Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
MTLS
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

MTLS

326

Published on

Modular Traffic Light Systems

Modular Traffic Light Systems

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
326
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1.
  • 2.
  • 3.
  • 4. Current Traffic Light Systems:
    • Expensive outlay / high replacement costs
    • High maintenance
    • Long “down time” for repairs after accidents
    • High impact resistant poles causes injury to motorists and damage to pavements & vehicles
    • Energy in-efficient incandescent lighting
    • Limited lamp lifetime
    Current Traffic Light Systems
  • 5. *The Extent of Crashes Involving Poles
     
    A study by Pilkington in 1988, found that 14.4 percent of roadside crashes in the US involved traffic light poles and street light poles, it was added that this number would serve as an underestimate of the true extent of such crashes due to a sizeable percentage of pole accidents not being reported. This number of pole crashes equates to a rate of 0.12 pole crashes per mile of roadway per year. It was found that rural and urban pole crash rates were the same, with these crashes involving 34 per 100 million vehicles passing in both settings. Pole crashes were 6 times more likely than other crashes to lead to a fatality and 3 times more likely to sustain fatal injuries. 80 percent were frontal impacts and the remaining 20 percent were side impacts, with the latter more commonly producing a fatality.
     
    Jones and Baum also conducted a study into pole crashes in the US, focusing on urban settings. Police reports nationwide for 1975 included 8000 pole crashes. Poles were the most frequently struck roadside object (21.1%), comprising 2.2% of all crashes. These crashes, more importantly, featured the highest injury rate (50.5%) for all crashes, excepting rollovers (52.6%).
     
    Another study was conducted by Mak and Mason (1981), looking at both urban and rural crashes. Poles were among the most frequently struck roadside objects, accounting for 28.4% of roadside crashes and 3.3% of all crashes. These authors also reported a high rate of injuries and fatalities for pole crashes with 1.2% causing a fatality (6.2 times more likely than the average crash) and 43.4% causing injuries (3 times more likely)
     
    *From an international report to the Motor Accident Commission from the University of Adelaide Austarlia May 1999.
  • 6. Author(s)
    Location
    Extent of Roadside Crashes
    Lawson
    West Midlands, UK, 1980-1982
    32% of fatal
    Lawson
    Birmingham, 1980-1982
    7% of injury crashes
    Proctor
    Great Britain, 1994
    18 585 casualty
    Nilsson & Wenall
    Sweden
    25% of fatal
    de Leur et al
    British Columbia, Canada 1991
    16.9% of highway crashes
    Tignor et al (1982)
    USA 1980
    20 000 fatalities (40%)
    Mak & Mason
    USA 1976
    11.7% of all crashes
    Kedjidjian
    USA 1991
    30% fatal
    Ray, Troxel & Carney
    USA 1980-1985
    33% of all crashes
    Corben et al
    Victoria, Australia 1994
    23% of casualty
    Sanderson & Fildes
    Victoria, Australia 1978-1982
    22% of casualty
    The extent of Roadside Crashes as reported in
    the entire report
  • 7. Impact damage - current system
  • 8. Residual damage - current system
  • 9. Advantages of the MTLS:
    • Zero impact resistance causes no injury to
    motorists and minimal damage to pavements and vehicles
    • Economic outlay / low replacement costs
    • Zero maintenance
    • Rapid repairs after accidents
    • Energy efficient LED lighting
    • Extended lamp lifetime (up to 100,000 hrs)
    Modular Traffic Light Systems
  • 10. Cable is tensioned to 3500kg to keep structure rigid
    Cable runs up the center of the whole structure, anchored to the foundation
    Modular Traffic Light Systems
    Exploded View
  • 11. Assembled View
    with Backing Board
    Exploded View
    without Backing Board
    Hanging Overhead Signal Head
  • 12. Boom Supported Signal Head
  • 13. Multiple head construction
  • 14. Sandton City Intersection
  • 15. JRA Approval
  • 16. Current signal heads on test
    Dubai Road &Transport Authority
  • 17. Dubai RTA approval setup
  • 18. Dubai RTA approval setup
    (Total time for erection : 18 minutes)
  • 19. MTLS collapses on impact
  • 20. COST SAVINGS - REPAIRS
    • No need for 5 ton truck
    • No need for large work crews
    • No need to re-throw concrete
    foundation
    • Repair time reduced
    • Reduced insurance premiums
    Cost Savings with MTLS
  • 21. MTLS maintenance requires:
    • NO galvanizing
    • NO painting
    • NO cutting
    • NO large work-trucks
    • NO large work crews
    Ultra Low Maintenance
  • 22. Phase 1 Presented solution with No power cables – 24 Volt LED
    Phase 2 Solar Powered signals and wireless comm.
    Phase 3 Single light system
    The MTLS is a work in process
  • 23. Community Safety & Security
    Due to its modular format and
    open architecture MTLS can
    accommodate a wide variety of
    electronic, monitoring and
    surveillance equipment.
    Open Architecture (Camera)
  • 24. MTLS system can accommodate LPR and general surveillance cameras.
    These cameras feed live video footage to a Central Surveillance Destination of choice. As stolen or suspicious vehicles are detected through database interrogation, local law enforcement will be notified immediately. Proactive community policing!
    Before
    After
  • 25. General surveillance cameras inside the MTLS
  • 26. LPR cameras inside the MTLS for real time videoidentification and red flagging of stolen or suspicious vehicles
    Day
    Night
  • 27.
  • 28.
  • 29.
  • 30. Current Street Light Systems:
    • High impact resistant poles causes injury to motorists and damage to pavements & vehicles
    • Expensive outlay / high replacement costs
    • High maintenance
    • Long “down time” for repairs after accidents
    Current Street Light Systems
  • 31. MTLS segments
  • 32. MTLS segments
  • 33. From the above MTLS segments any of these configurations can be built
  • 34. Traditional main road streetlight.
    Parking lot with no lighting or adverts
  • 35. Main road street light & camera.
    Parking lot lights with advertising boards.
  • 36. Traditional highway lighting
  • 37. Highway lighting with traffic monitoring and
    security camera
  • 38. Traditional highway off-ramp lighting poles.
  • 39. Highway off ramp lighting
  • 40. Pedestrian walkway with no lighting
  • 41. Street lighting with pedestrian light and traffic info sign
  • 42. BECOME RESPONSIBLE,
    MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND
    MAKE A CHANGE TO YOUR COMMUNITY SAFETY!
    WINNER OF A

×