Loading...
CCR2004001-- r r , COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO RESOLUTION #001-2004 APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION (EVP) SYSTEM AGREEMENT WITH THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BE IT RESOLVED That the Common Council of the City of Muskego does hereby approve the attached sample Wisconsin Department of Transportation Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (EVP) System Agreeement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the Mayor is authorized to execute the completed Agreement in the name of the City. DATED THIS 13th DAY OF Januarv ,2004. SPONSORED BY: Mark A. Slocomb, Mayor This is to certify that this is a true and accurate copy of Resolution #001-2004 which was adopted by the Common Council of the City of Muskego. rK h1~ CI -Treasurer 1/04jmb , ~,\\\\\\11"'IIII~ ~ ~ ~ ;:::: ~ ~ ~ ::: ::: S !is -~ ~ ~ ~ ~1111I1II"\\\\~ Wisconsin Department of Transportation January 5, 2004 TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 2 141 N.W. Barstow Street P.O. Box 798 Waukesha. WI 53187-0798 Mr. Sean McMullen, Director Engineering/Building Department City of Muskego W182 S8200 Racine Avenue P.O. Box 749 - Muskego, WI 53150 ':.--'--:, ;-- (! 1! r \ : ..,-!- ! rt.~,\, ' i . I;: U U i~:/I - i ~",Cri;,:(Ûj 1':~(~'r;~(N:~ . '. Telephone: (262) 521-5361 FAX: (262) 548-6465 E-mail: waukesha.dtd@dot.state.wLus Dear Mr. McMullen: Subject: Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Per our phone conversation, enclosed is a copy of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's Traffic Guidelines Manual, Guideline 4-2-22.1 Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (EVP) and a sample agreement. If you are interested in adding EVP to any Department maintained traffic signals, please follow the directions in section 3, entitled "Request Procedure", of the Policy. Please include direction of travel as part of the location of proposed EVP systems. The request should be sent to myself at the above address. r The City of Muskego would be responsible for furnishing all EVP equipment; the Department currently has a purchasing contract with Tomar Electronics, Inc. through which the City could purchase equipment. The Department needs all traffic signal EVP equipment sent to: Bill Gilding Wisconsin Department of Transportation Electrical Shop 3625 Pierstorff Street Madison, WI 53704 The Department would install and maintain the EVP equipment at the traffic signal; however, the City would be billed for this work. The City of Muskego would be responsible for installing and maintaining the EVP equipment in the authorized vehicles. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me (262) 521-4404 or elizabeth.l1oyd-weis@dot.state.wi.us. - Sincerely, IJvi IJ. Ai-u Elizabeth S. Lloyd-Weis Signal Operations Engineer Enc!. r DT130 , TRAFFIC GUIDELINES MANUAL . Guideline 4-2-22.1 (~ ) Effective: December 1999 4 Signals 4-2 - Traffic Control Signals 4-2-22.1 Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption Supersedes: January 1997 By: Director. Bureau of Highway Operations Page 1 of 11 . A. Purpose Emergency vehicle pre-emption (EVP) systemS allow properly equipped emergency vehicles to pre- empt equipped traffic signals, most often by the use of an emitter located on the emergency vehicle mid receivers located at the intersectiOn. ÊVP systemS are Ü1stalled and operated for the benefit of local emergency services. They are intended to niake entering a sif?1ali7P.CI intersection safer by moving the queued traffic tbropgh the intersection ahead of the emergency vehicle. Pre-emption may also help reduce response times for these emergencÿ vehicles. The use ofEVP systems are becoming more widespread as the technology advances. WlSOOT has the authority to control traffic signals UDder its jurisdiction. B. Policy \."r' The following applies to the mm.11at1OD and OpCiabon ofEVP systemS involving 1rafiic coøtrol siguals owned ~ ~ by the Department. 1. Statutory Provisions .0 347.255 Alft'lı-wy lamps on emergeacy vehides used to activate traffic control signal preemption devices. (1) An authorized emergency vehicle described in s34O.01 (3Xa), (c), (g) or (I) may be equipped and operated with lamps designed and used solely to activate official traffic control signal preemption devices. (2) The lamps authorized for use under this section may be any color aDd may be flashing, oscillating, rotating or puJ~ng. (3) No operator of an authorized emergency vehicle may use such lamps except when responding to an emergency call, when pursujng an actual or suspected violator of the law or when responding to, but not when returning from, a fire alarm. 2. Bigibllity ,--' Any local governmental unit, agency, or organi'7Mion having responsibility for providing emergency services is eligible to request that the De}Jdl twent incorporate into it's signal system the components of an EVP system necessary to make the intersection function þloperly. TRAFRC GUIDEUNES MANUAL GUIDELINE 4-2-22.1 :'I PAGE 2 ÖI 3. Request Procedure -\ ' The local unit sbaIl make the request in writing to the Department. The following information should be included in the request: a Location of proposed EVP systems. b. Location of emergency facilities (fire station, policy station, etc.) where vehicles will be departing and description of the route to be provided with a pre-emption system. c. Listing or estim~te of number of vehicles to be outfitted. 4. Approval a. The Depattwent sball teVÏew eadi'request and respond in writing to the local unit as to the approval or deDial of the request. , , . b. The Depaitwent may deny any n:quest which it deems would bave an overall negative impact on the traveling public. '. c. For approved requests, an official "EVP System Agreement" sball be prepared and approved by the Department and the local unit. A sample fonows this policy. This policy shall be included as a supplement to the agreement. Any special terms or conditions beyond !be scope of this policy sba11 be stipulated in the agreement. , d. The Department will not install or allow to be installed any indicator.light that would be intended to confirm to the driver that plc-ælption sigual bas been received. e. In the event that the pre-emption is being misused, such as by 1msn1thorized vehicles, or that the municipality is not using or intel1ds to abandon the system, the Department may notify the municipality of the situation. If the mSlfter is not resolved the Department reserves the right to remove the equipment. The DepartmeIit will notify the municipality in wri1ing as to its intent and give the scheduled date of removal of the equipment mdicated in item S.A below. 5. InstallationlMaintenance a ~p&taAent forces ~ perfmm the installation, m~ce, modification, or removal of the EVP system equipment wbich is located at the traffic signal. GeneIally, this equipment would include the receiving device (mounted on the mast ann or signal bead), the phase selector (in the control cabinet), and any miscellaneous cables and wiring needed to operate and power the portion of the EVP'system located at the signal. -", b. The local unit will be responsible for the ÏDshI11~on of the emitting devices in authorized vehicles. The local government is also responsible for costs descnöed in item 8. below .,,- (/- r.j TRAFFIC GUIDEUNES MANUAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 PAGE 3 0 ) c. The Department may maintain a reasonable inventory of spare parts in order to service the EVP system equipment located at the traffic signal or the local agency may provide a reasonable inventory. Specify which in the agreement. ~. When notified, Department forces will respond to correct suspected fai1ures or breakdowns, or perfOIDl requested modifications in the EVP system equipment at the traffic signal. e. The Depcutwent will return all fa.i1ed parts to the local agency. f. Upon the Dep84 twent's. request, the local unit will be responsible for verifying the working status oftbe EVP system by perfcmning a "field test" using an emergency vehicle equipPed with an EVP emitter device. - . 6. OperationlPhase Timing a. The p":låttg and timing of the pre-emption sequencing shaI1 be mutually agreed upon by the Department and the local.unit. It is the Department's policy to use green indications only on the pre-empted approach rather tban green indications for the pre-empted and opposing approach. This is for safety reasons.and the ease oftumiDg for the pre-empting vehic1e~ Any exceptions to this policy shall be included as part of the special ~ or conditions of the agreement. 7. Driver Training a. The local unit shall be responsible for training the emergency services personnel on the proper operation oftbe system.. b. This ~g should provide clear understanding oftbese items: 1) 2) -3) 4) The definition of an authorized emergency vehicle at the beginning oftbis policy. The conditions when pze-emption may be used. The use of pre-emption does not remove the responsibility of the vehicle operator from detemüning whether or not it is safe to enter the intersection. The operator cannot assume that the pre-emption has gone into affect. The operator must rely on the traffic signal indication. The proper operation oftbe activating device located on the vehicle. 5) 8. Cost a. The most common somce of funding for the complete EVP system bas been local funds or federal urban funds. See the Hazard EHmmatton Safety (HES) funding "Statewide Policy of Funding for Emergency Vehicle Traffic Signal Pre-emption Systems" to determine if other TRAFFIC GUIDELINES MANUAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 PAGE 4 funding may be available. This policy may also be found in the WISDOT Program Management Manual. - b. The local, unit is responsible for reimbursing the Department for all DJaterial, equipment, labor, and incidental costs incurred by the DepAltwent in ~11i!\g, maintaining, operating, modifying, or removing the portion of the EVP system at the traffic signal. The ' reimbursement may include monies from paragraph A., ' c. The Depá&twent sbaU bear the total expense of training its persoimel on the mstallation and . mainteDance procedures of the EVP system. , ~ " , ,. TRAFFIC GUIDELINES MANUAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 PAGE r-- c (r-\) Statewide Policy on Funding For Emergency Vehicle Traffic Signal Pre-emption Systems ~ Isne Should Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) fimds be used to fund traffic signal pre-emption systems? h.-Iquoud The purchase of necessary components aJ1CÎ the installation of pñority vehicle control systems (a.k.a. 1111~' sigDal pre-emption systems) in an emelgeDcy vehicle or fleets of vehicles is eligible for reimbursement vtitt Federa1-aid funds. This answer is 'different than it .was prior to passage of the Intennodal S~t"' Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (lSTEA). Previous ÏDtcIpu;tations stated that only the harcN~r- installed on the street or that was part of a traffic surveillance and control system was eligible for Federal-aic participation. Section 1005 paragraph (a) of JSTEA amended 23 US Code Section 101(a) by adding the phrase "inst-11: priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signali7MI ÏDta'sectÏons" to the definitions of activNc; eligible for highway safety improvemem projects. Likewises Section 1021 (c) of ISTEA also added ~ following phrase to the list of projects for which the Federal share payable on account' may amount to 1"1" percent of the cost of construction: "priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signali"Y."" intersections. "The intent of Sections 1005 and 1021 oflSTEA is to permit Fédera1-aid funding participarir." in the implemCDtation of priority control systems so as to include all elements of the.system, including ~ emitters in vehicles. While traffic' signal pre-emption systems are eligible for Federal-aid fimding, the question is whether thi~ ~: the most compelling and best use of the limited HES ñmds. If so, to what ~ should HES .ñmds be USi~ . on what highway systems, in what types of emergency vehicles and for what éomponents? Past Prac:tiees .-:\ Any local govemmenta.I unit, agency, or organization having responsibility for providing emergency Serv:~r.e. has been eligible to request a traffic signal pre-emption system on traffic control signals owned and operrt'p by WisDOT. Department forces have perfonned the installation, maintenance, modification, or remova' 0 the system equipment that is located at the traffic signal. The local unit has been responsible for *, instaUation of the emitting devices in authorized vehicles. Loca1 units are completely responsible for ~ signa) pre-emption systems that might have been installed at signals located on their street networks. . The most common source of funding for the complete traffic signal pre-emption systems has been local funds. While both sending arid receiving equipment have been eligible for Federal-aid as highway safety improvement projects, these projects have not been automaticaJJy accepted into the HES Program. The HE~ - Review Committee has required that a crash history be present at the location that results in a favorable TRAFRC GUIDeLINES MANUAL GUIDELINE 4-2-22.1 PAGE 6 r Project Evaluation Factor (PEF). In a general funding sense, thc Committee has vicwed signal pre-emption systems as similartopavcmcnt marking and signing. AIJ ofthcsc types ofprojccts undoubtedly have saf-~:- bencfits when viewed over an entire highway ~ but the Committee has chosen to focus thc limited HES funds on very specific locations that havc experienced a high number of crashes. Traffic signa] pre-emption systems that have been installed in conjunction with a 3R street or hj.gb~~ improvement project have usually been fundcd as part of that larger project. RES fimds nonnally havc lit.' been used, and this practice is assumed to continue. This paper wi)) only address stand-alone sites that COU~ be candidates for traffic signal pre-emption systems. ' DescriptioD of Need ., The Dmnber of crashes occurring at signåfJZCd inteIsectiODS involving emergeDCy vehicles on a ~~. basis is relatively small. Milwaukee County accounts for the lion's share of these crashes. The following tl~~~. summarizes the crash experience from 1994 to 1996. ' , Table I Year Police Fare Ambulance Total Statewide 1994 45 13 8 66 Milwaukee County 1994 23 6 1 30 Statewide 1995 35 13 9' 57 Milwaukee County 1995 19 8 4 31 Statewide 1996 24 5 11 40 Milwaukee County 1996 15 4 5 24 3- Yr. Avg. 35 10 9 54 Statewide 3-Yr. Avg. 19 6 3 28 Milwaukee County -', '-~ .j TRAFFIC GUIDELINES MANÙAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 PAGE 7 OF 11 i ) '(\ Jternatives There are many possible combinations of options that could be analyzed when consideñng HES funding of tram. signal pre-emption systems. Separate discussions follow on what highway systems, .-what types of emerge""~ vehicles and what components should receive HES funding. 1 .street and Highway Systems - The first question to be answered is what street and . highway systeJJìS should receive HES ñmding for traffic signal pre-emption system$. Options considered were: . . All street and highway systems State Tnmk Higbway(STH)IConnétting Highway(CH) Systems only Principal artcriaI.~ only i- National Highway System (NHS) locations only None. . . . . The nmnber of signalized intersection locations that could be .cligible candidates for HES funding of traffic signal pre-emption systems is unknown at present and cannot be determined without a great deal of efiÌ1rt Therefore, it is difficult to arrive at a reliable cost estimate for each alternative. The following mileage ta"lc gives some sense of the magnitude of the locations that could potentially be requested for HES funding. t,( Table 2 SDæwwe~eSDmm.~ System Urban Rural Total All Streets & Highways 16,011 94,104 110,115 STIilCH 1,440 10,373 11,813 Principal Arterials 1,664 3,993 5,657 NHS 92 3,289 4,216 If one looks at just the urban mileage, which is where the overwhelming majority of candidate signal pre-emptfon projects will likely be located, you can See that the principal arteriaJ system and STHICH SysteD1are 80 and 5S percent, respectively, larger than the NHS. The entire street and highway system is over 17 times larger than the NHS. One can assmne that the nmnber of potential candidate signal pre-emption projects (and costs) would likely be in the same relative proportions. It is assumed that some locations already have signal pre-emption devices, but the exact nmnber of locations are also unknown.. . -r\ TRAFFIC GUIDEUNES MANUAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 PAGE 8 OF 11 2. Types of Emergency Vehicles - The next question is in what types of vehicles should the emitting devj---' ftmded ~ HES fimds. Options considered were: . An (police, fire and ambulance) Fire and ambulance only None . . The Division of Motor Vehicles indicates that there is no. distinct way to use vehicle registration recor~ identify the number of emergency vehicles by type (police, fire or ambulance). This is because thel1~ f' several ways that communities can license their emergency vehiçles. It is safe to assmne that there are me fire response vehicles than ambulances, and far more police vehicles than either of tile aforementiooed. Another factor in determining to what exteJ1tHES fimds should be used to fimd signal pre-emption devic~ emergency vehicles is their use in serving "highway safety" needs vs. "public safety" needs. One can mak~ tt argmnent that ambulances are used the majority of the time for "highway safety" purposes, fire lCSf""': vehicles less so, and police vehicles are largely used for "public safety" purposes. Therefore, the ~~ justification for HES funding can be made for devices in ambulances and perhaps rll'C response vehicles. 3. Components - F'mally, what components should be funded with liES fimds? Options considered were: Both receiving devices (mounted on the mast arm or signal he3d) and the emitting devices (locatì~ . authorized vehicles) Receiving devices only ---~ None . . . Each receiving device mounted on the mast ann or signal head is estimated to cost about $2,800,. , additional $2,200 will be required to install the equipment, for a total cost of mateñaJs and installanon at eac site of approximately $5,000. Emitting devices are estiq)~ed to cost $1,200 per vehicle. TherefolC, the total cost of emitting devic~ largely detennined by the number of vehicles in which they will be installed. Again, it is very difficult to arrive at an estimate of the total demand for HES ñmdingfor traffic s~"m pre-emption projects, not knowing the number of potential candidate signal locations and the nmnbr:r ( emergency vehicles in which funding for emitting devices might be requested. Decision of the RES Review Committee After considering all available infonnation, the HES Review Committee established the following HES ftm<f;... . priorities: Priority I - Fund those traditional projects (signal instaIIatioDS, iDtersection and roadway geoml~ improvements, etc.) at specific locatiODS that have' a crash history that results in a favorable PEF. Si9: pre-emption system projects with a favorable PEF are also eligible aDd will compete against other traditi"G: projects in this priority group. TRAFFIC GUIDEUNES MANUAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 PAGE 9 OF 1'1 ; - ). Priority 2 - If sufficient fund balances remain, fund traffic: signal pre-emption systems that do Dotha"~ : . iavorable PEF at locations that are on the NHS. Priority j - Hfund balances still remaiD, fund traffic: sigDal pre-emptioD systems ~t do Dot have a favon'~I~ fEF at sites that are located OD ANY street or highway system. - The followiug applies to oyapproved sigDal pre-emptioD project, regardless of its priority group: Sites will be prioritized based OD -the crash history iDvolviDg emergency vehides over the past 10 year, . Local peril_eats wiD provide the 10 pen:ent matdL. . . 0II1y the receiviDg derices (moaDted 0."" the mast arm or sigDal head), Deeessary eqDipment to "IN iDstaDed in the traffic: sigDal COD troller cíbinet, aDd associated instaDatiOD costs wiD be eligible costs. . ~Is wiIi be required to flmd the emitting devices located ÌD authorized vehicles. . 0IIIy first time iDstaJIatioDs (DO upgrades) will be faDded with RES fuDcIs. Receiving devices and associated installation costs of traffic signal pre-emption sYstems at sites located on an) County Trunk Highway or local street and highway system, and that cost less than $25,000, aæ eJigible for fimd~~1Q in the Small Local HES Projects Program. (r 'Note: WheD FcderaJ dollars are used to fund traffic signal pre-emption systems, emergenc:y vehicles from 01~ govcmmeutaJ units must be aJlowed to operate the devices. Ratioaale Beca~ the nmnbcr. of crashes OCCun1ng at signalized intersections involving emergency vehicles on a ~~ basis is relatively small (See Table 1), the Committee feh first priority should be given to funding traditic~~ projects at sites that have experienced a high number of crashes. But the Committee also recognized the need tc Provide some fimding assistance for traffic signal preemption systems. Since the. number of signalized intersection locations that could be eligible candidates for HES fimcting of ~c signal pre-emption systems is unknown (and hence, the costs), the Committee decided to take a conscrvarve approach as to what street and highways sYstems would be eligible. Priority 2 projects will be limited to the wrs System, and only if fimd balances remain would projects be ñmded on other systems. This will give fimding priorït, to projects on" the smallest, .yet most important, street and highway network. The NHS routes carry the highest tra:CJic volmncs for emergency vehicles to cope with when responding to calls. The Committee decided that in addition to serving a "highWay safety" purpose, traffic signal preemption systI:~ clearly also serve a "public safety" purpose, e.g. enhancing the response time and safety in responding to struct'TC: fires, cñminaJ activity and serious illnesses. It is difficuh to draw the lin6s of responsibility for each of th~ purposes. It has been decided that the clearest way to divide this responsibility is to assign the street hardware and associated installation costs to the HES Program. The components installed in the vehicles are then considerei a - \ "public safety " purpose and the responsibility of local governments. Locals can decide - how many and what ~,s of vehicles they want to outfit with emitting devices. Also, locals can apply for other types of Federal-aid to ft""1d ~g devices, such as STP-Urban or STP-Rural (20 percent local match required). TRAFFIC GUIDEUNES MANUAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 . PAGE100F11: Bow to Request DES FudiDg -- Submit a package for each candidate traffic signal pre-emption project for addition to the HES Program to tit<< WisDOT District Office that includes: I . Completed HES Project Application Form. See Document No. 05-06-03 ofW'JSI)()T's Program .MaDagemeat MauL 2. Copies of all crash reports (MV4000) involving emergency vehicles at the site(s). Also see Docmnent No. 4-2-22.1 of W"JSDOTs TnfIie GuideliDes Manual for more technical details. OnCe.. installation has been approved for a location that involves traffic con1rOl signals owned and operated by tb Dcpaabllent, an Emergency Vehicle Pre-empti~.System Agreement must be executed. Docúment No. 4-2-22.1 contains a copy of the agreement form. .,'. Approval On November 2, 1998, the liES Review Committee approved this Statewide Policy on HES Funding of Trafñ Signal fre.emption Systems.. ~ .---\ \r- I- I " r"j TRAFFIC GUIDEUNES MANUAL GUIDEUNE 4-2-22.1 PAGE 11 OF 11 ) WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Emergency Vehicle Pre-emptio1l (EVP) System Â.greemetlt This is a binding agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the , . . This agreement.stipulates the terms and conditions for use 'of Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (EVP) sy~ at the state-o~ed traffic control signal located at the intersection of ...' in the of Description of route: Listing of estimated number of vehicles to be outfitted: Will Department or Local Agency provide inventory of spare parts (specify which) The Department's Guideline for Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption (Traffic Guidelines Manual 4-2-22..1) and the policy for Use of Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emptio1l (EVP) Systems at State Owned Traffic Co1llro1 Sig"~ is hereby made a part of this agreement (copy attached). By entering into this agreement, the local govermnel1 agrees to the tenDS and cost ammgements in the TGM document. The following speciaJ terms or conditjor~ also apply to this agreement: ACCEPTED FOR THE . BY Local Govemmeat DAlE TITLE . APPROVED BY THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY DAlE TITLE