Current Traffic Light Systems:<br />•	Expensive outlay / high replacement costs <br />•	High maintenance<br />•	Long “down...
*The Extent of Crashes Involving Poles<br /> <br />A study by Pilkington in 1988, found that 14.4 percent of roadside cras...
Author(s)<br />Location<br />Extent of Roadside Crashes<br />Lawson<br />West Midlands, UK, 1980-1982<br />32% of fatal<br...
Impact damage - current system<br />
Residual damage - current system<br />
Advantages of the MTLS:<br />•	Zero impact resistance causes no injury to <br />	motorists and minimal damage to pavements...
Cable is tensioned to 3500kg to keep structure rigid<br />Cable runs up the center of the whole structure, anchored to the...
Assembled View <br />with Backing Board<br />Exploded View <br />without Backing Board<br />Hanging Overhead Signal Head<b...
Boom Supported Signal Head<br />
Multiple head construction<br />
Sandton City Intersection<br />
JRA Approval<br />
Current signal heads on test<br />Dubai Road &Transport Authority<br />
Dubai RTA approval setup<br />
Dubai RTA approval setup<br />(Total time for erection : 18 minutes)<br />
MTLS collapses on impact<br />
COST SAVINGS - REPAIRS<br />•	No need for 5 ton truck<br />•	No need for large work crews<br />•	No need to re-throw concr...
MTLS maintenance requires:<br />•	NO galvanizing<br />•	NO painting<br />• 	NO cutting<br />• 	NO large work-trucks<br />•...
Phase 1	Presented solution with No power cables – 		24 Volt LED<br />Phase 2	Solar Powered signals and wireless 			comm.<b...
Community Safety & Security<br />Due to its modular format and <br />open architecture MTLS can <br />accommodate a wide v...
MTLS system can accommodate LPR and general surveillance cameras. <br />	These cameras feed live video footage to a Centra...
General surveillance cameras inside the MTLS<br />
LPR cameras inside the MTLS for real time videoidentification and red flagging of stolen or suspicious vehicles<br />Day<b...
Current Street Light Systems:<br />•	High impact resistant poles causes injury to 	motorists and damage to pavements & veh...
MTLS segments<br />
MTLS segments<br />
From the above MTLS segments any of these configurations can be built<br />
Traditional main road streetlight.<br />Parking lot with no lighting or adverts<br />
Main road street light & camera.<br />Parking lot lights with advertising boards.<br />
Traditional highway lighting<br />
Highway lighting with traffic monitoring and<br />security camera<br />
Traditional highway off-ramp lighting poles. <br />
Highway off ramp lighting <br />
Pedestrian walkway with no lighting <br />
Street  lighting with pedestrian light and traffic info sign <br />
BECOME RESPONSIBLE, <br />MAKE THE RIGHT  DECISION AND <br />MAKE A CHANGE TO YOUR COMMUNITY SAFETY!  <br />WINNER OF A  <...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

MTLS

576 views

Published on

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
576
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MTLS

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4. Current Traffic Light Systems:<br />• Expensive outlay / high replacement costs <br />• High maintenance<br />• Long “down time” for repairs after accidents<br />• High impact resistant poles causes injury to motorists and damage to pavements & vehicles<br />• Energy in-efficient incandescent lighting <br />• Limited lamp lifetime<br />Current Traffic Light Systems<br />
  5. 5. *The Extent of Crashes Involving Poles<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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%).<br /> <br />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)<br /> <br />*From an international report to the Motor Accident Commission from the University of Adelaide Austarlia May 1999.<br />
  6. 6. Author(s)<br />Location<br />Extent of Roadside Crashes<br />Lawson<br />West Midlands, UK, 1980-1982<br />32% of fatal<br />Lawson<br />Birmingham, 1980-1982<br />7% of injury crashes<br />Proctor<br />Great Britain, 1994<br />18 585 casualty<br />Nilsson & Wenall<br />Sweden<br />25% of fatal<br />de Leur et al<br />British Columbia, Canada 1991<br />16.9% of highway crashes<br />Tignor et al (1982)<br />USA 1980<br />20 000 fatalities (40%)<br />Mak & Mason<br />USA 1976<br />11.7% of all crashes<br />Kedjidjian<br />USA 1991<br />30% fatal<br />Ray, Troxel & Carney<br />USA 1980-1985<br />33% of all crashes<br />Corben et al<br />Victoria, Australia 1994<br />23% of casualty<br />Sanderson & Fildes<br />Victoria, Australia 1978-1982<br />22% of casualty<br />The extent of Roadside Crashes as reported in <br />the entire report<br />
  7. 7. Impact damage - current system<br />
  8. 8. Residual damage - current system<br />
  9. 9. Advantages of the MTLS:<br />• Zero impact resistance causes no injury to <br /> motorists and minimal damage to pavements and vehicles<br />• Economic outlay / low replacement costs <br />• Zero maintenance<br />• Rapid repairs after accidents<br />• Energy efficient LED lighting<br />• Extended lamp lifetime (up to 100,000 hrs)<br />Modular Traffic Light Systems<br />
  10. 10. Cable is tensioned to 3500kg to keep structure rigid<br />Cable runs up the center of the whole structure, anchored to the foundation<br />Modular Traffic Light Systems<br />Exploded View<br />
  11. 11. Assembled View <br />with Backing Board<br />Exploded View <br />without Backing Board<br />Hanging Overhead Signal Head<br />
  12. 12. Boom Supported Signal Head<br />
  13. 13. Multiple head construction<br />
  14. 14. Sandton City Intersection<br />
  15. 15. JRA Approval<br />
  16. 16. Current signal heads on test<br />Dubai Road &Transport Authority<br />
  17. 17. Dubai RTA approval setup<br />
  18. 18. Dubai RTA approval setup<br />(Total time for erection : 18 minutes)<br />
  19. 19. MTLS collapses on impact<br />
  20. 20. COST SAVINGS - REPAIRS<br />• No need for 5 ton truck<br />• No need for large work crews<br />• No need to re-throw concrete<br /> foundation<br />• Repair time reduced<br />• Reduced insurance premiums <br />Cost Savings with MTLS<br />
  21. 21. MTLS maintenance requires:<br />• NO galvanizing<br />• NO painting<br />• NO cutting<br />• NO large work-trucks<br />• NO large work crews<br />Ultra Low Maintenance<br />
  22. 22. Phase 1 Presented solution with No power cables – 24 Volt LED<br />Phase 2 Solar Powered signals and wireless comm.<br />Phase 3 Single light system<br />The MTLS is a work in process<br />
  23. 23. Community Safety & Security<br />Due to its modular format and <br />open architecture MTLS can <br />accommodate a wide variety of <br />electronic, monitoring and <br />surveillance equipment.<br />Open Architecture (Camera)<br />
  24. 24. MTLS system can accommodate LPR and general surveillance cameras. <br /> 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!<br />Before<br />After<br />
  25. 25. General surveillance cameras inside the MTLS<br />
  26. 26. LPR cameras inside the MTLS for real time videoidentification and red flagging of stolen or suspicious vehicles<br />Day<br />Night<br />
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
  29. 29.
  30. 30. Current Street Light Systems:<br />• High impact resistant poles causes injury to motorists and damage to pavements & vehicles<br />• Expensive outlay / high replacement costs <br />• High maintenance<br />• Long “down time” for repairs after accidents<br />Current Street Light Systems<br />
  31. 31. MTLS segments<br />
  32. 32. MTLS segments<br />
  33. 33. From the above MTLS segments any of these configurations can be built<br />
  34. 34. Traditional main road streetlight.<br />Parking lot with no lighting or adverts<br />
  35. 35. Main road street light & camera.<br />Parking lot lights with advertising boards.<br />
  36. 36. Traditional highway lighting<br />
  37. 37. Highway lighting with traffic monitoring and<br />security camera<br />
  38. 38. Traditional highway off-ramp lighting poles. <br />
  39. 39. Highway off ramp lighting <br />
  40. 40. Pedestrian walkway with no lighting <br />
  41. 41. Street lighting with pedestrian light and traffic info sign <br />
  42. 42. BECOME RESPONSIBLE, <br />MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND <br />MAKE A CHANGE TO YOUR COMMUNITY SAFETY! <br />WINNER OF A <br />

×