Guidance for wireless linking of detectors

Mark Crabtree
Transport Research Laboratory
October 2010

Introduction
At many traffic signal controlled installations, it can be difficult and expensive to use loop
based detections systems because of difficulties in connecting the feeder cable from the loop to
the detector unit housed in signal controller. A number of local constraints may limit the use of
buried systems. These include:
Where the feeder cable is in a particularly decorative area which would be costly to
reinstate;
where the traffic management required is costly;
where many services are present under the pavement either getting in the way of
further trenching, or requiring frequent maintenance, which often results in the feeder
being cut;
where the installation is on a bridge where and ducting isnt possible.
Overcoming these obstacles may be possible only with wireless linking. However, there are
many situations where the use of wireless linking may itself not be possible. Inappropriate use
of such systems may lead to inefficient operation and will compromise safety. Safety and
efficiency are key factors to take into consideration when deciding which system to choose. It
is important to note that, as well as continuing efforts to improve safety, there remains the
need to improve capacity and minimise delay using the existing infrastructure.
The primary aim of this document is to assist scheme designers make informed decisions with
regards to what systems might be suitable for MOVA; in particular where wireless linking of
detectors for some or all approaches is being considered. Installation and maintenance issues
are also discussed. It is vitally important to consider carefully whether wireless linking is
appropriate for a given set of circumstances.
Most of the wireless data transfer systems on the market use an unlicensed radio band, giving
rise to potential safety and efficiency issues, especially when used with MOVA. This note also
touches on the installation requirements to promote reliable operation.
It is important to note that the use of wireless linking of Speed Assessment or Speed
Discrimination Equipment (SA/SDE) is not advised. There are transmission delays in the
processing of the detection signal which can lead to inaccurate measurement of speed.
This document does not seek to replace any existing guidance produced by the
manufacturers or from other sources (eg DfT guidance). In particular, safe working
procedures, adherence to any health and safety regulations, any requirements for
those people involved to have suitable qualifications, or to demonstrate competence,
are NOT covered in this document.

Safety and MOVA

Evidence suggests that MOVA improves safety over the use of VA with SA/SDE (Crabtree and
Kennedy, 2005) when installed to an acceptable standard. Some of the safety benefits occur
due to the way MOVA operates, i.e. the way it changes away from green in response to the
approaching traffic. The efficiency improvements of MOVA have been well established and
efficiency improvements are generally considered to improve safety.
The safety benefits were found at sites using loop detection connected via a feeder cable
directly to the detector electronic packs in the traffic signal controller. This gives reliable
information exchange between both systems. One of the disadvantages is that the feeder cable
needs trenching, which can be very expensive and in some cases difficult to provide, e.g. on
iron-work bridge decking or historic pavement. The feeder is also susceptible to damage during
street works. There are additional traffic management costs to take into consideration when
carrying out installation or repair work.
Wireless linking of traffic control systems therefore can offer advantages over hard-wired
systems in some circumstances. It is, however, important to ensure that the reliability of the
information exchange between the detector and the controller is not compromised. Some of
the issues of concern are listed below but the list is not exhaustive:
The permitted signal power for the unlicensed band is low, resulting in a maximum
distance for reliable transmission often being stated as 300m maximum with clear line-
of-sight between transmitter and receiver;
The presence of buildings nearby, even if not directly in the line of sight, can lead to
fading due to signals taking multiple paths;
The unlicensed band is already heavily used and so is the subject of potential
interference from other users of the same band. In some cases, a situation may
become unsatisfactory in the future as the airwaves become even more crowded.

When to choose wireless linking

The ultimate aim of any traffic signal installation is to maximise the benefits to all road users in
terms of safety and efficiency. If MOVA is likely to best satisfy safety and efficiency
requirements for a particular site, but there are significant problems in providing detection via
feeder cable, if wireless linking provides a potential solution, it should be considered. However,
it is important to ensure that when using wireless linking, the performance and reliability is
close to that of a hard-wired system. It would be prudent to assume that, as an absolute
minimum, detection rates must be no worse than 97 percent of that provided by a hard-wired
system, and that transmission delays must be no longer than second.

Procedural requirements for ensuring suitability for wireless linking

Initial considerations
Once the factors relating to the decision to use wireless linking have been identified, the
following actions must be undertaken:
1. Consider and justify MOVA as the most desirable solution for the site by comparing
alternative systems that may not need wireless linking e.g. MVD operated VA;
2. Estimate as robustly as possible the full-life cost of using feeder cable and wireless
linking. Include in this:
a. The cost of supplying power to the wireless linking system (including solar or
wind options);
b. The cost of any traffic management requirements for installation and
maintenance;
c. An estimate of the likelihood and disruption due to streetworks over the life of
the two alternatives, remembering that a wireless link may still require power
that can itself be the subject of disruption;
d. The costs of assessing the suitability of a wireless link, including any post-
installation assessment and on-going maintenance costs;
e. The cost of the necessary equipment.
 An accurate cost of the wireless link installation will not be possible until a full survey
has been carried out and a quote made, but an estimate would be required to provide
the justification for considering the use of wireless linking on the basis of a similar cost
estimate for a hard-wired link;
3. Ensure the Local Highway Authority, the designers and installers are aware of all their
legal obligations to provide a safe working system;
4. Document how the wireless linking system would be assessed during validation and
beyond for safe and efficient operation. Document how continuous monitoring of
operation will be carried out. Consider the likelihood and the consequences of the
wireless link not performing, post installation, to a high enough standard.
5. Carefully consider all possible failure modes (including partial and transient faults) and
document procedures for identifying them and timely remedial action;
6. The cost of necessary equipment.
All of these points must be carefully documented to provide a robust audit trail in addition to
satisfying the normal quality assurance processes, such as capturing lessons learnt etc. Any
installation will be subject to a satisfactory survey carried out by the supplier.

Assessing suitability
Assuming that the option of using wireless linking is considered favourable, the suitability of
each approach will need to be thoroughly assessed. Manufacturers will have their own
procedures for making that assessment: it will be the LHAs responsibility to ensure that the
procedures put forward are satisfactory and carried out as specified by the manufacturer
and/or contractor.
A thorough site survey will be required. As already stated, this document does not seek to
instruct or advise how such surveys will be conducted. However, an understanding of the basic
requirements will be a useful aid to the designer in fulfilling the fundamental requirements of
the whole system. Below is an outline of the requirements for wireless linking using a power-
limited unlicensed radio band:
1. Because of the limited power, and the signal attenuation caused by obstructions, it is
necessary that the antennae have line-of-sight. Furthermore, there must be no
significant obstruction within a specified distance from a line drawn between two
antennae (the axis line). This is known as the Fresnel Zone and is effectively an
elongated rugby ball formed around the axis line. The Fresnel Zone needs to be
between 1 and 2 metres radius from the axis line, depending on the distance between
the two antennae.
2. If there are obstructions, or the distance between antennae is greater than the limited
power can cater for, repeater radios may become necessary.
3. Where the radio signal crosses the road, will the signal be obscured by high-sided
vehicles to an unacceptable extent, particularly where two or more travel in convoy,
causing a relatively lengthy interruption. Very occasional interruptions may be
tolerable, but the design should aim to avoid any such interruptions and the 97%
minimum count reliability must be achieved.
4. Consideration should be given to long term functionality and reliability of the complete
system. Some issues to consider include:
a. Trees if the survey is done when trees are not in leaf consider whether they
will cause an obstruction when they are; and also consider how the trees might
grow, and any maintenance requirements that might stem from that;
b. Any planning applications in process that might have an effect;
 c. The possibility of any other obstructions being erected street lighting columns,
advertisement hoardings, fences, etc. Routine maintenance and monitoring will
ensure safe and efficient operation.
5. Existing use of unlicensed radio bands in the area needs to be monitored carefully and
for an extended period, possibly up to a week. The potential future increase in use of
the unlicensed band must also be considered;
6. Possible pole locations and power sources will need to be identified during the survey.
Once the survey is complete, the manufacturer/contractor would be able to make better
informed decisions with regards to whether a wireless linking between the two systems is
feasible and provide a quote for the installation. If the whole-life cost of using feeder cable is
similar to that of using wireless linking, linking via feeder cable is recommended.

Reviews
The author is grateful to the following for their reviews and input to this document:
Suku Phull (DfT)
Keith Manston (Siemens)
Andrew Hodge (PEEK)
Lee Shepherd (AGD)
Dave Kinnaird (representing TSG)

Reference
Crabtree, M R and J V Kennedy (2005). The Safety of MOVA at high speed junctions. TRL
Report TRL631. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.