significant impact and have systems which utilize pedestrian push buttons
Table 6 Timing Strategies
Strategy
# using
Vehicle timing first, ped timings when peds push ped button
61
Ped constrained timings regardless of vehicle demands
14
Ped phasing separate (barn dance)
5
Left -Turn Strategies
Left -turn phasing
protected/ permissive
protected only
permissive
split phasing
0 10 20 3.0 40 50
Number of responses
Figure 11 Left -Turn Phasing
"Protect
ed/
Permissr
ve"
phasing
for
left -turn
arrows
is used
most
common
ly by
respond
ents
When asked about left -turn phase sequencing, most communities (fifty of sixty responding) used a high
percentage (average 76%) of `leading left -turns, followed by through movements," with much smaller
percentages of `lagging left turd' or "a combo of lead/lag and i hrough movements "
Left -Turn Sequencing
Average percentage used
(based on 60 responses) other lead left -
turns
IoV
Figure 12 Left Turn Sequencing
The ability to use leading or lagging phasing by time of day allows greatest flexibility in developing signal
timing schemes
When asked to prioritize "Measures of Effectiveness" fot determining appropriate cycle length and phasing
sequence, the majority of communities (56%) use "Stop Delay" as their primary measure of effectiveness
The next most popular measure is "Number of Stops", used by 24% of communities as the primary
measure of effectiveness Fourteen percent use "Average Speed" as the number one measure, and only 2%
use "Fuel Use" as the number one measure However, all these measures of effectiveness are linked in
some fashion
a
d
a
0
C
a
w
m
w
0
`m
s
E
Z
z
Priority Measures of Effectiveness
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fuel Use
'g Speed
Delay
t<1 (3) LO
e (4)
signals using "a common background cycle for all arterials while balancing the system for stops, delays,
and travel speeds"
Signal Optimization
arterial -based
,,S tN, •au q, n,i �ip,i il{ 1 as tl`5 y`tlti"iiCLit^rgyV I ^''
travel demand
, f ,Q•6a"','t;il, il,r'' llillf " "^I 1`
A'IE(',{'r
'��'�'I,
background cycle
section -based
r—IF l h R
0 10 20 30 40
Number of responses
Twenty- four percent
optimize signals "based on
travel demand, giving
streets with higher volumes
higher priority in terms of
flow " Fort Collins uses a
combmauon of the turret
two approaches Only 8%
of respondents optimize
only certain sections of
ioadway
Figure 14 Signal Optimization
When evaluating flow optimization, most (52%) use time/space diagrams to see if vehicles arrive when
then should, then adjust as needed Forty-five percent observe the individual intersections then adjust splits
and offsets Twenty-six percent use Time/Speed/Delay studies to calculate efficiencies, 24% use
simulation models, and 20% drive sections of roadway and make changes on a "feels good" basis Thirty-
six percent use a combination of approaches Fort Collins uses "Time/Speed/Delay studies", "Observe
intersections an adjust splits and offsets periodically", and "Time/Space diagrams "
Strategies to evaluate optimization
�a
a�a
eQ�oe, a �y
a
vo�5
�et�eo �a\e5
,off CO
yot �e ae�5
00
oa
0 10 20 30 40
Number of responses
Figure 15 Strategies to Evaluate Optimization
VI. COSTS
Although 51 of 66 respondents provided some cost information, it was not necessarily complete or
consistent, making it difficult to do meaningful cost comparisons Therefore, cost comparisons were done
in two sets, those reporting all costs, including electricity (N=9, including Tot t Collins), and those reporting
all costs except electricity (N=30)
Of the 30 communities that reported all costs except elects icity, the average total annual cost per capita for
operation and maintenance of the traffic systems is $4 30 per capita and $3,784 per signal
12
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
00
Traffic System Annual Cost (without Electricity), per capita
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Figure 16 Signal System Costs, excluding Electricity Casts
13
120-
W,
20
00
Traffic System Annual Cost (without electricity), per Signal
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Figure 17 Annual Cost per signal, excluding electricity costs
Of the nine reporting all costs including electuuty, the average total annual cost per capita for operation
and maintenance of the traffic systems is $6 36 per capita and 54,516 per signal Costs calculated in the
per capita category vary from $0 37 to $24 81 Fort Collins total annual cost per capita is $6 40 and total
annual cost per signal is $4,900
14
14000
12000
10000
N
N
O
� 6000
c
a`
4000
2000
0
Traffic System Annual Cost (With electricity), per signal
1 2 3 4 5 6 ] 8 9
Figure 18 Signal System Costs, Including Electi icity
15
Traffic System Anual Cost (with electricity), per capita
30
25
20
Figure 19 Signal System Costs per capita, including elech icity
Of the 30 respondents providing cost information (excluding electricity), it is interesting to note that the
average system operation cost per signal ($3,974) is slightly higher for the 23 cities who conduct periodic
relampmg, than it is for the seven cities who do not conduct pettodtc relampmg ($3,158) The average
number of emergency call reported by cities who conduct periodic relampmg is 412 per year, as opposed to
the average number of emergency call reported by those who do not conduct pet todic relampmg (268)
Note that the definition of `emergency calls" may vary Fort Collins does not conduct routinely scheduled
relampmg
The average cost of an 8-phase mast arm signal is $100,100, based on 56 responses, with costs ranging
from $20,000 (covers only equipment, installation is done in-house) to $180 000 Fott Collins pays $60-
70,000 for this type of signal
Fitty-nme percent of respondents do employ some type of energy saving measure, with the majority (421/.)
using LCD's Seven additional cities plan to install LCD's in the near future Other energy saving devices
and measures includL flashing signals (8%), dimming signals (5%), using photo cells, krypton and sodium
bulbs, using solid state controls, optimizing signalization, and using low rated bulbs
16
P
14!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
I Community Descriptions 1
II System Descriptions 2
Tratfic Control System Type 2
Engineering Software 2
Age of Computer 3
Signaltype 4
III Communication System 5
System Features 5
IV System Operation 7
V System Maintenance 7
Signal Timing Philosophies 9
Signal Timing Constraints 10
Lett -Turn Strategies 10
VI Costs 13
V1I Common Problems 18
Vlll Conclusions 18
APPENDIX A— Survey Instrument
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Responding Community Characteristics
Table 2 Signal Type
Table 3 System Features
Table 4 Approaches to System Operation
Table 5 Approaches to System Design
F Table 6 Timing Strategies
1
4
6
7
7
10
2
VII. COMMON PROBLEMS
The predommant "main problem' reported is inadequate staff and resources to stay abreast of changing
signahzatioim demands A number of sites reported problems with loop failures resulting from construction
damage, power outages, or unreliability Problems with lightening strikes were also frequently reported, as
was timely repair of Signal problems Another common response was inability to please eves yone all the
time, or other customer satisfaction issues
VIII C()NCULSIONS
Based upon this benchmarking project, the following conclusions can be drawn
• The City of Fort Collins is about average with respect to number of signals per population than the
other communities surveyed The City of Fort Collins has slightly less signals per mile than the
average
• The City of Fort Collins uses central control and monitoring This control strategy may be outdated
and it the computer system is replaced some time in the future, the City should consider other control
strategies
• fhe VMS system is not in use by many of the other jurisdictions surveyed The most popular system
is the Eagle system This system also ranked high with respect to customer satisfaction
• The Fort Collins computer is 14 years old, which is 4 years oldei than the average Old computers
have very high maintenance costs and do not allow for system features that are being demanded by
today's drivers
• the City uses leased telephone lines for communications The majority of cities surveyed used hard-
wired communications The disadvantage to haid-wire communications is the high initial cost and the
added responsibility for maintenance
• The City of Fort Collins does not utilize traffic volume counting, program download, or data upload
The City does not utilize traffic responsive contiof These features are used by a majority of other
jurisdictions and can have a tremendous impact on system operation The existing computer system is
the reason for this limitation
• The City of Fort Collins performs most of the signal system open ation in-house This is consistent
with the great majority of the other titres surveyed
• The City conducts maintenance on a schedule that is near the average with respect to signal inspection
and lamp replacement
• The City does not have a signal head ieplacement program, but only 27% of the jurisdictions do Only
45% maintain a computerized signal inventory I lie City of Fort Collins does not maintain a
computerized signal inventory
• The City of Fort Collins uses Time of Day / Day of Week strategies as did 85% of the respondents
• The va4 majority of respondents use pedestrian push buttons as does the City of Fort Collins
• The City uses leading and lagging phasing which provides for the maximum flexibility for signal
progression strategies
• The City of Fort Collins' cost to maintain the signal system is very near the average
Overall, it appears that the City of Fort Collins operates their signal system at the same level of the
communities surveyed From the results of the survey, it appears that the biggest limitation to the City is
the computer system which is four years older than the average and does not allow for system features that
can greatly mmpmove traffic mobility
The results of the survey show that the staff is adequately utilized and provides the services to the City at
about the same level as other communities across tine nation
17
t
18
NO
Groups
Old ICU
Transition ICU
New ICU
Attach T
Attach New
Region Name
1
96
d;j,i,;,i'�'y 96,�, h�'� i
(IIIN'„�,, „�;
75
DRA
2
1.516
(q;; t„1819�37'
23 29 30 35 131�
,h,x•p""�'�`,15 _6�•;iy"'`�NCL
1819
3
4
35
`_"MILL
NCL
„�IV�198,04,
SHI
6
_ �i9i;;;;�f;1,1,4';130,,�ah
33 ----
.hi9M ls-U''
ELIZ
7
I&,vi�i''
REM
8
24'25 26 27, 28.7,
"°,7�80'89'�90,i'I •;�
24 25 26 27 28 7
7 80 89
• � ," �;•;;;,,,,,'•
;jii4�1'I•
CBD 1/2
9
`,,';i`57,104',N05,,
('" ,,,10
T—
HRS
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 5
1 53 54 55 Ill
`F2' 3''4 51,!, ,,,
€p nI`'ii INRii Y,,
` ;`'•i'"!(, i �l �,
� •E•;•;;I 4I,!;!' 1'� i' i;"
''''''�'
;((;4 vi!T
,•,„r'; '"p,,;,•,,;(ii;i'i•,,
,� i,4'r,; ,n�I'd
CLG
DRA
12
;Pk"RtfNi;jj;;;•,;lil;iVi;j
102144
13
7576
2
NCL
14
73
_
_ 15
!
(, 23;29'�30131';
(;;''„�,10P i,
MUL
},139,„!j;l0,11"
1'?'•;,'16
TIM
17r10'`'
CLG
18
19
20
_
496568 115
41 42 43 44 45 4't'";4fi,,,
6 47 48 56 67 78
79 88 101 113 1
16126133
,',; ;y''4;;;?,Fgnilliij " i''
', ,;;,� ',,E�t{;ii;' J;,;�'•'
118 119
74
!
2
�,t('�'i1;'; , I';1;'�i
NCL
21
';a;;!,J�.7,1 ;k,1;b
'•;"y70f °i 8•I�;
LEM
22
22
;p;,;; ' Y,22:;jtiIn=
14,
!I;u--_
LAU
HRS
24
LEM
25
112
`;;',1;12;j;;6{!'
`r.,+`p_
�`
�,',10,,,,,�•;?'
HAR
26
,t°d,�i'(448i;i;i1'j{tivi+'`
;•98,,ri'"'
_
SHI
27
_
HI,;;iy ali ;t;! q;p�i'' �"`
;4^iv�(iiil'iia100,"3'';i+'•;
32 --
'(1,95'Ia;,
7 --
HAR
28
— REM
29
'•'''
31
...`i; 8181 82'87,i;i� iil�(
`
22
"iI �' ,"'�''
LAU
30
81 82.35 86 87
TAF
31
d,,,, i,,
37.w
OTN
32
;r(ji;i,lpd;,ia•ia,a,;a,i,i;,•,p;I;,
3839
31
_
OTN
33
''f 97'�!='"'�ti� iii,i
�dr `51'",
,,,i, , 95'`' _
10
HAR
34
34
',;�;�pqR 3411, ';7j;
PRO
35
8384
'`""�,ii68384;',q•;IiIII'''
98
,,10 ''
_
PRO
36
HAR
37
`',',;64'S5'd,111";,';I;t,1Ott
�, i1,d;;,1�,1 ;,3„'r;�i<i
_
CLG
CLG
38
�T'•,
;; ,10,1„r,
39
20 21,38 39 40 7,
4`75'76:!pj. ph
14-:-, ht,
;;,,;a;!;;;;?,' I,
2021 40
,,
;;fit,,
j10''"'
CLG
40
47
-=5�"(';j ---2
;,o•,i °j,'I,,,
`•,4P III;'
NCL
CLG'1.
,6'a
.42 01 "i;
'
CLG
43
CLG
4
20'138i;4•iR
HAR
45
-
123151
;ii
46
TAF
47
_
i'4},,,86' 'd indQ(
79__....._..._
30,1 '1
22
TAF
48_,,,,�,'•jli;,p,
_
LAU
49
_
ICU'S IN GROUPS 211100 - 12 04 PM Page 1
A)
m
Groups
Old ICU
Transition ICU
! New ICU
Attach T! Attach New
Region Name
50
50
�j; ,'j,,;150'' iniGlili iGtl
t,t��ii+ii(�tlA,: 1
DRA
51
52,,,,;,,
53
,,, ',,3:0 ';(10V,�„t1t;;',;;
SHI
54
,-{, t'65,68j�t,!, iy1
`d:iY',4,98 r:d' --
SHI
55
52„y;,
,m52a�{'u°('+fli''
'''i'�',};7„„i, 70
DRA
56
,',113*126'158"'
I';�''1168;;�'Pi"''
SHI
57
,i3,"' ,47116 ;;'„''
;'j;M
SHI
58
i,,a:+,+y+�I61'62;�+3o-�;;'
10
``y,r�'470`;I.1,;{p
HRS
59
99
'16a`i''ii(;i' 59;hi
61
72
''', 35 3672 ;lA$
70
;m'1 �'
LEM
62
63-
64
t'gili ,�i�,�—,'n'i „its;
124
';'""'��'`q,;'i,
65
3671 72 73 123
124
j,y+,,i73`123`124,`i`;i
MILL
66
' I: Huratiili;i;,j,
90
CBD 1
67
68
4iir;+E' iIi9,9u Iir;
69
70
61 62 63 64 66 6
97091121122
66 6970'91 12,1'
,(M122si;�{,{�ij�,tl'i
;i',i;i1,,,��" ti,,,'d'';'
''"I:�J`(fij,itl4+:
LEM
71
72
73'!i
74
75
93 94
9394
"''=+,93'9,4`1,49�j;';;;y'
(,a, —z
PRO
77
!,�,;"RI"98'„p,
78
,+'•id;;ht'7&, ;0r;+;id`
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
57581031041h''1
05146
,1,,i;,;t,ii;i;'
0�;�,,''''°
tihy$i+(�i
86
��n16';l +�s1 ga,tlti+i
87
8-8"iq
89
�;i {nI69l4dt+"tt 6ttn
90
95
,,,r+il:95'137;I'"i,''yi5't'
"iti'''
75
TIM
92
, i'tt4iN'iwNs'•++ r
—
—
93
94
1,15,;;q,p,,
19t�np;9&;
DRK
_ 95
96�
979899100
�,j;9&99
t,1t,6 ,+
" - -;�
, ,,, +'S i'i'd�nt',
HAR
SHI
97
33T,';r'i:',"
20 Fig' ,98
�'�°
DIRK
98
! ,,;4S 4414546 i''"
,ryi;++;
SHI
99
€;,;,;'i956'88',!�'n' �,'
„".
TAF
ICU'S IN GROUPS 211100 - 12 04 PM
:;
Page 2
Emir
Group-°
3
z
O
O
U
a U
2 2
Q Q
4 O
a U
O
o O
z z
C
T
a U
2 M
a a
i
T
N N
a a
O O
E
O
a
L
N N N
m
¢ a E
N
E
1-
N
R
0
1
x
x
000
ALL
Timberline / Drake
1
x
22
_
600
MTWRF
# 96
1
x
weekend
_
600
SU
1
x
midday
_
1000
MTWRF
2
O
x
000
ALL
287 & Magnolia /
2
O
x
6 00
ALL
Olive # 15, 16
2
O
48 85
48
615
MTWRFS
2
O
51 75
51
_
7 30
u
2
O
49 75
49
_
9 50
ALL
2
O
50 85
50
_
15 35
MTWRFS
2
O
51 75
51
_
18 00
u
2
O
51 75
51
18 35
MTWRFS
3
O
x
000
ALL
CBD #18,19,37
3
O
_
x
615
ALL
A2
4
x
x
000
ALL
Drake / Worthington
4
x
9 100
9
6 00
MTWRFS
# 92
4
x
12 90
12
730
U
4
x
10 100
10
10 00
ALL
4
x
11 110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
4
x
12 90
12
18 00
U
4
x
10 100
1O
_
18 25
MTWRFS
4
X
12 90
12
2000
MTWRFS
7
O
x
000
ALL
Remington &
7
O
7 75
7
_
645
ALL
Laurel/Elz/Pitkn
7
O
74 75
74
10 00
MTWRFS
# 31-33
7
O
8 75
8
15 35
MTWRFS
7
O
18 30
MTWRFS
7
O
X
22 00
ALL
8
O
51 75
51
0 00
ALL
Howes & Mason
8
O
48 85
48
6 15
MTWRFS
One -Ways
8
O
51 75
51
730
U
#24-28,77,80,89-90
8
O
49 75
49
9 50
ALL
8
O
50 85
50
15 35
MTWRFS
8
O
51 75
51
18 00
u
8
O
51 75
51
1835
MTWRFS
9
x
x
000
ALL
Horsetooth / Mason
9
x
x
001
-AL
Area #57,104-105
9
x
112
730
U
A 23,58
9
x
112 90
112
18 00
U
9
x
110 100
110
18 25
MTWRFS
9
x
112 90
112
2000
MTWRFS
10
N
x
0 00
ALL
South College
10
INx
0 01
ALL
#2-4,51
10
N
119 115
119
6 00
MTWRFS
A 9,15,17,23,25,34,
vvoo
c \my documents\traffic\vms\Gres Patrns-TICS Page 1 of 5 GROUP TICS
Group
Z
o
O
M T
a U
Q Q
L
d
a V
r_r
00 00
z z
N T
ac�
2 2
a a
�
d U
a s
O O
i
Wu
a
r
r
Q a LL
m
w
m
o
10
N
Left Turns at Laurel off
630
ALL
36-39, 41-43,58,85
10
N
122 90
122
7 30
u
10
N
120 100
120
10 O1
ALL
10
N
Left Turns at Laurel on
15 25
ALL
10
N
121 130
121
15 29
MTWRFS
10
N
122 90
122
1800
u
10
N
120 100
120
18 25
MTWRFS
10
N
122 90
122
20 00
MTWRFS
20
O
x
000
ALL
S Shields #79
20
O
9 100
9_
6 10
MTWRFS
A 27,33,36,44,95
20
O
12 90
12
730
u
20
Q
10 100
10
1Q 00
ALL
o - keep for LWmis/Laurel
20
(5
11 45
SU
rouey
20
O
11 110
11
1515
MTWRFS
20
O
12 90
12
18 00
u
20
O
1800
Su
Trdft
20
O
10 100
10
18 30
MTWRFS
20
p
12 90
12
20 00
MTWRFS
20
O
_
x
23 00
MTWRU
22
O
x
000
ALL
12 keep for Howes/Laurel
22
O
9 100
9
630
MTWRFS
22
O
10 100
10
_
10 05
ALL
22
O
11 110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
22
O
x
18 30
MTWRFS
25
x
x
000
ALL
W Harmony #112
25
D
9 100
_
9
605
MTWRFS
A 27,33,36,44,95
25
X
_
12 90
12
7 30
U
25
D
10 100
10
1000
ALL
25
[511
110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
25
x
12 90
12
1800
u
25
X
10 100
10
18 25
MTWRFS
25
D
12 90
12
2000
MTWRFS
30
N_
x
0 00
ALL
Taft & Laporte /
30
N
x
0 01
ALL
Mulbefry #81,82,87
30
N_
130 100
130
630
ALL
A 46,47,99
30
N_
133 90
133
_
730
u
30
N
131 100
131
10 00
MTWRFS
30
N
132 100
132
1600
MrwRF
30
N
131 100
131
18 30
MTWRFS
30
N
133 90
133
20 00
MTWRFS
30
N
_
X
2200
ALL
34
x_
x
000
ALL
Prospect Remington
34
x
x
555
ALL
# 34
34
x
9 100
9
_
600
MTWRFS
211/00
c \my documents\traffic\vms\Grps Patrns-TICS Page 2 of 5 GROUP TICS
Ell
93
Groups
0
C
¢ ¢
C
L
d
o0 00
z z
a U
a a
L N
a
O O
a
R
a
u s
�° i R
Q LL LL
E
H
m
0
34
x
12 90
12
730
U
34
x
10 100
10
_
10 00
ALL
34
x
11 110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
34
x
_
12 90
12
1800
u
34
x
18 25
MTWRFS
34
x
12 90
12
20 00
MTWRFS
34
X
x
22 00
ALL
35
x
x
000
ALL
W Prospect
35
x
9 100
_
9
_
6 05
MTWRFS
# 83,84
35
x
_
12 90
12
7 30
U
35
x
10 100
10
10 05
35
x
11 110
11
15 30
_ALL
MrwRFs
35
x
12 90
12
1800
U
35
x
10 100
10
_
18 30
MTWRFS
35
x
12 90
12
20 00
MTWRFS
35
X
x
2300
MTWRU
40
O
x
000
ALL
40 - keep for now
40
O
9 100
9
645
MTWRFS
North College
40
O
12 90
12
800
U
# 20,21,38-40, 74-76
40
O_
40 90
40
_
10 00
ALL
A 2,3
40
O
11 110
11
_
15-3 0
MTWRFS
40
O
12 90
12
18 00
U
40
O
40 9_0
40
18 35
MTWRFS
40
O
12 90
12
20 00
MTWRFS
40
O
x
2200
ALL
50
O
x
000
ALL
50 keep for Drake/McClelland
50
O
70 110
70
6 45
MTWRFS
50
O
_
x
10 01
MTWRFS
50
O
11 110
11
15 30
—MTWRFS
50
O
x
1830
ALL
55
x
x
0 00
ALL
E Drake # 52
55
x
9 100
9
6 05
MTWRFS
55
x
12 90
12
7 30
u
55
x
10 100
10
1005
ALL
55
x
11 110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
55
x
12 90
12
18 00
U
55
x
10 100
10
1830
MTWRFS
55
x
12 90
12
_
20 00
MTWRFS
55
x
_
x
22 00
ALL
59
O
x
000
ALL
9 keep for MCCtellandlSwallow
59
O
11 110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
59
O
x
18 30
MTWRFS
61
N
x
0 00
ALL
Lemay/Mulberry
61
N
119 115
119
6 00
MTWRFS
735-36, 72
2ivoo
c \my tloculnents\traffic\vms\Grps-Patrns-TICS Page 3 of 5 GROUP TICS
Group
z
L
o
O
L
a. U
Q Q
c
IL U
c c
00 00
z z
n U
a a.
m T
n. U
a a
O O
c
a
a
U L
=° m
Q u- LL
E
T
❑
61
N
122 90
122
730
u
A21,24,65,70
61
N
120 100
120
_
1001
ALL
61
N
111 110
111
15 29
MTWRFS
61
N
122 90
122
18 00
u
61
N
120 100
120
18 25
MTWRFS
61
N
122 90
122
20 00
MTWRFS
65
O
x
000
ALL
65 keepfa,.
65
O
9 100
9
_
630
MTWRFS
Mulberry/Lwemay/
65
O
12 90
12
8 00
U
Riverside
65
O
__
40 90
40
0 0
10
ALL
# 73,123-124
65
O
11 110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
A 21,24,61,70
65
O
12 90
12
18 00
u
65
O
40 90
-12-9-0
40
1835
MTWRFS
65
O
_
12
20 00
MTWRFS
65
O
x
2200
ALL
70
N
_ x
000
ALL
S Lernay
70
N
x
001
ALL
#66,69,70,91,121-
70
N
101 105
101
630
MTWRFS
122
70
N
112 90
112
8 00
u
A 21,24,55,58
70
N
120 100
120
10 00
ALL
70
N
111 110
111
14 20
MTWRFS
70
N
112 90
112
18 00
u
70
N
120 100
120
18 30
MTWRFS
70
N
112 90
112
20 00
MTWRFS
70
N
x
2200
ALL
75
N
x
000
ALL
E Prospect &
75
N
X
0 01
ALL
S Timberline Area
75
N
105 100
105
6 30
MTWRFS
# 93,94,149
75
N
122 90
122
800
U
A 1,16,90
75
N
120 100
120
10 05
—AL L
75
N
106 100
106
15 30
MTWRFS
75
N
122 90
122
18 00
u
75
N
120 100
120
18 30
MTWRFS
75
N
122 90
122
_
20 00
MTWRFS
75
N
x
2200
ALL
85
D
x
000
ALL
Tradition / Horsetooth
85
D
9 100
9
6 00
MTWRFS
# 146
85
D
12 90
12
7 30
U
85
D
10 100
10
10 01
—AL L
85
D
11 110
11
15 30
MTWRFS
85
D
12 90
12
18 00
u
85
D
10 100
10
1825
MTWRFS
85
D
12-9 0
12
20-0 0
MTWRFS
90
x---1
630
1 MTWRF
Timberline /Vermont
2/1/00
c \my documents\traffic\vms\Grps-Patrns-TICS Page 4 of 5 GROUP TICS
0
M
Groupm
Z
O
:22
0
V
a U
2
Q Q
L
V
n
a U
o o
o o
z z
L m
r
u
T
a U
m M
a a
m m
U
R 71
a s
O O
a
; R
Q a LL
E
F
o
90
x
?
1800
MTWRF
# 137
95
N
x
000
ALL
E Hannony
95
N
x
0 01
ALL
# 98,99,109
95
N
119 115
_
119
605
MTWRFS
A 25,27,33,36,44
95
N
112 90
112
730
u
95
N
110 100
110
9 45
ALL
95
N
#138 Free
x
1435
MTWRF
95
N
_ _
#138 Pattern
121 130
121
15 30
MTWRF
95
N
111 110
111
15 30
ALL
95
N
112 90
112
18 00
u
95
N
110 100
110
18 35
MTWRFS
95
N
112 90
112
20 00
MTWRFS
98
N
x
000
ALL
Shields
98
N
_
x
001
ALL
# 43-46
98
N
119 115
119
610
MTWRFS
A4,5,11,26,35,53,
98
N
104 90
104
7 30
u
54,56,57,78,94,96,97
98
N
120 100
120
1000
ALL
98
N
103 120
103
1515
MTWRFS
98
N
104 90
104
1800
u
98
N
120 100
120
18 30
MTWRFS
98
N
104 90
104
20 00
MTWRFS
98
N
__
x
23 00
ALL
O = Old tics from Fred's list
N = New tics that I created
D = Tics that I have modified and no longer exist in the database
x = Tics to be deleted - should not be in the database
2/1/00
c \my documents\traffic\vms\Grps-Patrns-TICS Page 5 of 5 GROUP TICS
AM
AM Cycle
Noon
Noon Cycle
PM Cycle
Group
Pattern
Length
Pattern
Length
PM Pattern
Length
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
119
115
120
100
121
130
College
30
130
90
131
90
132
100
Taft Hill
61
119
115
120
100
111
110
70
101
105
120
100
111
110
Lemay
75
105
100
120
100
106
100
Timberline
95
119
115
110
100
121
130
Harmony
98
119
115
120
100
103
120
Shields
A lookup table for the Offsets page
(Blue indicates patterns that have been used)
Pattern
Cycle-TOD Pattern
Cycle-TOD
Pattern
Cycle-TOD Pattern Cycle-TOD
100
125
150
175
.,,l01'i!`,;;;;
105-A
126
151
176
162,;;;p
110-M
127
152
177
„103',,;-;
120-P
128
153
178
xeIt'104.
90-0
129
154
179
106�i1;i?(;;'
100-A
�`; 130',1'' '
100-A
155
180
106'"' t„,
100-P
, ",,,131i,+ ;
100-M
156
181
110-P
�,,132�;'Y';'
100-P
157
182
�iv ,% 98��tI;�°'I
90-0
i;'?i''�:133�y�;il���
90-0
158
183
iirN,4109,
100-A
134
159
184
1;50?4, t'
100-M
135
160
185
110-P
136
161
186
01;;1;12 "'
90-0
137
162
187
;i,�'ii"'I'l,,3=;
110-M dnw
138
163
188
114
139
164
189
115
140
165
190
116
141
166
191
117
142
167
192
118
143
168
193
1"19;,r,;,,
115-A
144
169
194
,120`Gi1'''
100-M
145
170
195
;
130-P
146
171
196
22': 'i ;
90-0
147
172
197
123
148
173
198
124
149
174
199
2i1/00 groups & patterns
c \my documents\traffic\vms\Grps Patrns-TICS Page 1 of 1
Is
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Traffic Control System Type
2
Figure 2
Usage by Manufacturei
3
Figure 3
Signal Type
4
Figure 4
Communication Media
5
Figure 5
Communication Media Source
5
Figure 6
Signal Inspections
8
Figure 7
Lamp Replacement
8
Figure 8
Lamp Cleaning
8
Figure 9
Signal Timing Philosophies
9
Figure 10
Timing Strategy
9
Figure 11
Left-Tum Phasing
10
Figure 12
Left -Turn Sequencing
11
Figure 13
Use of "Measures of Effectiveness"
11
Figure 14
Signal Optimization
12
Figure 15
Strategies to Evaluate Optimization
13
Figure 16
Signal System Costs, Excluding Electricity Costs
14
Figure 17
Annual Cost per signal, excluding Electi icity Costs
15
Figure 18
Signal System Costs, including Electricity
16
Figure 19
Signal System Cost per capita, including electricity
17
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Depaitment gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the An
Quality Advisory Board's Benchmark Committee in conducting this study
Pete Perkins
John Fooks
Nancy York
John Scanlon
We also greatly appreciate the assistance and direction piovided by the City's Transportation Services
Area, especially from Eric Bracke, Fred Jones, and Gary Diede
Finally, we appreciate the funding provided by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment which enabled us to hire Hook Engineering, Inc to complete the study
3
VMS Groupings for Fort Collins
#
Q
Z LOCATION
a
n
z
0
=
U
Q
Q
W
<
z
L
C W
T
N N
LL
Q0
G
C N
fn F
z W
N
O LL
zO
L
C 1-
T W
N
i LL
a0
W
(n
O
N
2
>
e
U)�_
> F
z W
W
O LL
zO
W
N
0
N
i
>
iL a
z
W
H
Q J
X U
Q¢
W
H
S U
z Z
O O
Z z
z
K
Lu
H
Q J
a U
i i
1 a
15
COLLEGE AND MAGNOLIA
2
161COLLEGE
AND OLIVE
2
18OLLEGE
AND MOUNTAIN
3
_
19
COLLEGE AND LAPORTE
3
201COLLEGE
AND MAPLE
40
21
ICOLLEGE AND VINE
40
221
HOWES AND LAUREL
22
241HOWES
AND OLIVE
8
251
HOWES AND OAK
8
_
261
HOWES AND MOUNTAIN
8
271
HOWES AND LAPORTE
28�MASON
AND MOUNTAIN
8
31
__
IREMINGTON AND LAUREL
7-
32
REMINGTON AND ELIZABETH
331REMINGTON
AND PITKIN
7
37
MATHEWS AND MOUNTAIN
3
38
RIVERSIDE AND LINCOLN/MOUNTAIN
40
39
LINDEN AND JEFFERSON
40
40
COLLEGE AND CHERRY
40
50IMCCLELLAND/REDWING
AND DRAKE
50
591MCCLELLAND
AND SWALLOW
59
60IMEADOWLARK
AND SWALLOW
60
731LEMAY
AND LINCOLN
65
74
COLLEGE AND CONIFER7HICKORY
40
75
COLLEGE AND WILLOX
40
Offsets 211/00 - 12 04 PM Page 1
m
m
VMS Groupings for Fort Collins
o
z LOCATION
:
0
Q
Q
w
Q
z
O
r '?
m N
�LL
Q O
0
U
z y
O^LL
z 0
O
LU
y y
�LL
a 0
W
N
LL
0
>
Q
> H
z y
O�
z 0
W
N
LL
O
N
>
z
FwF
F
a cJi
Q Q
K
w
Q
LL U
z z
z z
z
w
F
a cJi
a a
76
COLLEGE AND HWY 1
40
_
77
MASON AND OLIVE
8
79
LOOMIS AND LAUREL
20
_
_
801MASON
AND OAK
8
891
HOWES AND MAGNOLIA
8
90
MASON AND LAPORTE
8
102
SHIELDS AND HARMONY
_
906
JFK AND BOARDWALK
108
TAFT HILL AND HARMONY/CR 38E
190
COLLEGE AND CR 32
114ICITY
PARK AND ELIZABETH
6
117ICOLLEGE
AND FOSSIL CREEK
1181COLLEGE
AND SKY WAY
1191COLLEGE
AND TRILBY
1231SUMMIT
VIEW AND HWY 14
65
124
LINK LANE AND HWY 14
65
125
_
TAFT HILL AND HORSETOOTH
127
LEMAY AND VINE
128
STOVER AND SWALLOW
_
129
SHIELDS AND HWY 287
130ICONSTITUTION
AND ELIZABETH
6
135ITAFT
HILL AND CR 54G_14NY
O WER AND
147
HWYR1 D COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
1501SUMMIT
VIEW AND PROSPECT
151
TIMBERLINE AND MULBERRY
174I
HARMONY AND TECHNOLOGY PKWY
_
Offsets
2/1/00 - 12 04 PM
Page 2
VMS Groupings for Fort Collins
Yk
o
H
z-LOCATION - - - - - -- - - - - - -
J�3�8
=
f
f
-Q-
Q
-z- -
L
C~
T w
y LL
w
--¢-O- -
O
c w
fn H
z w
O LL
O w
--z-O- -
L a
C H
T
y LL
i w
—a-O—
W
co
O
y
-¢-e.= -
U)O
> H
z w
O LL
O w
- z-O--
W
y
y
rC
i
i
- a .
z
w
f
Q J
1 U
i
w
r
1 U
z z
O O
O O
z -z-
Z
w
f
Q J
1 U
a -a--
- -
1ICOLLEGE
AND HORSETOOTH
10
CLG
87
49
='��_=5 =`= -
41
6- _
_ 61"
119 115
120 100
121 130
2
COLLEGE AND MONROE
10
10
CLG
113
62
u`°
29"
79
43-
119 115
120 100
121 130
31COLLEGE
AND FOOTHILLS
10
10
CLG
- c=38 - m_
96
m .81=
- -68
- 125
=0 = -
119 115
120 100
121 130
41COLLEGE
AND SWALLOW
10
10
CLG
36
4
==_"80_ m
===77-=
- 32 __
_ =6 _ _--
119 115
120 100
121 130
_
5
COLLEGE AND DRAKE
17
10
CLG
82
43
__= 3_a=
13 -
- 92
- 60
119 115
120 100
121 130
6
COLLEGE AND COLUMBIA
41
10
CLG
106_
20
27 _
- _ =_33= m
13 _
-18
35___
_ 36
42 -
_ 40
119 115
120 100
121 130
7
COLLEGE AND RUTGERS
41
10
CLG
1
23
119 115
120 100
121 130
8
COLLEGE AND SPRING PARK
41
10
CLG
37
9
- ==90"'
60 - ___
�=
= 20
95_
119 115
120
121 130
9
_
COLLEGE AND STUART
41
10
CLG
41
19
«= 91 cc3z
69 - -
29
0
119 115
_100
120 100
121 130
10
COLLEGE AND PROSPECT
42
10
CLG
25
47
==: 64d==
- 61_ -
- 90
85
119 115
120 100
121 130
_
111
COLLEGE AND PITKIN
43
10
CLG
103
3
=`=21m==_
- 58- -
40
54 -
119 115
120 100
121 130
121COLLEGE
AND ELIZABETH
43
10
CLG
102
3
=___ _=36= :>
__ -_ 15
19 _
- = 51---
119 115
120 100
121 130
131COLLEGE
AND LAUREL
43
10
CLG
40
46
71
98
--_98----
_ =15_--cd
119 115
120 100
121 330
141COLLEGE
AND MULBERRY
39
10
CLG
28
37
73
-_ -78 =
-__ =96= -
119 115
120 100
121 130
_
23
HOWES AND MULBERRY
15
10_
CLG
12
23
_='_s_a_40=_=_=
30
- 33
58
119 115
120 100
121 130
_
29
MASON AND MULBERRY
15
10
CLG
13
22
35
_ _ 31 -
- 30
43 -=
119 115
120 100
121 130
30
_
REMINGTON AND MULBERRY
15
10
CLG
22 _
10
50
_ 17
8
66
47
_ 40
_ 27
58
119 115
120 100
121 130
34
REMINGTON AND PROSPECT
34
10
CLG
51
". 20
- 15 =
77
-60
2
119 115
120 100
121 130
51
(COLLEGE AND HARVARD
10
10
CLG
97
73
119 115
120 100
121 130
_
53
COLLEGE AND HARMONY
36
10
CLG
95
52
128
- =38
_ _ -96
46_ _
119 115
120 100
121 130
54
COLLEGE AND TROUTMAN
37
10
CLG
`==60 ==
5
74 _
89
41
- 5
119 115
120 100
121 130
551COLLEGE
AND BOARDWALK
37
10
CLG
52
12
78
71 -
41 _ _
67- --
119 115
120 100
121 130
MASON D
58
STANFORDAND HORSEOTOOTH
23
10
CLG
101
61
88
88
11
64
82
119 115
120 100
121 130
1031JFK
_
AND HORSETOOTH
23
10
CLG
103
64
_
11
__
14 -=
___
99�
119 115
120 100
121 130
__
1041MCCL
LLLAND AND HORSETOOTH
9
10
54
1
80
--72
- 31
--97
119115
120100121
330
105�MAN RATTAN AND HORSETOOTH
9
10
_CLG
CLG
_ 89 __
82
49
- 1
36
57
119 115
120 100
121 130
111 (COLLEGE AND BOCKMAN
37
10
CLG
58
15
87
= 17 _
69 -- _
_ " 91 " =
119 115
120 100
121 130
1121 MASON AND HARMONY
25
10
CLG
48
0
84
12 _
- 60- -
1& _
119 115
120 100
121 130
131II
9AELDRUM AN3 MULBERRY
15
10
CLG
14
23
4B
`102-_
-35
""35_ _
54----
'i V9 115
129 100
121 139
146
TRADITION AND HORSETOOTH
85
10
63
56
90
83 -
- 14 -
119 115
120 100
121 130
_
157
STOVER AND HORSETOOTH
23
10
_CLG
CLG
49
45
128
- 63
51
18=
119115
120 100
121 130
Offsets
2/1 /00 - 12 04 PM
Page 3
L
VMS Groupings for Fort Collins
-z- LOCATION-
n
-O-
=
¢
W
z-
O` v
U H
N y
O
C N
N H
z cn
O
-z O
N
V H
fA 0)>
a-O
w
N
LL
N
Q�
to o
] F
z y
0
z
w
(D
LL
U)
�
z
W
H
d U
i
w
W
a U
z z
O O
z- -a'
z -
z
a U
i i
a- a-
- -
97ITIMBERLINE
AND HARMONY
33
95
HAIR
30= _ -
33
47
- 82- _
_ _86
- -4 - -
119 115
110 100
121 130
98
_
ILEMAYAND HARMONY
95
95
HAIR_
33
91 -
105
= 84"`=
=_-47"
- 48
119 115110
100121
130
AND HARMONY
95
95
HAR
92
51
40
35 _-
19-
98
1191151101001211301
1BOARDWALK
MCMURRY AND HARMONY
27
95
HAR
88
99
64
=- 22-=
43
- 87- =
119110
100
121 130
1JFK
AND HARMONY
95
95
HAR
0
47
50
_
72
19-
--10
119-115
-1 -10--1 0-0
1-21 330
120ICR
_
9 AND HARMONY
44
95
HAIR
87
62
63
43= __
= 99 _
4 -
119 115
110 100
121 130
138I
CO IRS ETT AND HARMONY
44
95
HAIR
> _>- 87_,. __
16
107
- = =31- _-
47
- - 24- =
119 115
110 100,121
130
52ISTOVER
AND DRAKE
55
70
LEM
61
64 _ _
47
85 ___
95 -
_ 78
101 105
120 100
111 110
61
LEMAY AND HORSETOOTH (WEST)
58
70
LEM
94
92
96
=61=`
_ 88
_ 2
72
34
_ 53
` 55 -_
_-
42 _
41_
101 105
120 100
111 110
62
LEMAY AND HORSETOOTH (EAST)
LEMAYAND SWALLOW
58
70
LEM
12
= - 58
_= 41
90
- 24 ""
- 94
-97
_ - 32-
-_ 1-
101 105
120 100
111 110
63
24
70
LEM
4
101 105
101 105
120 100
120 100
111 110
111 110_
_
641LEMAY
AND DRAKE
24
70
LEM
37
-maa50====
661LEMAY
AND STUART
70
70
LEM
10
51== �
_
"" _ 33
- ._69 =
_80
78
101 105
120 100
111 110
691LEMAY
_
AND PROSPECT
70
70
LEM
41
.--421----:=
48 _
_- 89 -
--0-
-92
101 105
120 100
111 110
_
701LEMAYANDELIZABETH
_ _
70
70
LEM
2
_-='3=;_=
81
39=
47-_
_ 20
101 105
120 100
111 110
71
_
ILEMAY AND RIVERSIDE _
21
70
LEM
88
46
75
24 -
- 0
20-
101 105
120 100
111 110
91
_
ILEMAYAND PENNOCK
70
70
LEM
103
i"- 52 =_
84
-" 42
10
22
101 105
120 100
111 110
121
_
LEMAY AND ROBERTSON
70
70
LEM
63
- = 0=
99
84 -
_ 25-
13
101 105
120 100
111 110
122
_
LEMAY AND DOCTORS LAN E
70
70
LEM
9
=-_=1===
84
37--
-32
6-=
101 105
120 100
111 110
35
WHEDBEE AND MULBERRY
61
61
MLB
77 _
_ -89
27
- e90.
99
=50'-
119 115
120 100
111 110
36
RIVERSIDE AND MULBERRY
61
61
MLB
26
59
_ 65
87-_
71
27- -
119 115
120 100
111 110
72ILEMAYAND
MULBERRY
61
70
LEM
105
54
60
- 49 ='-
24�
8
101 105
120 100111
110
_
Offsets
2/1 /00 - 12 04 PM
Page 4
E2
LJ
VMS Groupings for Fort Collins
ik
- z_- LOCATION----- - - - -
d
O
K
-0--
U
H
-Q-
2y
Q
--z--
O
C W
LL
LL
- -Q-O - -
O
U
y W
O lyl
O LL
-z-O- -
O
C W
y LL
i LL
- LL-O--
W
y
LL
y
>
-¢-°_ -
y o
> i-
O lyl
O LL
- z-O—
W
y
LL
y
>
-a-� -
z
x
H
LL O
g
¢- -Q-
K
W
F
a. U
ZO 0
O O
z -z -
z
m
H
LL V
a- a-
-
41ISHIELDS
AND LAPORTE
5
98
SHI
8
=="=97
67
49 =
-37
86_
119 115
120 100
103 120
42
SHIELDS AND MOUNTAIN
5
98
SHI
9
6
53
_ 50
-_ - 50___
_ _ - 86 =
119 115
120 100
103 120
43
SHIELDS AND MULBERRY
98
98
SHI
45
59
102
0 .
23
39
119 115
120 100
103 120
_
_
44
_
SHIELDS AND LAUREL
98
98
SHI
10
19
57
= '28 -
- -54 =
71.; _
119 115
120 100
103 120
45
SHIELDS AND PLUM
98
98
SHI
112
21
55
32
56
_-78= - -
119 115
120 100
103 120
46
SHIELDS AND ELIZABETH
98
98
SHI
109J
6
50
52
75 -_
-_ 93- __
119 115
120 100
103 120
47
SHIELDS AND PROSPECT
57
98
SHI
47
56
91
_
_=98_
_ 14_
- " 31 = -
11 1115
120 100
103 120
48
49
SHIELDS AND DRAKE
26
98
SHI
27
56
82
-- 83- _
15
24 -
119 115
120 100
103 120
_ _
MEADOWLARK AND DRAKE
11
98
SHI
94
56
118
18
94
32 _=
119 115
120 100
103 120
_
65
SHIELDS AND SWALLOW
54
98
SHI
-SH1
106
18
42
-50 "_"
_ 56
71= _
119 115
120 100
103 120
_
67
SHIELDS AND CASA GRANDE __
96
98
5
91
66
23=
-8 _
773 - -
11 1115
120 100
103 120
681SHIELDS
AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN
54
98
SHI
57
33
113
- - 70
_= 58 =
- -13 _
119 115
120 100
103 120
781LOOMIS
AND MULBERRY
78
98
SH1
64
62
42
-= 77-=
40 -__=
96" -
119 115
120 100
103 120
831WHITCOMB
AND PROSPECT
35
98
S H 1
70
57
110
82
23 -
71 -=
11 1115
120 100
103 120
84I
CENTRE AND PROSPECT
35
98
SHI
63 _
_
68
109
-82
72
18=
119 115
120 100
103 120
101
ISHIELDS AND HORSETOOTH
53
98
SHI
45
65
98
_ 89_-
_ 12
31 - "
119 115
120 100
103 120
113ISHIELDS
AND STUART
56
98
SHI
21 _ __
48
_ _ _118
96
103
= - 76 _
41__ -
16"
119 115
120 100
103 120
115DUNBAR
AND DRAKE
94
98
SHI
_ ___72
53
-74-
73
24-=-
7
= 74 =
7_-=
119 115
120 100
103 120
116
SHIELDS AND LAKE
57
98
SHI
61
82
119 115
120 100
103 120
126
SHIELDS AND RAINTREE/CENTRE
56
98
SHI
49
75
103
69
15 =
"-__8
119 115
120 100
103 120
133
158
CONSTITUTION AND DRAKE
97
98
SHI
62
51
24
80 -
25
91 --
1 99 115
12 1100
103 120
SHIELDS AND ROLLAND MOORE PARK
56
98
SHI
112
23
51
_ _42 "_
-_ -65 -_
70-
119 115
120 100
103 120
56ITAFT
HILL AND DRAKE
99
30
TAF
33
94
_ 43
9
93
- 89
98
-- -48 _
130 90
131 90
132 100
81
TAFT HILL AND LAPORTE
30
30
TAF
50 _
7
50 -
4 _ =
130 90
131 90
132 100
_
82
TAFT HILL AND MULBERRY
30
30
TAF
45
52
_33
787
-0
`-55 __
130 90
_
131 90
132 100
85
TAFT HILL AND ELIZABETH
46
30
TAF
86
80
40
_ 38
"45- "
_ 3
130 90
131 90
132 100
861TAFT
HILL AND PROSPECT
47
30
TAF
39
48 _
93_
_
- 84 I
_"
(
132 100-
881TAFT
HILL AND VALLEY FORGE
99
30
TAF
50
59
9
" 83 -
35
130 90
131 90
132 100
Offsets
211100-1204 PM
Page 5
\�J
VMS Groupings for Fort Collins
O
W
W
O
U
O
N
N
0iF
O
iLU
Ffaa�-
#o
a
=
U
W
U)
W
N
>
N
LL U
D
¢
w
N
z
N
z
a U
z z
U
Z-
K
Q
LLO
ON>
-g
2 n
OOa-
i 2
LOCATION - - - - - - - - -- -- -
-O-
Q-
z—
—Q-O-
z-O
a-O
-� -
--z
Q- Q-
z-- -
- a-
-
931RIVERSIDE
AND PROSPECT
75
75
TIM
92
92
92
40
48
_ 49 _
105 100
120 100
106 100
941TIMBERLINE
AND PROSPECT
75
75
TIM
35
90
21
-_ 12 -
- 46
- 97 -
105 100
120 100
106 100
_
951TIMBERLINE
AND HORSETOOTH
90
75
TIM
82
96
83
42 --
-_ 63 _
__ _
_ 40=
105 100
120 100
106 100
_
96
TIMBERLINE AND DRAKE
1
75
TIM
94
28
78
- - 33 - -
-58
6
105 100
120 100
106 100
137
TIMBERLINE AND VERMONT
90
75
TIM
_
39
81
41
80
22
- --82" "
105 100
120 100
106 100
1391TIMBERLINE
AND CARIBOU
16
75
TIM
53
_ _
81
41
81
9___
�80
" 69 =
105 100
120 100
106 100
1491
PROSPECT PKWY AND PROSPECT
75
75
TIM
42
_
35
39
- 87 -
94
105 100
120 100
106 100
_
ENABLED
BLANK = ENABLED
NO = NOT ENABLED
LOS = LOSS OF SIGNAL PROBLEMS
PIN = PIN STANDBY AT LOCAL CONTROLLER
### = MASTER ICU ID# LIST
Synchro Offset = Fixed Point Reference
Blue indicates items that have been verified at one time in the VMS
Green indicates the offset that is currently in the VMS
Offsets
2/1 /00 - 12 04 PM
Page 6
VMS Groupings by ICU
#
o
Z
LOCATION
w
m
W
O
O
LU
Z
w
0
w
M
U
x
Q
~
Q
w
Z
1
COLLEGE AND HORSETOOTH
10
38
38
38
10
CLG
2
COLLEGE AND MONROE
10
10
10
10
10
CLG
3
COLLEGE AND FOOTHILLS
10
10
10
10
10
CLG
4
COLLEGE AND SWALLOW
10
10
10
10
10
CLG
5
COLLEGE AND DRAKE
10
17
17
17
10
CLG
6
COLLEGE AND COLUMBIA
10
41
41
41
10
CLG
7
COLLEGE AND RUTGERS
10
41
41
41
10
CLG
8
COLLEGE AND SPRING PARK
10
41
41
41
10
CLG
9
COLLEGE AND STUART
10
41
41
411
10
CLG
10
COLLEGE AND PROSPECT
10
42
42
42
10
CLG
11
COLLEGE AND PITKIN
LOS
10
43
43
43_
10
CLG
12
_
COLLEGE AND ELIZABETH
10
43
43
43
10
CLG
13
COLLEGE AND LAUREL
10
43
43
43
10
CLG
14
COLLEGE AND MULBERRY
10
39
39
39
10
CLG
15
COLLEGE AND MAGNOLIA
2
2
2
2
16
COLLEGE AND OLIVE
2
2
2
2
18
COLLEGE AND MOUNTAIN
3
3
3
3
19
COLLEGE AND LAPORTE
3
3
3
3
20
COLLEGE AND MAPLE
40
40
40
40
21
COLLEGE AND VINE
40
40
40
40_
22
_
HOWES AND LAUREL
22
22
22
22
23
HOWES AND MULBERRY
4
15
15
15
10
CLG
24
HOWES AND OLIVE
8
8
8
8
25
HOWES AND OAK
8
8
8
8
26
HOWES AND MOUNTAIN
8
8
8
8
27
HOWES AND LAPORTE
8
8
8
8
28
MASON AND MOUNTAIN
8
8
8
8
29
MASON AND MULBERRY
4
15
15
15
10
CLG
30
REMINGTON AND MULBERRY
4
15
15
1:i
10
CLG
31
REMINGTON AND LAUREL
7
29
7_
32
REMINGTON AND ELIZABETH
7
28
7
33
REMINGTON AND PITKIN
7
7
7
7
34
REMINGTON AND PROSPECT
34
34
34
34
10
CLG
35
WHEDBEE AND MULBERRY
4
61
61
61
61
MLB
36
RIVERSIDE AND MULBERRY
65
61
61
61
61
MLB
37
MATHEWS AND MOUNTAIN
3
31
f
3
38
RIVERSIDE AND LINCOLN/MOUNTAIN
40
32
40_
39
LINDEN AND JEFFERSON
40
32
40
40
COLLEGE AND CHERRY
40
40
40
40
41
SHIELDS AND LAPORTE
20
5
5
5
98
SHI
42
SHIELDS AND MOUNTAIN
20
5
5
5
98
SHI
43
SHIELDS AND MULBERRY
20
98
98
98
98
SHI
44
SHIELDS AND LAUREL
20
98
98
98
98
SHI
45
SHIELDS AND PLUM
20
98
98
913
98
SHI
46
SHIELDS AND ELIZABETH
20
98
98
98
98
SHI
47
SHIELDS AND PROSPECT
20
57
57
57
98
SHI
48
SHIELDS AND DRAKE
los
20
26
26
213
98
SHI
211100 Page 1 of 4 ICU LIST
VMS Groupings by ICU
g
z
LOCATION
w
m
a
w
(L
o
O
�
3
z
w
z
o
-
z
X
X
am
c)
x
¢
¢
w
z
49
MEADOWLARK AND DRAKE
19
11
11
11_
98
SHI
50
MCCLELLAND/REDWING AND DRAKE
PIN
50
50
50
50
51
COLLEGE AND HARVARD
Ins
10
10
10
10
10
CLG
52
STOVER AND DRAKE
55
55
55
55
70
LEM
53
COLLEGE AND HARMONY
10
36
36
36
10
CLG
54
COLLEGE AND TROUTMAN
10
37
37
37
10
CLG
55
COLLEGE AND BOARDWALK
10
37
37
37
10
CLG
56
TAFT HILL AND DRAKE
Ins
20
99
99
99
30
TAF
57
MASON AND HORSETOOTH
85
9
9
9
10
CLG
58
STANFORD AND HORSETOOTH
85
23
23
23
10
CLG
59
MCCLELLAND AND SWALLOW
FREE
59
59
59
59
60
MEADOWLARK AND SWALLOW
STBY
60
60
60
60
61
LEMAY AND HORSETOOTH (WEST)
70
58
58
58
70
LEM
62
LEMAY AND HORSETOOTH (EAST)
70
58
58
5£3
70
LEM
63
LEMAY AND SWALLOW
70
24
24
24_
70
LEM
64
_
LEMAY AND DRAKE
70
24
24
24
70
LEM
65
SHIELDS AND SWALLOW
19
54
54
54
98
SHI
66
LEMAY AND STUART
70
70
70
70
70
LEM
67
SHIELDS AND CASA GRANDE
20
96
96
96_
98
SHI
68
SHIELDS AND ROCKY MOUNTAIN
_
19
54
54
54
98
SHI
69
LEMAY AND PROSPECT
70
70
70
70
70
LEM
70
LEMAY AND ELIZABETH
70
70
70
70_
70
LEM
71
LEMAY AND RIVERSIDE
_
65
21
21
21
70
LEM
72
_
LEMAY AND MULBERRY
65
61
61
61
70
LEM
73
LEMAY AND LINCOLN
65
14
55
74
COLLEGE AND CONIFER/HICKORY
40
19
40
_
75
COLLEGE AND WILLOX
40
13
40_
76
COLLEGE AND HWY 1
los
40
13
40
77
MASON AND OLIVE
8
8
8
8
78
LOOMIS AND MULBERRY
20
78
78
78
98
SHI
79
LOOMIS AND LAUREL
20
48
20
80
MASON AND OAK
8
8
8
8
_
81
TAFT HILL AND LAPORTE
30
30
30
30
30
TAF
82
TAFT HILL AND MULBERRY
30
30
30
30
30
TAF
83
WHITCOMB AND PROSPECT
pin
35
35
35
35
98
SHI
84
CENTRE AND PROSPECT
35
35
35
35
98
SHI
85
TAFT HILL AND ELIZABETH
30
46
46
46
30
TAF
86
TAFT HILL AND PROSPECT
30
47
47
47
30
TAF
88
TAFT HILL AND VALLEY FORGE
20
99
99
99
30
TAF
89
HOWES AND MAGNOLIA
8
8
8
8
90
MASON AND LAPORTE
8
66
8
91
LEMAY ANDPENNOCK
pin
70
70
70
70
70
LEM
93
RIVERSIDE AND PROSPECT
75
75
75
75
75
TIM
94
TIMBERLINE AND PROSPECT
75
75
75
79
75
TIM
95
TIMBERLINE AND HORSETOOTH
PIN/stby
90
90
90
90
75
TIM
96
TIMBERLINE AND DRAKE
1
1
1
1
75
TIM
97
TIMBERLINE AND HARMONY
95
33
33
33
95
HAR
2/1/00 Page 2 of 4
�7
ICU LIST
VMS Groupings by ICU
at
g
Z
LOCATION
❑
w
m
w
a
O
a
z
w
o
t-
Z
M
y
=
¢
¢
w
z
98
LEMAY AND HARMONY
95
95
95
95
95
HAR
99
BOARDWALK AND HARMONY
95
95
95
95
95
HAR
100
MCMURRY AND HARMONY
95
27
27
27
95
HAR
101
SHIELDS AND HORSETOOTH
20
53
53
53
98
SHI
102
SHIELDS AND HARMONY
PIN
12
0_
103
JFK AND HORSETOOTH
85
23
23
23
10
CLG
104
MCCLELLAND AND HORSETOOTH
85
9
9
9
10
CLG
105
MANHATTAN AND HORSETOOTH
85
9
9
9
10
CLG
106
JFK AND BOARDWALK
Ios/STBY
0
108
TAFT HILL AND HARMONY/CR 38E
no
0_
109
JFK AND HARMONY
Ios/stby
95
95
95
95
HAR
110
COLLEGE AND CR 32 _
no
0_
111
COLLEGE AND BOCKMAN
Ins
10
37
37
37
10
CLG
112
MASON AND HARMONY
Ins
25
25
25
25
10
CLG
113
SHIELDS AND STUART
20
56
56
513
98
SHI
114
CITY PARK AND ELIZABETH
STBY
6
6
E_
115
DUNBAR AND DRAKE
19
94
94
91
98
SHI
116
SHIELDS AND LAKE
Ins
20
57
57
57
98
SHI
117
COLLEGE AND FOSSIL CREEK
STBY
0
118
COLLEGE AND SKY WAY
PIN
18
0
119
COLLEGE AND TRILBY
STBY
18
0
120
CRI9 AND HARMONY
Ios
44
44
44
95
HAR
121
_
LEMAY AND ROBERTSON
70
70
70
70
70
LEM
122
LEMAY AND DOCTORS LANE
70
70
70
7070
LEM
123
_
SUMMIT VIEW AND HWY 14
65
45
65
124
LINK LANE AND HWY 14
65
64
65
125
TAFT HILL AND HORSETOOTH
STBY
0
126
SHIELDS AND RAINTREE/CENTRE
20
56
56
513
98
SHI
127
LEMAY AND VINE
Ios/STBY
0
128
STOVER AND SWALLOW
STBY
0
129
SHIELDS AND HWY 287
PIN
130
CONSTITUTION AND ELIZABETH
STBY
6
6
_0_
6
131
MELDRUM AND MULBERRY
Ios
4
15
15
15
10
CLG
133
CONSTITUTION AND DRAKE
159
20
97
97
97
98
SHI
135
TAFT HILL AND CR 54G
no
0
137
TIMBERLINE AND VERMONT
STBY
90
90
90
75
TIM
138
CORBETT AND HARMONY
Ios/STBY
44
44
44
95
HAR
139
TIMBERLINE AND CARIBOU
Ios/STBY
16
16
16
75
TIM
144
STARFLOWER AND HARMONY
PIN/stby
12
146
TRADITION AND HORSETOOTH
162
85
85
85
_0
85
10
CLG
147
HWY 1 AND COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
no
cil
149
PROSPECT PKWY AND PROSPECT
STBY
75
75
75_
75
TIM
156
SUMMIT VIEW AND PROSPECT
no
151
TIMBERLINE AND MULBERRY
STBY
45
_0_
0_
157
STOVER AND HORSETOOTH
Ios/stby
23
23
23
10
CLG
158
SHIELDS AND ROLLAND MOORE PARK
Ins
56
56
56
98
SHI
174
HARMONY AND TECHNOLOGY PKWY
no
I
0
ENABLED
BLANK = ENABLED
NO = NOT ENABLED
i
i
211100 Page 3 of 4
ICU LIST
VMS Groupings by ICU
o
# J
a
a
F
--
=
C7
W
U
aLU
z LOCATION w
O
z
o v
¢ z
LOS = LOSS OF SIGNAL PROBLEMS
PIN = PIN STANDBY AT LOCAL CONTROLLER
### = MASTER ICU ID# LIST
i
i
2/1/00 Page 4 of 4
i
i
ICU LIST
G Fort Collins Benchmark Project
Traffic Sranalization Survey Results
INTRODUCTION
In February 1998, the Fort Collins Benchmark Project mailed a six page Community Traffic Signalizahon
Salve to 81 communities across the country having populations between 50,000 and 200,000 A total of
66 of surveys were returned, for a response rate of 81 % The results are summarized below
I COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
A total of sixty-six responses were received from sixty-three cities and three counties, covering twenty-one
states The average population size of responding communities was 103,100 The average number of
signals, per 1000 population was 1 1, with the maximum being 2 4 and the mmmnmr being 0 08 The
number of signals per capita identified by this survey is lower than the number (1 24 signals/1000 people)
reported in the 1992 ITE North American Traffic Signal Inventory
Table 1 Responding Community Characteristics
Number
Average
Max
Min
Fort Collins
Responding
Population
205
33
(x1000)
65
103 1
Greensboro, NC
Monterey, CA
109
Growth ratet
10
-0 8
Annual (%)
56
28
Richardson, TX
W Hartford, CT
32
Beaverton, OR
2400
8
Size (sq/mi)
58
124
San Luis Obispo
Monterey, CA
45
Cry
Density (pop/sq
13,056
63
mi)
58
3,138
Inglewood, CA
San Luis Obispo
2,422
357
8
Total Signals
7094 signals
113
Montgomery, AL
Humboldt Cty,
143
CA
Signals/
24
008
1000 people
1 62
1 1 1
1 Wdmmgton,NC
I San Luis Obispo
1 31
Signals/
1644
07
sq mi
53
37
Inglewood, CA
I Santa Cruz, CA
32
t When reporting growth rate, it is unclear whether most respondents gave annual growth rate, or change
over one decade
As shown in Table 1, Fort Collins is near the average city of those responding to the survey Fort Collins
has slightly higher signals per 1000 people than the average, but slightly less signals per square mile than
the average This is a good result and the results of the survey are comparable to the City of Fort Collins
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Traffic Control System Type
The most common type of traffic
control system reported was
Distributed Control/
Distributed Monitoring, used by
33% of respondents, followed by
Centralized Control/Centralized
Monitoring, followed by conven-
tional time clock The City of Fort
Collins uses the latter two methods
Twenty-three percent of
respondents use a combination
of types All responses at e
incorporated in the graph to the
right
Figure 1
Traffic Control System Type
Distributed
Conventional
Control/
Time Clock
DiE tributed
19%
Nk�rntormg
33%F{,a
'`
16nid
Distributed
Control/
Centralized
Centralized
Monitoring
Control/
20%
Centralized
Monitoring
28%
Most Jurisdictions are moving towards distributed control and (entrahzed monitoring The advantage of
this type of system is that the system can operate on a predetermined pattern and continue operating on this
pattern in the event of communications failure or central system failure In other words, if there is a
communication error, the controller at the local intersection can continue to operate without any
inconvenience to the driver This type of strategy also greatly t educes the workload of the central
computer
EnQrneenng Sofhvare
The most frequently used engineering software is Transyt 7F (61%), followed by Passer II 90 (48%) and
HCS(39%) The majority of locations (76%) use more than one software Figure 2 shows the number of
users by equipment manufacturer
Twenty-eight respondents (42%) indicated they are "Very happy" with then equipment which includes the
following manufacturers Astbravo, Bitrans, Concurrent 3212, Crouse -Hinds, Digital, Eagle, Econolrte,
IDC, JHK, Monarc, Nastec, Peek, Safetians, TCT, TMM, TMF, liaconex, Tianscore, Transyt, VMS, and
Wapiti Only five respondents reported dissatisfaction with their equipment
Figure 2 shows the number of users by equipment manufacturer
Equipment Manufacturers
Eagle ., �� „H 3; r°Hu r, „s, alNa 12
Peek
n','{;f'
-77 757 111717MM
Econolite rr„r"'r'nnn i, 'i;�' orr , "q; , ,t„,,(;7I;
t r ,?�P "ii6,ldis"§ r L re II,r,rr,�ggr 111Ii,rne u re .y _ , T'i, N'N ' 'i I,
.i ,i ia=i' ,ho", "'tin
BITmnS �,, 8 ,ivy"
i`r"
SafeTrans '` i 9Ptd ,u!S- x'n C!litieor ,'sin 7s7,t7jj;{p,i1{,dR+Si
`tend, , Ptir;•i �!=�
-j•'.. "i nL6t �U t, t „ i '� �3;r,� "` "i i
IDCJMultisonics �t 9f'�.4ndi4u!!f 'ul9hi F7i"`�_;�� ` 'i, ';`I'i ''rs
Yt+l;t;
tt illilA, +AA�i,;
TransYt �
r
(n;�4iil �kl nLp �;�ignl'i'i; +i+E+i 3'd `sups"i'lHr+ x{,In ` �„i, 'ifii4
Traconex(t) '4'ij;�34; ;C'E" " ,E'i+�,�;,
n', I' �kE;' ;j E,i �'nti ;
;sh ''�`r
TCT3 ,i„�,?Y� r , E t EjLhY's";,I h; ; ' ,' (, k'
rs 'LP m9 , `i ,r
jn,; I'"'3�=",,,t`"b'"I�I,nIEr�ni P, '''i
ii;;';d+;'tier("�,hE=i L;','�Y4
fJastex '�y' ``2"rE''"Hni ill
{IE'hI�,,(;liiO
A rgi
Mnarc '_i,r„''',iI� j�
,', ;; Es14,
n'i�Lt
�"I�d," Wapiti
"iI' ;`„'Ivy{,�'�,,;,
�i'iIB, "t Iit t'n,i ti+n",�I 'ti it�;tn ��3 r;t,.� r r `�,,+i"'A ,+ii`'', +
VMS d„�Iv�Y riiiii Al L;0 "ilikh;,'r p, E����i� ''E l"l,
'*_ 'i , ,•;;°�E' ii5�=�6'f(;h�d;�
MPll
1 'II °;E.um lni;'" , 'v, 300
'r�-
,'a'l; i, {(;5"i ui'�p;;li',H filtld'', h'rII'; II,h ,vil;"'�";' ,s`'' Cn'1'Id�� , �� „�nt's �';
TMM '1 `'A;i;p,;1 tt„ s,,,,E s, n, ��;,35";I (n�(,i ` `;;i' I'M''i1111P., =,�"';p
McCain ;y,F'i 77 yY,rm, ,'sl +"qI(� ,;?"Ih;I,;,i"'yn '!'8'INN,T III,
JHK ;p i; ` �,,,k''3 `,i,�,E, ti Ti.H. yt`ri�i' {���� ii; I'isf
iht�t '� ;Hi;Ii11'(`'(; 4'E�� ,i,;;4iip, p JIM,�iF! ��!!,`; �h'hAi
P'= ,,`,
�j, I(,,���i.„pl;n�
, 'yid `v 'i;,irr r,,I ���i,,,,,t `i'tj;ii;�;, �il'IP '�};
Digital1'�Ia�l1 �h';Et4E,3I('``l`,�'E,?;�;(a��,t,',�'„ „t5 liill'i l�iiG�h' '3l r,�nhkivi,lllt
`'''IP,l, n,;sy'r, yy rsv�;4,;.'I;'� , I`` �+Iil;ili, ,,;1; YIT ',I;' 7
Crouse -Hinds ,��'h"w ;i�hi��5 `„�(„ dEai��i=,',3�I,`;ii,�ikjllr'!i='i;i,rtr`,��E''';r
Concurrent r,1`i,nH'"tv ii i;`h'=, I1_ „E,n��tII,I;�y;;��;r;,„ 'r l5r;;
EsiG ''`E°I =r't 3�n;i°I Ni;I;j,I��j"rh+I'(`''Ia{�k
i`,';,kii �rrnn��in
AstBravoiLi+ y'lll,', n
0 2 4 6 i 8 10 12
Number using this type of equipment
Figure 2 Tlsage by Manufarhirer
The highest degree of satisfaction came from Econohte users (6 respondents indicated "Very Happy") and
Eagle (5 respondents indicated "Very Happy" )
Age of Computer
The average age of the original computer in the traffic control system is 10 3 years, based on the 32
responses Fort Collins or iginal computes was 14 years old in 1998 Albany, GA has the oldest original
computer, at 20 years
3
One problem with older computers is the availability of parts Since there is little aftermarket for these
parts, one replacement part can be more expensive then 10 brand new Pentium II computers Expensive
maintenance contracts are often necessary to ensure that the pai is will be available for older computers
Signal Type
Survey -wide, the. most common
types of signals are tully-actuated,
followed by semi -actuated
Table 2 shows the average number of each type of control reported by the respondents which is also shown
graphically in Figure 3 Fully actuated signals have loop detection on every approach Semi -actuated
signals only have loops on the minor street and fixed time signals have no loops The more loops, the more
control you can have for a signal
Table 2 Signal Type
Signal type
Total number reported
ANerage #/ city
Percent of
total
Fort Collins
Fully Actuated
3138
57
40 %
0
Semi -actuated
2471
47
32 %
117
Fixed time
1372
29
20 %
20
Ped
62
8
6 %
Not reported
Volume density
74
3
2%
0
Forty-one communities (62%) reported the use of pedestrian signals, and indicated an average of 13
pedestrian signals per every 100,000 people The City of Fort Collins has seveial pedestrian signals
Sixteen cities (24%) conduct bicycle detection, including Berke ley, La Mesa, Moreno Valley, Pleasanton,
Rancha Cucamonga, Santa Cruz in California, the City and County of Boulder, Fort Collins, and
Lakewood in Colorado, Salem, Eugene, and Beaverton in Oiegon, Richardson, TX, LaCrosse, WI, and
Vancouver, WA
91
Ill. COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Communication Media
Flard-w lied
,,�mtelephone
! 7
linet+Ar
26
,€„'„�'�,;��t�.;tE(�E�t,,E,l,� na,y;,!
au''
ti!'�, EEtili±,ti �;,a„� R,€i°'S' FiOa�E;;(t,�(ERtE"i+✓�ya;i�i �iE3�;'i;IEI'E �(,`,fiber
optic!!:
15 E j'E;
;;;I��I;€��ts",?;Eiil�t�'€E'11���#;h���"�I`IE��yjFt�l;E��EnlE3'ill6'Adi! it;';! , y i! e „!i it' t nJ h,! ,'d{!I!;' , t,radio,9�,,,I;�'),�,It;�43,�;lIt,E4��Il������ytiiliii�iEiEi
iniiEiiiti,iti;Efl i;i'i'f 7i;�tlj?tIyE3,Ei=lil9 ;E EI I � v{ Efli�hE3ilI�hE3;!!I€hili;E,iEtEi„� <t,,;,,
rlril-117
cable Ns'
ty,; E,; I�rEEI,I��i�i;,�Eii���6�,�,;; ,,°;EiiEiE?E I!; °(�'Ital=�l�n
( I t ' E,;,5�
sr
41�45�'ht '''' ti� I E! t EtI
i ail fly, 9^'',=,'`,iy;�',, �li;,t't
r4
cable
!t .)
�� I y�i tin';A 7� 5!'; €'i�"E'I
i� itr� acoaxial
';'Il,';' y�;k�,�E ,''t'
„,d,:., .�_��', ;e,,,, ;.;�,,
t� ;,y;n,�3lir�;EtEJi�3�i'Ed,!',t�t,ltq,�sra,�,,,;,;,;; �'ii;i;ij;' i�
,�FEt( , �I ni„'r';EEEEi9 �;;,111fl ,,Iysrr;;F;I;Et;�tER �EI;;;;(li;iI�EEI�iE�microwave IEC 3i;1"�d;Edlo-''E�E�ti
'�;tE,;;i;;' !,'„r) aEanEi'IttEt'i(Ef',vt,te`s',',!u€',vl,,a;'„td6as5;,,,,,,,,,�i,hEE i�N i9 "'91 sd', to
0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of responses
The majority of communities
own their communication media,
but a significant percent lease
lines from the telephone
company Two of the three
cable TV users had cable
access donated by the local
cable franchise In both "Other"
cases, media were owned by
another government agency
(state or county)
Figure
Nearly half (42%) of all
communities use mote than one
type of communication system A
hard -wired system is predominant,
followed by telephone line, then
fiber optics
Communication Media Source
City owned
leased from phone company
1
�u'i4t (liyA
l Ajil;' ;HA9, '�,��P;i;E��i! 8�
'' +{9,,,, E�a`�tvd
cable TV
{-��g! ,,,, tuE�,�n,,,yn�r,
I'W3� �'-'„'�I�•H'I'ti,' ,,I,iE Enayid
$,; 1ind,EtH, i,, jq
other
H4"y,", i4N;��d'ii�ifl
1a,v lt!t, t;i00
mi2,lntlkv'iAdA4110",pi ri [J..gtEi;,eIHHI
0 10 20 30 40
5
Number of responses
The City of Fort Collins uses leased telephone lines The advantage of leased telephone lines is that they
can be easily obtained and there is low initial cost The phone company provides maintenance of leased
lines It is convenient to not have to maintain the phone Imes, but it is very difficult to get adequate
response from the phone company
System Features
Table 3 describes system features used by respondents It appears the most common feature is "Time of
day Control", used by 59 of 66 total respondents The City of f oit Collins also implements time of day
control The next highest-ranking katures are ttaffic volume i ounting and program download Because
of the age of the City of Fort Collins computer, their system does not have this capability
Program download is probably the single most important feature missing from the City of Fort Collins
system This is the ability to generate a timing scheme and automatically download this into the computer
Without this capability, it takes approximately 4 hours to download a timing plan for a particular corridor
Data upload is the ability to obtain local conhollei information I he City has limited data upload
capability
The traffic responsive feature is the ability to choose a timing plan based upon detected traffic volumes If
the computer senses that traffic volumes at a particular location are higher than normal, the computer can
automatically choose a pre -determined signal timing plan to handle the traffic This feature is extremely
useful if operated correctly
Table 3 System Features
System Feature
Number
time of day control
59
traffic volume counting
52
program download
50
failure (alarm) report
50
data upload
50
color graphic
45
internal modem
41
fixed -time control
40
external modem
40
fire lane preemption
39
traffic responsive control
38
railroad preemption
37
Diagnostics
35
Softfail
25
sec/sec control
21
surveillance cameras
12
on-line generation of traffic plans
9
wall map
9
projection TV
8
transit preemption
8