Light-Rail Incident Response Before and After ICM: Strategies and Constraints Lee Biernbaum Volpe Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Economist Cambridge, Massachusetts
ICM and ICM Initiative Program Objectives What is ICM? Institutional Integration Operational Integration Technical Integration ICM Initiative Program Objectives 1.Demonstrate / evaluate pro-active integrated approaches, strategies, & technologies for efficient, productive, & reliable operations. 2.Provide the institutional guidance, operational capabilities, & ITS technical methods needed for effective ICM.
ICM Initiative Demonstration/Evaluation Schedule FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 ConOps AMS ICM Demonstration OCT Dallas, TX San Diego, CA Evaluation Pre-deployment Post Deployment
A Brief Detour: The ICM Evaluation Hypotheses USDOT Hypotheses Improve situational awareness Enhance response and control Better inform travelers Improve corridor performance Positive or no impact on safety Have benefits greater than costs DSS will provide a useful and effective tool Evaluation Analysis Area Technical assessment of operator capability to monitor, control, and report on the status of the corridor Traveler response (also relates to enhance response and control Quantitative analysis of the corridor performance mobility Quantitative analysis of corridor performance safety Benefit-Cost analysis Evaluation of decision support systems
The ICM Real-Time Transit Demonstration ICM Initiative Pioneer Demonstration Site: Dallas US-75 Corridor: frontage road, key arterials, and DART Red/Orange Lines Transit data gaps revealed in Stage 1 research Notably real-time passenger loads and (in some cases) vehicle location Consequently, FTA funded purchase of 20 APCs and retrofit of all 48 existing LRT APCs with realtime communications abilities
Real-Time Transit Case Study Method Before and After Corridor Tour Train Control Center Observation Interviews Controllers Chief Controllers Operations Managers ICM Coordinator Senior Executives Interviews with other agencies Chicago Transit Authority Denver RTD Portland TriMet San Diego MTS
Pre-ICM Incident Response Planned Incidents Off-Peak: Additional Service American Airlines Center Run trains destined for ALL lines from Victory Station Staging spare consists Texas/OU & State Fair Bypass CBD by running trains through rail yard Unplanned Incidents Single Track Shuttle Service Additional Consists (limited) Begin run with Yard Operator Communications Operator radios Control Center Control Center deploys supervisor
What we found Some things Changed Controllers increasingly found use for the realtime load data Confirm data with radio Decisions about Turnbacks (Shortturning) Offloading passengers for maintenance issues But there were Constraints Network and Capacity Equipment and Staffing Policy
Network and Capacity Cannot add consists CBD has a single alignment governed by a single interlocking at each end Discussions beginning about a second alignment through the CBD Other agencies have similar peak period constraints with headways greater than DART s 3.75 minutes
Network and Capacity Cannot add cars to existing consists Platform Length (29 platforms cannot accommodate 3-car trains) Station upgrade project (including many other station issues) ~$188 million TSP in CBD must be perfectly tuned for 3-car Trains due to short city-blocks Other agencies face problems with city-block lengths for LRVs
Equipment and Staffing Reserve Fleet is not large enough to support extra ridership during peak period Extraboard operators are not plentiful or able to be quickly activated Yard Operators can sometimes be used off-peak Fixed guideway is not conducive to flexibility Extra vehicles may not be where the crowding is Extra operators may not be where the vehicles are
Policy Customer expectations (partially cultivated by agency) ALL trains make ALL stops Drivers at grade crossings expect trains to stop at all stations Labor/Logistics Trains/operators need to be in right place at right time for next run or end of shift
Operational Flexibility Benchmarks Strategy Selective Hold 2 Short-Turning 3 Skip-Stop/ Expressing # of Agencies (out of 4) 1 Deadheading 3 Agencies Chicago Transit Authority Denver RTD Portland TriMet San Diego MTS
Conclusions What is the binding constraint to flexibility? Network Capacity? Equipment? Staffing/Labor Rules? Policy? Technology? Why do we want flexibility? What is the most effective way to get there? Is technology the place to start?
For More Information Lee Biernbaum, Volpe Center lee.biernbaum@dot.gov Sign up for the ICM newsletter anna.l.giragosian@leidos.com Steve Mortensen, FTA steven.mortensen@dot.gov Bob Sheehan, ITS-JPO robert.sheehan@dot.gov Visit the ICM website and bookmark the Knowledgebase http://www.its.dot.gov/icms/