U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
California Division
System Description
The City of Baltimore Integrated Traffic Management System is a major upgrade of the City of Baltimore’s street traffic management system. It involved replacement of all traffic signal controllers and cabinets, installation of additional closed circuit television cameras, upgrading and expansion of center-to-field communications infrastructure, video exchange with CHART, a new traffic management center, new central computer hardware and software for remote management of field devices, and updated traffic signal timings.
The $26 million project provides Baltimore, Maryland, with a state-of-the-art traffic management system that provides many capabilities missing from the previous system. These new capabilities include:
Together, these new capabilities enable more efficient and safer traffic signal operation, faster and more effective response to disruptive incidents, reduced system maintenance costs, and opportunities to further enhance traffic management in the future by measures such as automated traffic counting, traffic responsive signal timing plan selection, and adaptive traffic signal timing.
Involved Agencies and Their Roles
The City of Baltimore, via its Department of Transportation, was the system owner and dominant stakeholder. The Maryland DOT (CHART) and Maryland Stadium Authority were involved by virtue of a two-way video and traffic data link between the new Baltimore traffic management system and existing Stadium Authority traffic operations centers at the M&T Ravens Stadium and Orioles Park at Camden Yards. These operations centers had existing communication links to Maryland CHART thus also providing a path for video and traffic data exchange between CHART and the City traffic management system. Inter-agency operational coordination was further enhanced by provision of a CHART workstation at the City traffic management center.
The Federal Highway Administration played an important role in administering funds including timely approval of time-and-materials work orders.
Contractors and Their Roles and How Selected
The following table summarizes the various contracts used to implement the Baltimore Integrated Traffic Management System.
Contract |
Contracting Party |
Procurement Method |
Contract Overseer |
---|---|---|---|
Program Management (including design) |
City of Baltimore |
Professional Services (RFP) |
City of Baltimore DOT |
Field Construction (including controller and cabinet installation) |
City of Baltimore |
Low-bid |
Program Management Contractor |
System Integration |
City of Baltimore |
Professional Services (Prequalification, RFP) |
Program Management Contractor |
TMC Architectural Design |
City of Baltimore |
Professional Services (RFP) |
Program Management Contractor |
TMC Construction |
City of Baltimore |
Low-bid |
Program Management Contractor |
Signal Timing Optimization |
City of Baltimore |
Professional Services (RFP) |
City of Baltimore DOT |
A feature of the City’s approach to contracting for this project is the degree of flexibility built into contracts. In particular, the program management contract with Sabra, Wang & Associates allowed for refinement of tasks and addition of tasks in response to unforeseen conditions. For example, project funding became available in multiple allocations, some at quite short notice, and the nature and extent of later-stage work was not fully known until after major components were selected during earlier stages. The system integration contract allowed for some design-build elements and loosely-defined later tasks that were refined as conditions and needs became clearer during system development. Such flexibility allowed a relatively large project to be implemented quickly and continuously with minimal administrative effort on the part of City personnel, while retaining the flexibility the City needed to adapt to evolving funding and technical conditions.
Agencies’ Previous Systems Engineering Experience and Capabilities
Involved City of Baltimore personnel had very little experience in projects like this and little prior experience with systems engineering. The prior traffic signal management system was installed in 1976 and underwent only one significant upgrade, which replaced a mainframe computer with a minicomputer in 1994.
Systems Engineering Management Planning
No formal systems engineering planning was conducted. However, the program management and system integration contractors were familiar with systems engineering and used sound practices despite the lack of explicit planning. Most of the major systems engineering processes were included and documented, as summarized in the attached table titled Summary of Systems Engineering Activities Undertaken in Development of the Baltimore Integrated Traffic Management System.
Comments on the Overall Experience
The Baltimore Integrated Traffic Management System project is successful and is achieving its goals.
Although the City did not plan for or require use of the formal systems engineering process, the contractors involved were accustomed to using systems engineering and knew it was necessary for a successful project. The contractors used the systems engineering process.
Use of the NTCIP communications standard for traffic signals was key to the project’s success. The central signal management software and traffic signal controllers are from different manufacturers and had not been previously integrated. Integration went relatively smoothly largely because both the central software and the controllers supported the NTCIP communications standard for traffic signals. The integration effort revealed some inconsistencies in the respective implementations of NTCIP, but these were easily corrected. The City now is able to procure controllers from multiple NTCIP-compliant manufacturers. If the City wishes to use features not directly supported by the NTCIP standard, the standard provides a convenient mechanism for adding manufacturer-specific objects or data elements to any message, including the once-per-second status message. Due to its low bandwidth overhead, NTCIP’s “dynamic objects” feature allowed re-use of the existing City-owned twisted wire pair cable network.
The project was not without its surprises and challenges. The following are some examples:
On the other hand, many aspects of the project proceeded very smoothly. The following are a few examples:
The Key Lessons Learned from the Baltimore Integrated TMS Project
Use of an experienced program manager and the systems engineering process enabled a complex project to be successful.
Flexible contracts with the program manager and system integrator enabled the contracts to be changed midstream to accommodate unforeseen or changed conditions.
Use of the NTCIP communications standard was key to enabling integration of central software and field equipment from different manufacturers, and in giving the City the option to purchase future field equipment from different manufacturers.
Thorough and realistic testing at every stage of system implementation, involving the owning agency in testing, and testing every change no matter how small and seemingly inconsequential, helps with progress monitoring and avoids expensive and time consuming field retrofits.
Contractor submittals should include a signatures page that all concerned personnel must sign before work can proceed. This ensures the document has been reviewed and approved by all interested parties.
Use of old equipment can lead to unforeseen problems that need to be accommodated. Facilities that work fine with an existing system may not be adequate for the new system with its different characteristics.
Contracts should clearly delineate boundaries of responsibilities between the involved parties.
Adequate training of all involved personnel is important, especially when new technology is being used or existing technology is being used in a new way.
A carefully planned and methodical cut-over plan can add to the efficiency of changing over from old to new equipment.
Acknowledgement
Ziad Sabra, Principal of Sabra, Wang & Associates, generously contributed his time for interviews, and contributed much of the information collected for this case study. Sabra, Wang & Associates is the program manager.
Table 8‑2 Summary - Baltimore Integrated TMS Systems Engineering Activities by project phase
Process Task |
Process Used |
Documents Produced |
Agency Effort Expended |
Explanation, Issues, Problems, Lessons Learned |
---|---|---|---|---|
Feasibility |
No formal feasibility study.
|
Informal notes and meeting minutes only. |
Low
|
|
Planning |
Technical memoranda discussed controller options, architecture options, and communications options. Meetings were held with CHART and Stadium Authority to determine the needed linkages between the systems, but no formal documentation.
|
Various technical memoranda.
|
Low |
Program Management contractor helped the City with system planning. Time and materials contract with task orders was critical to allowing contractor work to vary as needs were identified. |
Concept of operations documented at start of design. |
Low |
Helped by fact that the City already operated a traffic signal management system. |
||
Validation Plan |
Planned to conduct travel time surveys before and after system implementation. |
Plan not formally documented. |
Low |
Included before-and-after studies. |
System Requirements |
Identified during high level design. |
Documented within procurement specifications. |
Med |
Program management contractor worked with City personnel to identify requirements. Prescriptive (specifications) for most field hardware, but kept as functional requirements where possible. |
System Verification Plan |
Developed at start of system design. |
Documented in the system integration services contract. |
Med |
|
High Level Design |
Part of design. |
Documented within procurement specifications – functional specs. |
Med |
|
Component Level Design |
Done by system integration contractor. |
Hardware Selection, Software Design, System Configuration, Graphics Design |
Low |
|
Hardware and Software Development |
Off-the-shelf hardware and software, with some central software enhancements. |
Updates of above documents to reflect “as built”. |
Low |
NTCIP very helpful in integrating field devices with central software. |
Unit Verification |
Individual pieces of field equipment were inspected by Program Manager upon installation. Controller software was bench tested by the System Integrator. Computer hardware units were tested by the System Integrator. Controllers and modems tested prior to installation. |
Inspection and test reports. |
Med |
City personnel involved in review and testing of new signal controllers and cabinets. |
Unit Integration |
Performed by the System Integrator. |
First draft of system configuration documents. |
Low |
|
Sub-system Verification |
Sub-systems were center-to-field communications, traffic signals, CCTV, DMS, TMC display equipment. |
Test reports. |
High |
Central software replicated with number of field equipment units for system integrator bench testing at the Signal Shop. Used for acceptance testing too. City personnel involved in review and testing of communications sub-system. |
Sub-system Integration |
Performed by the System Integrator. |
Updated system configuration documents. |
Low |
Groups of signals were brought on line one at a time and tested individually. |
System Verification |
Final integrated system acceptance testing performed by the system integrator and witnessed by the program manager and the system owner. |
Acceptance Tests |
Med |
|
Deployment |
Cutover to the new system progressed one communications circuit at a time. |
Implementation Plan |
High |
|
Validation |
Before and after study using travel time surveys. |
Before and After Travel Time Survey |
Low |
|
Operations and Maintenance |
TMC staffing needs were identified. |
TMC Staffing Plan |
High |
|
Some future system enhancements have been anticipated and allowed for in system design. |
|
|
|