Introduction - Maryland

Introduction - Maryland

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Introduction to Workshop Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Workshop Objective To describe the cost and technical analysis process and tools which can be employed by senior transportation officials, project managers, and engineers to evaluate alternative ITS telecommunications architectures and technologies. Introduction Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Case Study Approach Material used in this workshop resulted from an analysis performed by CSC and PB Farradyne Inc. in 1996 for the Maryland SHA on Marylands Chesapeake Highway Advisories (for) Routing Traffic (CHART) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Introduction Maryland State Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation Executive Session (9:00 AM - 12:00 AM) Introduction Overview of CHART Why the Study was Performed Issues Break (10:45 AM - 11 AM) Study Methodology ITS Video Tradeoff Findings and Lessons Learned Lunch (12 Noon - 1 PM) Technical Session (1:00 PM - 3:00) Requirements Findings Cost Analysis Network Technology Alternatives

Overview of Resource Materials Working Session (3 PM - 4 PM) Question & answers Introduction Workshop Agenda Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Overview of CHART Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Chesapeake Highway Advisories (for) Routing Traffic CHART Overview

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation The CHART Mission Incident Management Traffic control Clearing incidents Re-opening lanes as quickly as possible Traffic and Roadway Monitoring Electronic and human reporting for assessment of real-time traffic flow and conditions Traveler Information Public Media

Traffic Management Managing freeway and arterial flows for efficiency and safety Overview Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation CHART Topology LaVale 6 I-68 Baltimore Frederick Oakland I-95 I-70 4

7 I-270 I-695 Chestertown I-95 2 I-97 3 District Office Washington, DC 5 US-50 Annapolis US-50 Full-Time TOC I-95/495 SOC 1

Salisbury US-50 Interstate Route U.S. Route Maryland State Route Overview Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation CHART Devices Today 22 Closed-circuit Television (CCTV) units at 9 locations along the Baltimore/Washington Corridor 96 bi-directional overhead radar-based traffic detector sites 33 permanent and 100 portable Variable Message Signs (VMS) 25 permanent Traveler Advisory Radio (TAR) stations SHA operated Emergency Traffic Patrols (ETPs) Emergency Response Units - vans for minor repairs Road Pavement Sensors reporting road surface temperatures, ice/snow conditions, winter chemicals Overview Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Long Term Requirements 58 road segments with 546 total miles Install at 1019 device sites over 10 years CCTV, Radar, Loops, VMS, TAR, Traveler Alert Signs, Weather Sensors 50 operational facilities throughout Maryland 99% availability for telecommunications network, disaster site Overview Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Who are the Stakeholders for CHART? Overview Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Regional Multimodal Traveler Information

Crossing Status and Scheduled Closings Railroad Grade Crossing Incident Data Signal Coordination Incident Management Incident Data Incident Data Traffic Data Transit Data Traffic Data Traffic Signal Control Predicted Delays

Coordination Data Transit Management Freeway Management Traffic Priorities Probe Data Emergency Management Telecommunications is the glue that makes ITS possible! Electronic Toll Management Route Data Financial Data Overview Electronic Fare

Payment Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Issues Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Why did Maryland Decide to Conduct an Analysis of CHART? Lease versus buy Changing technology Understand operational model Understand functional requirements Wanted more than one technical/cost alternative High short-term and long-term risks were involved Issues Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Issues TECHNICAL RISK ?

ECONOMIC Issues INSTITUTIONAL Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation What do we really need? What ITS services should be provided? Who are the internal users of ITS information? Where do they deliver ITS services from? What infomation do they need to do the job? Examples: What is the best use of video in the system? What quality of video will meet the requirements? How timely should traffic monitoring information be? Issues Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Study Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Recommended ITS Telecommunications Project Cycle Goals and Concept of Objectives Operations RequirementsArchitecture Technical/ Cost Technical/ Preliminary Final Feasibility Cost Tradeoff Design Design Emphasis of this Study Method - Identify ITS Total Life-Cycle Cost - Make Lease vs. Buy Decision - Architect a Technical Solution Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Telecommunications Analysis Methodology Steps Perform Requirements Analysis 1 Systems Engineering

Develop Alternative Technical Architectures 2 Define Costs 3 Calculate and Compare Life-Cycle Costs 4 Cost Analysis Perform Sensitivity Analysis Methodology 5 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation What is included? Requirements analysis ITS goals, objectives, mission, operational model, and deployment Telecommunications connectivity and bandwidth Operations and maintenance

Technical solutions Multiple ways to architect and optimize for lease and/or buy Cost analysis Realistic costs for Construction, H/W, S/W, O&M Accurate information from the private sector Comparitive analysis Break-even computation, component costs Sensitivity analysis Complete study methodology has been published Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Step 1:

Perform Requirements Analysis Historical Information; Stakeholder Input ITS Goals and Objectives Non-ITS Telecommunications Needs Technical Exchange Meetings Use Case Analysis Program-Level Requirements User Requirements Validate Information Step 2 Derive Technical Requirements

Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation HOT Image Image Field Devices TAR, VMS, Signals Camera Select/ control Loop Radar Detect incident SOC Modify devices Validate incident

HOT Monitor Shop District Radio, TV Media Trucks ETP/ERU #77/ MSP Public/ Agencies RME Notification (voice) Status/ reports (voice) TOC Modify devices

Monitor Traffic Eng Media (Fax, data) Monitor ETP DNR, MSP, Fire, Rescue, I-95 Corridor Coalition Information Exchange TIME Methodology Use Case INCIDENT MANAGEMENT Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Step 2: Develop Alternative Technical Architectures Solutions must consider cost and risk impacts of

System architecture options Effects of local versus long-distance telecommunications leases Centralized or decentralized data collection and processing Technology options Analog/digital Wireline/wireless Switching technologies Sourcing options Build / lease / hybrid Flexibility, scaleability, maintainability, reliability, availability Performance Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Telecommunications Boundaries in the State of Maryland

Cumberland Hagerstown LATA Frederick Baltimore LATA Baltimore Washington LATA SOC Annapolis Stevensville Washington D.C. Salisbury LATA Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Effect of LATAs on Build Technical Architecture Cumberland

Hagerstown Frederick Baltimore Stevensville Washington Private Fiber Optics Methodology Annapolis Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Effect of LATAs on a Centralized Leased Architecture Hagerstown LATA Cumberland Hagerstown Baltimore LATA Frederick Baltimore

Washington LATA Washington SOC Stevensville Annapolis Salisbury LATA Leased Circuits Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Effect of LATAs on Decentralized Leased Architecture Hagerstown LATA Baltimore LATA Frederick Washington

LATA Baltimore SOC Stevensville Washington Annapolis Salisbury LATA Leased Circuits Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Step 3: Define Costs Dealing with Commercial Providers Approach a wide cross-section of providers if possible

Provide the requirements Encourage them to optimize or provide alternatives Request non-tariffed pricing for the life cycle Assure non-disclosure of proprietary cost data Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Dealing with Fiber Construction Costs Evaluate possible cabling methods needed Use prior bid data if available Build a model for the cable plant in ROW Backbone component Device connection component Assess the access to utilities and telecommunications Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Step 4: Calculate and Compare Life-Cycle Costs Calculate

Constant dollars and present value dollars OMB recommends present value for > 3 years Select the duration of the life cycle Model one-time and recurring costs Compare Assess the magnitude Graph annual cumulative costs Identify the break-even point Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Step 5: How Perform Sensitivity Analysis

Rank the options in increasing cost order Quantify effect of reasonable changes in assumptions Why Adjust the balance between device deployment and communications costs Observe market fluctuation (lease costs) Be aware of new technology Know impact of resource sharing Identify trends Methodology Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 Annual Cost (dollars)

Cumulative Cost ($Million) The Study Methodology Yields Results 1 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 1 Life-Cycle Year LEASE L1 Centralized lease L2 Centralized w/ backhaul L3 Decentralized lease L4 Decent. w/ county network % Build HYBRIDS 0 H1

Use optics for long haul only 0 H1b digital comm/CCTV on fiber 0 H1c digital comm/all devices fiber 0 H1d analog comm/CCTV on fiber 0 H1e analog comm/all devices fiber 13% H2b H1 plus fiber/digital CCTV fiber 13% H2c digital/all devices on fiber 13% H2d analog/only CCTV on fiber 13% H2e analog/all devices on fiber 17% H3b digital/CCTV on fiber w/o county 17% H3c digital/all devices on fiber "

17% H3d analog/only CCTV on fiber " 17% H3e analog/all devices on fiber " 28% H4a analog/CCTV thru county also 34% H4b digital/CCTV only on fiber 34% H4c digital/all devices on fiber 34% H4d analog/CCTV only on fiber 34% H4e analog/all devices on fiber 5,000,000 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 Network Life-Cycle Year current$ $92.3 $98.6 $71.4 $69.2 $68.6 $69.8 $71.3 $69.7 $71.2 $74.1 $78.0 $75.0 $78.5 $75.4 $79.6 $75.9 $79.6

$84.1 $85.8 $92.3 $86.3 $91.6 discounted$ $80.1 $85.7 $64.4 $62.4 $62.0 $62.9 $64.5 $62.9 $64.4 $67.9 $71.9 $68.7 $72.4 $69.3 $73.6 $69.8 $73.6 $78.2 $80.1 $86.6 $80.6 $86.0 Methodology

RESULTS! Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation ITS Goals & Objectives Stakeholder Views Use Case Analysis Define Program Level Requirements Functionality Performance Security Device Types Facilities Deployment Derive the Telecommunications Requirements Sensor Data Voice LAN Data CCTV Validated Requirements

Assess Communications Standards and Technology ATM ISDN FDM POTS TDM SONET NTSC Switching Ethernet DDS Analyze Topologies Centralized Decentralized Develop Options for Cost Analysis Lease Buy Hybrid Telecommunications Recommendation Methodology Technical Architectures Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Technology and Cost Constraints Video

Full Motion (45+ Mbps, 30 fps, Analog) MPEG-2, M-JPEG (5 Mbps, 30 fps, Digital) ADVS (768 Kbps, 15 fps - 384 Kbps, 4 fps) H.320/H.261 (384 Kbps, 15 fps, Digital) Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Sample Video 15 Minutes Comparison of high and low end of the spectrum Full Motion (45+ Mbps, 30 fps, Analog) H.320/H.261 (384 Kbps, 15 fps, Digital) Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Quality of Service Quality of Service

Transport Media Bandwidth $/Camera CATV (analog) Coax or fiber n x 5 MHz $ 609,840 NTSC (30 fps) 2 DS-3 94.92 Mbps $ 456,002 MPEG-2 2 DS-1c 3-20 Mbps $ 215,280

MPEG-1 DS-1c <1.86 Mbps $ 107,640 H.261 (1 camera) T1, FT1 64Kbps-2Mbps $ 71,760 H.261 (3 cameras) T1 64Kbps-2Mbps $ 50,320 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Comparative Costs $600K $500K

$/Camera $400K $300K $200K $100K $0 CATV NTSC MPEG-2 MPEG-1 H.261 (1) H.261 (3) Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Findings and Lessons Learned Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Total Option Cost (Millions of dollars) LEASE L1 Centralized lease

L2 Centralized w/ backhaul L3 Decentralized lease L4 Decent. w/ county network % Build HYBRIDS 0 H1 Use optics for long haul only 0 H1b digital comm/CCTV on fiber 0 H1c digital comm/all devices fiber 0 H1d analog comm/CCTV on fiber 0 H1e analog comm/all devices fiber 13% H2b H1 plus fiber/digital CCTV fiber 13% H2c digital/all devices on fiber 13% H2d analog/only CCTV on fiber 13% H2e analog/all devices on fiber 17% H3b

digital/CCTV on fiber w/o county 17% H3c digital/all devices on fiber " 17% H3d analog/only CCTV on fiber " 17% H3e analog/all devices on fiber " 28% H4a analog/CCTV thru county also 34% H4b digital/CCTV only on fiber 34% H4c digital/all devices on fiber 34% H4d analog/CCTV only on fiber 34% H4e analog/all devices on fiber Ten Years current$ discounted$ $92.3 $80.1 $98.6 $85.7 $71.4 $64.4 $69.2 $62.4 $68.6 $69.8 $71.3

$69.7 $71.2 $74.1 $78.0 $75.0 $78.5 $75.4 $79.6 $75.9 $79.6 $84.1 $85.8 $92.3 $86.3 $91.6 $62.0 $62.9 $64.5 $62.9 $64.4 $67.9 $71.9 $68.7 $72.4 $69.3 $73.6 $69.8 $73.6 $78.2 $80.1

$86.6 $80.6 $86.0 Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Strategic Alternatives Comparison (Millions $) L2 - A centralized network of leased circuits L3 - A decentralized network of leased circuits H1 - A hybrid using resource sharing fiber and leased circuits H4c - A hybrid with private fiber installed in the metro areas Build - Private fiber installed in the ROW for the complete ITS coverage area Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Cumulative Cost ($Million) Lease vs. Hybrid and Build Break-Even Analysis L3 ( Lease )

$450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $0 H1 H4c (Half Build) All Build 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Life-Cycle Year Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Network Cost by Subcomponent Lease L3 equipment huts equipment leased tail circuits leased backbone

O&M network software Build - H4c Voice Data Video Percent of total option cost construction equipment leased tail circuits leased backbone O&M network software Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Annual Communications Costs for the Lowest-Cost CHART Communications Alternative 25,000,000 Network Software OAM&P Leased Circuits Equipment Construction

20,000,000 15,000,000 ost (dollars) 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Network Life-Cycle Year 8 9 10 Maryland State Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation Lessons Learned Scarce telecommunications expertise Internal expertise is limited Traditional DOT engineering firms have limited telecommunications expertise Expertise is needed to build large-scale networks The networks design is as important as the lease vs. build issue Lease is less expensive than build Depends on design Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Lessons Learned The risk of building the wrong network was mitigated Original network plan would not have met needs and

therefore would have required significant rebuild or rework Keys to mitigating risk Define operational and technical requirements Design to meet requirements Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Lessons Learned The risk of not being able to capitalize on changing technology and industry was mitigated Lease prices could decline and/or technology might improve CSC recommended 3-year lease CSCs technical architecture would work with both leased and owned infrastructure - allows agency to preserve its options Political risk mitigated by analysis and good citizen policy

Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Organizational Considerations Important to understand real costs and opportunity costs Less dollars spent on network means more dollars spent on ITS program (more area to be covered, more devices deployed, etc.) Telecommunications costs should not preclude ability to build ITS program Telecommunications costs were a little less than half the total program costs for Maryland Telecommunications is unfamiliar ground for DOTs Need expertise to play in this arena Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Organizational Considerations

Important to consider geographical coverage Many programs initially confined to small urban area, but with plans to expand in future Design may change dramatically based on size of network Given cost of network, consideration should be given to compatibility with other State users Study results are not transferable, but method is Systems engineering approach is common practice in telecommunications as it is in civil engineering Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Disadvantages Time Nine month study Organizational stress may occur

Existing stakeholders (internal and external) may not welcome analysis Analysis may challenge existing technical assumptions Change must be managed Objectively find best solution for agency Include stakeholders in study Define options in terms decision makers understand (costs, risks, business requirements) Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Advantages Allowed the agency to make informed decisions ITS Business Plan exists Lowered the risks

Can build the network that meets needs Identified strategies to position agency well in changing telecommunications environment Lowered the cost Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation MDOTs Current Activities Performing a proof-of-concept test for an ATM network Advertised a Resource Sharing RFP Advertised a Network Management Services RFP to provide necessary services, hardware, and software Building other ITS components Device deployment Systems integration and maintenance Maryland State Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation MDOTs Future Plans

Will likely deploy a statewide ATM network Will consolidate all MDOT networks into one network Will centralize and outsource maintenance, management and provisioning of MDOTs network (WAN and LANs) Will continue to pursue resource sharing initiatives

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Fracture Overview Fall 2011 Rectangular Plate with Hole

    Fracture Overview Fall 2011 Rectangular Plate with Hole

    R designates rock The work to propagate the crack is positive, and is defined as an increase in surface energy (dUs) Griffith Energy-Balance Concept As the crack propagates, the rock undergoes a change in strain energy (dUE).
  • The Canterbury Tales: Characters

    The Canterbury Tales: Characters

    The Canterbury Tales: Characters. The Pardoner. Sold . indulgences - forgiveness for sins. Had blond hair, bulging eyes, and the small voice of a goat. Claimed to have religious artifacts. Could talk parishioners out of their money. The Host. Geoffrey...
  • Injection Studies: Losses at the Septum

    Injection Studies: Losses at the Septum

    Injection area investigations at the MSI . There is a clear problem with the RF fingers at the transition. Not clear how did it get worse suddenly.
  • Last Years Algebra  Simplifying expressions by collecting like

    Last Years Algebra Simplifying expressions by collecting like

    LIKE & UNLIKE TERMS. ? & ?? are LIKE terms, because they contain the same letter. ? & ? are LIKE terms, because they are number terms. ? & ? are UNLIKE terms. Terms which use different powers are not...
  • Objectif Québec - MFFP - Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune ...

    Objectif Québec - MFFP - Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune ...

    Plan québécois d'action sur les changements climatiques 2013-2020 (PACC-2). Cible de réduction -20% par rapport à 1990. Réduction de 17,5, à 70 MTonéq. CO. 2 . Le transport représente 43% des émission, il accapare 65% des ressources du Fonds vert
  • Assessing PAIN in Patients with Cerebral Palsy Hiroko

    Assessing PAIN in Patients with Cerebral Palsy Hiroko

    Hiroko Matsumoto, MA, PhDc. Director of Research, Weinberg Family Cerebral Palsy Center at Columbia University. Associate Director of Research, Division of Pediatric . Orthopaedics. Department of . Orthopaedic. Surgery. Columbia University Medical Center. AAPM&R Annual Assembly. November 2014. Once done,...
  • Montgomery County Fire &amp; Rescue Service 2009 Safety, Health ...

    Montgomery County Fire & Rescue Service 2009 Safety, Health ...

    MCFRS Safety Statistics ... Asphyxiation Violence/Gunshot Electrocution 2008 Deaths by Type Structure Fire Wild land Fire MVA Non-Emergency Duty Training EMS Call MCFRS Safety Section 2012 Safety and Health Week National LODD Statistics 2009 Deaths by Cause Stress/Overexertion Vehicle Collisions...
  • 2016 Exploration & Production Summer Standards Conference Subcommittee

    2016 Exploration & Production Summer Standards Conference Subcommittee

    Rewrite of API Bulletin E3. Group has now met 8 times since the charge. Main changes to E3 . Simplified existing well bore diagrams for different abandonment scenarios. Reference to Standard 65-2 and other prescriptive documents. Removal of Inactive Well...