Case Study-Georgia NaviGAtor

NaviGAtor, Georgia's intelligent transportation system, was originally conceived to address the needs created by the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta. Although the program's primary objective is to facilitate navigation of Georgia Roads through the dissemination of accurate and timely information to motorists, NaviGAtor's mission has been expanded to serve as part of the Georgia DOT's state wide freeway incident management program.

NaviGAtor benefits from a high level of inter-agency integration. The TMC, a 73,498 square-foot facility, is linked to the Transportation Control Centers (TCCs) of five surrounding counties (Cobb, Gwinnett, Clayton, Fulton and Dekalb), the City of Atlanta, and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), creating an intelligent transportation network spanning more than 220 freeway miles. The top floor of the TMC houses the area's motorist assistance patrol program and the state's commercial vehicle operations enforcement program. The TMC has access to the fiber optic network, three radio systems, and an aerial surveillance microwave link.

map of georgia, cities cobb, gwinnett, fulton, dekalb, atlanta, decatur, stone mtn, morrow, union city, and riverdale listed along with the corresponding freeways.

NaviGAtor uses vehicle detectors, closed-circuit television, variable message signs, and ramp meters communicating over a fiber optic and microwave network. The Incident Management Program involves the following procedures to ensure prompt relaying to the public, allowing motorists to make informed choices about their transportation options:

  • Information is garnered from the detection system, Highway Emergency Response Operators (HEROs), and the public.

  • Information is processed using Geographic Information Systems software

  • Appropriate response plan is formulated, reviewed, and implemented

  • Information is communicated to the public

Since the implementation of NaviGAtor, the following improvements have been reported:

  • 74% reduction in mean time between report and verification of an incident

  • 50% reduction in mean time between incident verification and automated generation of incident response

  • 38% reduction in mean time between incident verification and clearance of traffic lanes

  • 76% reduction in maximum time between incident verification and clearance of traffic lanes

 

Previous Page / Next Page