partners using archived operations data & vpp suite user
TRANSCRIPT
Partners Using Archived Operations Data &VPP Suite User Group Meeting
April 3, 2014
www.I95Coalition.org I-95 Corridor Coalition Travel Information Services PTC2
Meeting Requests All Participants – in person and via webcast
– Questions will be addressed at the end of each presentation
– Please give your name and agency before asking your question (at least the first time)
Participation in person– Please remember all sounds are picked up by the audio system
Participation via webcast– Please keep your phone muted until asking a question or speaking
(press *6 to mute/unmute individual phone lines)
– Please do not place call “on hold” as your hold music will be heard by the group
April 3, 2014
www.I95Coalition.org I-95 Corridor Coalition Travel Information Services PTC
Housekeeping Items
April 3, 2014
3
Additional Webcast & Audio Information
• Please call 610-662-5569 for difficulties with the web or audio application
Presentations will be available
• Contact Information will be available at the end of this presentation
www.I95Coalition.org I-95 Corridor Coalition Travel Information Services PTC
Joint Meeting Participants
April 3, 2014
4
In PersonAgency Name Agency Name
FHWA Bob Rupert Baltimore Metropolitan Council Ed Stylc
New Jersey DOT John Allen Clear Channel/TTWN Hubert Clay
New Jersey DOT Andrew Ludasi Iteris Scott Perley
Pennsylvania DOT Lou Belmonte Skycomp Gregory Jordan
Pennsylvania DOT Mark Kopko NJIT (for NJDOT) Branislav Dimitrijevic
Pennsylvania DOT Bob Pento INRIX Rick Schuman
DVRPC Jesse Buerk I-95 Corridor Coalition Marygrace Parker
DVRPC Chris King I-95 Corridor Coalition George Schoener
DVRPC Zoe Neaderland University of Maryland Stan Young
NJTPA Mary Ameen University of Maryland/CATT Lab Michael Pack
NJTPA Sutapa Bhattacharjee KMJ Consulting, Inc. Karen Jehanian
NJTPA Keith Miller KMJ Consulting, Inc. Joanna Reagle
www.I95Coalition.org I-95 Corridor Coalition Travel Information Services PTC
Joint Meeting Participants
April 3, 2014
5
Via WebcastAgency Name Agency Name
FHWA Rich Taylor Boston MPO Ryan Hicks
Florida DOT Gene Glotzbach City of Charlotte, NC Nabeel Akhtar
Georgia DOT Chad Hendon MWCOG Wenjing Pu
Maryland SHA Subrat Mahapatra MWCOG Jon Schermann
Massachusetts DOT Pete Sutton Potomac & RappahannockTransp. Comm. Chuck Steigerwald
New Jersey DOT Neha Galgali Richmond Regional PDC Tiffany Dubinsky
New Jersey DOT Simon Nwachukwu Richmond Regional PDC Greta Ryan
New Jersey DOT Sudhir Joshi South Jersey TPO David Heller
New York State DOT Giselle Vagnini Southwestern PA Commission Doug Smith
North Carolina DOT Kelly Wells GEWI North America Eli Sherer
South Carolina DOT Tisha Dickerson Jacobs (for RIDOT) Bill Nordstrom
South Carolina DOT Dipak Patel TrafInfo (for RIDOT) Deanna Peabody
Vermont AOT Robert White Villanova University Seri Park
Virginia DOT Scott Cowherd KMJ Consulting, Inc. Bridget Postlewaite
Virginia DOT Mena Lockwood
Virginia DOT Sahita Lahiri
Agenda Overview
• Three minute updates on use of archived operations data for planning
• MAP-21 performance measures • Technical issues• Next Steps and meeting wrap-up
Updates by Users
• NCDOT: Kelly Wells, Mobility Program Manager• BMC: Ed Stylc, Survey Manager• VDOT: Mena Lockwood, Asst. State Traffic Engineer• SJTPO: David Heller, Team Leader• NJDOT: John Allen, Section Chief, Bureau of
Commuter/Mobility Strategies• DVRPC: Jesse Buerk & Zoe Neaderland
Kelly Wells, NCDOTVPP User Delay Cost for Special Events
• Incident Mgmt. specialist used VPP to calculate User Delay Costs. “This can’t be right?!?!?” Case was major accident after Panthers Game
• Realized that must account for things like– Volume: not typical Sunday PM hourly volume– Commercial / Passenger split: all added volume is
passenger– Occupancy: not typical 1.25
• CATT Lab: Use formulae to account for these factors
What Can We Do?Decision‐MakersWe cannot build our way out of congestion. Transportation investments must go toward maintaining the existing system and improving operations to reduce congestion and the effects of incidents. When possible, find dedicated, additional funding for transportation.
Planners, Engineers and Other Partners• Consider operations strategies, such as emergency traffic patrol, incident management
task forces, traffic signal coordination and intersection improvements.• Incorporate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) by making it more desirable to
live near jobs and more convenient to walk, bicycle and take transit; we need to address demand as well as supply of transportation.
• In addition to reducing congestion, review other ways to help freight move reliably.
All of Us• Check conditions before departing to consider transportation mode, route and least‐
congested time to travel if you have flexibility.• Drive safely to reduce the likelihood of a crash.• Learn about and participate in transportation planning and funding decisions.
Agencies at Work Baltimore Regional Transportation Board (BRTB) builds consensus among transportation agencies in the Baltimore metropolitan region.
Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) mission is to enhance the quality of life for Maryland’s citizens by providing a balanced and sustainable multi-modal transportation system for safe, efficient passenger and freight movement.
State Highway Administration (SHA) is responsible for planning, designing, building and maintaining the State’s highways and bridges.
Maryland Transportation Authority (MDTA) is responsible for planning, designing, building and maintaining the State’s tolled highways and bridges
Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) operates local and commuter buses, light rail, metro subway, commuter rail, and paratransit system.
Everyday ResourcesMD 511 - www.md511.org
StreetSmart –http://www.bmorestreetsmart.com/
CHART -http://www.chart.state.md.us/
MTA Trip Planner -http://mta.maryland.gov/
Publication Number: 1Staff Contact: Eileen SingletonPrincipal Transportation [email protected]
Abstract: Congestion is getting harder to manage, but tools to analyze it and cost-effective measures are getting better. This is the first in a series of brochures using archived operations data to understand the causes of congestion and what can be done about it. The focus corridor for this edition is MD 295 in the vicinity of MD 175, however the emphasis on operations, multimodal approaches, and partnerships as realistic approaches to congestion are widely applicable.
The Baltimore Regional Transportation Board is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Baltimore region. The BRTB is an 11 member board representing the cites of Annapolis and Baltimore; Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford and Howard counties; the Maryland Departments of Transportation, Environment,, and Planning; and the Maryland Transit Administration. The Baltimore Metropolitan Council provides technical and staff support to the BRTB.
Photo Credits: Ed Stylc; Baltimore Metropolitan Council; US Park Service Web Page
This Edition: MD 295 in the
vicinity of MD 175
Congestion costs each traveler in this 4‐mile section $2,400 per year!
Inside: New tools and what you can do to reduce congestion
Sitting intraffic again?
We all have better things to do…
agency logo
March 2014
Agency logo
Recurring CongestionThe average northbound travel speed on the 4-mile section of MD 295 between MD 175 and MD 198 drops from 65 mph to 34 mph during the afternoon peak hour on weekdays in 2013.
Effective, Low-Cost Strategies Current and Potential Use on MD 295Recurring CongestionTraffic Signal Optimization on parallel roads, such as US 1, could reduce traffic on MD 295 by making it more attractive for shorter trips to be made on local roads. In 2012, the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) reviewed the signal timing at 256 signals in the Baltimore region. Changes were made to 113 signals resulting in an annual delay reduction of 468,000 hours.Source: SHA
Non-Recurring CongestionCurrent Strategies:The state’s Coordinated Highways Action Response Team (CHART) helps reduce congestion on MD 295, as well as throughout the state, by providing traffic and incident management, emergency management and response, and safety patrols and assistance to motorists. In 2012, the CHART program provided the following benefits to the users of our highway system:• User cost savings of about $1 billion, from
reductions in travel delay, fuel consumption and emissions.
• Over 63,000 incident responses and assists to stranded motorists.
• A 24 percent reduction in incident duration due to CHART operations.
• Benefit to cost ratio of 30 to 1.Source: 2012 CHART Performance Evaluation and Benefits
Analysis, University of Maryland, July 2013
Potential Strategies:• Around the clock safety patrols on MD 295.• Increased availability and use of real-time
traffic data on MD 295 and parallel roadways to speed incident notification to travelers and operators and enable routing of traffic to alternate routes
The Story of One Corridor: MD 295 in the vicinity of MD 175MD 295 carries over 100,000 vehicles a day. Congestion is especially a problem northbound on an average afternoon. Investments to improve reliability would help in this situation.
Non-Recurring CongestionCrashes, construction and weather are among the reasons for frustrating non-recurring congestion. For example, on Wednesday, October 9, 2013, a crash in a southbound lane at 4:54 a.m. closed MD 295 in both directions, causing a 5-hour traffic jam. Implementing measures to reduce the number of crashes and the time to clear them will increase the safety of our transportation system while reducing non-recurring congestion.
This section has a high crash rate (69.2 accidents / hundred million vehicle miles traveled)*. In 2012, 126 incidents directly affected commuters over this 4-mile segment, which carried an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of 95,000 vehicles. Specifically:• 22 people were injured• 30 crashes were reported to police (96 total crashes).
*Calculated using crash rate for a Roadway Segment (RSEG )Source: ITE Traffic Engineering Handbook: 6th Edition
The source of most of the data and analysis in this brochure is the I‐95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project (VPP) Suite. For information, see www.i95coalition.org.
Managing congestion is hard in the 21st century – insufficient funding and ever‐increasing traffic pose a challenge to providing an efficient transportation system for all. Fortunately, we have a new generation of analytic tools, enhanced strategies and better cooperation among organizations.
ReliabilityOn an incident-free afternoon, it takes about 4 minutes to drive through this segment. However, travel frequently slows down due to factors such as crashes, construction and weather. You would need to budget almost 15 minutes – nearly quadruple the time – to be on time.
Average Speed
PLANNING INDEX TIME
AVERAGE TRAVEL SPEED Section: MD 198 to MD 175
TRAVEL SPEED ON OCTOBER 9, 2013
Posted Speed: 55mph
Partners Using Archived Operations Data & VPP Suite User GroupAndrew TracyTransportation Planner, [email protected] 3rd, 2014
SOUTH JERSEYTRANSPORTATIONPLANNING ORGANIZATION
About the regionMajor corridors: Garden State Parkway (Newark-Cape May)
AC Expressway (Philly-Atlantic City)
NJ-55/47 (Philly-Cape May)
US-40 (Wilmington-AC)
• Congestion is highly seasonal on shore routes
55
47
Based on DVRPC’s template
Covers three roadways on the Philly-AC corridor
Computing congestion performance measures
Travel time data from VPP Massive
Raw Data Downloader
VPP roadway segment (TMC)
database
Roadway performance measures (speed
profiles, PTI, BTI, etc.)
GIS output for analysis and visualization (by
joining to TMC shapefile)
Python script
South Jersey Performance Report
(in progress)
Partners Using Archived Operations Data & VPP Suite User GroupAndrew TracyTransportation Planner, [email protected] 3rd, 2014 SOUTH JERSEY
TRANSPORTATIONPLANNING ORGANIZATION
For more, please visit:sjtpo.org
New Jersey Department of Transportation
I-95 Corridor Coalition TISPTC (Partners/User Group) Meeting April 3, 2014
Use of Archived Data for Planning/Performance
Measures
Project Assessment Report Template
Source: Traffic Quality on the Metro-Atlanta State Highway System: Mobility Assessment and Bottleneck Changes, 2010 Update
Background
In the past, Congestion Relief Before & After studies were rare
Now, there’s a distinct need to determine project effectiveness: • Called for in the Department’s Asset Management construct
• Needed for various performance reporting: − T-LAMP/Statewide Capital Investment Strategy − Centerline (Transportation System Performance )
• Helps to level the playing field for funding
• May be applicable to MAP-21 reporting criteria
• It’s the right thing to do
Fortunately, analytical tools are now available to make determining project success easier and cost-effective
2
Using various tools and information, develop an example of a project assessment summary report…
Undertaking
3
I-80/Squirrelwood Road
Highway Operational Improvement
Interchange #56; MP 56.76 – 57.47
West Paterson, Passaic County
Start Date: June 8, 2007
Completion Date: March 3, 2008
Construction Cost: $1,282,304
Technical
Toolbox
The VPP Suite is a Flash-based web site that supports operations, planning, analysis, research & performance measure generation using probe data.
NJ OpenReach is a web-based, multi-modal regional (NY/NJ/CT) tool that integrates incidents, construction, travel times and video.
Googletm Earth
Googletm Earth is a virtual globe and geographical information program that maps the Earth using superimposition of satellite imagery, aerial photography and GIS 3D.
NJ Department of Transportation
This Summary incorporates data, analyses and reports by various NJDOT Units, such as: Data Development, Safety, Mobility and Systems Engineering, Project Management and Systems Planning.
Vehicle Probe Project Suite
NJ OpenReach
In March, 1990, the I-80/Squirrelwood Road
interchange was entered into the NJDOT’s
Pipeline Process via a Problem Statement
generated by Township officials.
According to the Problem Statement,
inadequate capacity at the unsignalized
intersection of the WB exit ramp of I-80 with
Squirrelwood Road causes traffic to backup
on the ramp and into the I-80 mainline,
creating safety and operational problems.
There is also a secondary capacity constraint
at the intersection of Squirrelwood Road and
Glover Avenue that may contribute to this
problem.
In June, 1992, a Needs Assessment report
was prepared by the Bureau of
Transportation and Corridor Analysis. This
report described the existing conditions,
general characteristics of the surrounding
region, traffic analyses and proposed
improvement concepts.
Subsequently, a Tier II Screening Report was
completed in February, 2005, that presented
accident history, revised traffic analyses and
proposed traffic control and geometric
improvements.
Route I-80 is a vital east-west interstate
facility in northern New Jersey. It provides a
continuous route between the Delaware
Water Gap (at the PA border) and the George
Washington Bridge (at the NY border) and is
essential in serving the bedroom communities
of northeast NJ and New York City, goods
movement (local, regional and national) and
recreational areas, such as the Pocono
Mountains and Delaware Water Gap National
Recreation Area.
Squirrelwood Road is classified as a urban
minor arterial (County Route 636) and is
accessed from I-80 at Interchange 56. This
road serves the densely populated
municipalities of Paterson and West
Paterson in Passaic County.
Geographic Context
Project Assessment Report July 16, 2012
Project Background
Project Area Location Map
Prototype Template (Cover)
General Project Information • Project area aerial image • Project name, type and location • Construction start, end and cost
Technical Toolbox Sidebar • Tools used, with brief description • Other DOT Units that were
involved/contributed
Geographic Context • Roadway types • Land use • Traffic profile
Project Background • Project initiation • Department Pipeline Process • Chronology
1
2
3
4
1 2
3 4
4
Project Detail
The project will eliminate
the bottleneck occurring at
the intersection of
Squirrelwood Road and
the WB I-80 off ramp, that
causes traffic to queue
back down the ramp and
deceleration lane and into
the I-80 through lanes, by:
Signalizing the
intersection of the WB off-
ramp and Squirrelwood
Road (to reduce left turn
delays and queues)
Widening the ramp to 2
lanes (for extra storage
capacity and to remove the
conflict of left turning
vehicles blocking right
turning vehicles)
Extending the
deceleration lane leading to
the WB I-80 off ramp (for
extra storage capacity)
There are no right-of-way
issues with widening the
ramp or extending the
deceleration lane on I-80.
Project Element Location Map
Note: LOS under signalized conditions is not provided for channelized right turn. Results would be similar to un-signalized analysis.
Location (AM Condition) Volume Level of Service Avg. Queue (ft.)
Approach Movement AM No
Signal Signal
No Signal
Signal
Squirrelwood Road
Eastbound Through 250 A A 0 38
Westbound Through 1020 A B 0 145
Route I-80 Exit 56 Ramp
Northbound Left 250 F C 209 72
Right 570 D See note 65 0
Location (PM Condition) Volume Level of Service Avg. Queue (ft.)
Approach Movement PM No
Signal Signal
No Signal
Signal
Squirrelwood Road
Eastbound Through 490 A B 57 98
Westbound Through 800 A B 0 162
Route I-80 Exit 56 Ramp
Northbound Left 340 F C 386 116
Right 600 F See note 424* 424*
HCS analysis indicates a substantial LOS and Avg. Queue improvement on the ramp approach of the
intersection with only a slight LOS degradation on the Squirrelwood Rd. approaches.
Highway Capacity Software Intersection Analysis
1
1. Signalize the Squirrelwood Rd/I-80 WB off-ramp intersection
2. Widen the off-ramp from 1 to 2 lanes
3. Extend the deceleration lane
2
3
Mobility A S S E S S M E N T
* This queue represents the available storage on the ramp. Observed queue extends as far back as 1,500’ on the I-80 WB mainline.
Prototype Template (Inside Left)
Project Detail • Overall project objective • Project-specific elements
Project Element Location Map • Numbered circles on aerial • Brief description in legend
Highway Capacity Software (HCS) Intersection Analysis
• AM & PM peak conditions • With and without the signal • Avg. queue and LOS
1
1
2
3
2
3
5
7%
16%
After Condition (Percent of readings below speed thresholds)
Average Speed Change Speed Threshold Change
During the PM Peak Hour (5:00 PM), there has been a 13%
increase in speed along the section of WB I-80 approaching the
Squirrelwood Road interchange (blue highlight) since the
implementation (and “shake-out” period) of the project. (the AM
Peak Hour showed a 4% increase in speed).
There has been a substantial improvement in speeds that fall below
45 MPH (a threshold indicating the beginning of congested
conditions). In the “Before” condition, PM Peak Hour (5:00 PM) ,
34% of readings were < 45 MPH. In the “After”, the percentage of
readings dropped to 16%, an overall decrease of 53%.
34%
9%
Before Condition (Percent of readings below speed thresholds)
Congestion Comparison
Before Condition (Data averaged across the entire year)
After Condition (Data averaged across the entire year)
5 PM
5 PM
After Condition Before Condition Congestion scan comparisons show some improvement in congestion intensity and duration during the 5 PM to 6 PM hour, in the WB direction of I-80, prior to the Squirrelwood Rd Interchange.
Scan
Resul ts
Prototype Template (Inside Right)
Average Speed Change • Used the Historic Probe Data Explorer* • Before & After (avg. over entire year) • Highlight results in a caption, color-coded to improvement (i.e., “green is good”)
Speed Threshold Change • Used Historic Probe Data Explorer* • Before & After • Added annotations to highlight changes • Summary caption
Congestion Comparison • Used Congestion Scan • Before & After • Solid fill graphic display, edited screenshot, added annotations • Summary caption (* - these visualizations are now generated in a Suite Module called Trend Maps)
1
2
3
1 2
3
5 PM Average Speed: 47 MPH
5 PM Average Speed: 53 MPH
6
Performance A S S E S S M E N T
Reliability
The project was evaluated for
changes in Reliability using
the VPP Suite Performance
Summaries module:
• Travel Time – the time it
takes to drive along a stretch
of road
•Buffer Time – the extra
time you must add to your
average trip to ensure on
time arrival
• Planning Time – the total
time you should allow to
ensure on time arrival
User Delay
Cost
The project was further
evaluated for changes in
Delay Cost (total, per vehicle
and per person) and Hours
of Delay (person-hours,
vehicle-hours and per
vehicle) using the VPP Suite
User Delay Cost Analysis
module.
Reliability Comparison
Comparisons of changes in Travel, Buffer and Planning Times show favorable reductions in the After condition
that can be attributed to the improved flow in the WB lanes of I-80 prior to the Squirrelwood Road off-ramp.
Before Condition
After Condition
Buffer time (minutes) Planning time (minutes) Travel time (minutes)
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Monday 1.12 4.88 3.81
Tuesday 1.76 5.56 3.91
Wednesday 1.17 4.91 3.87
Thursday 1.12 4.88 3.82
Friday 1.47 5.23 3.9
Saturday 1.07 4.62 3.64
Sunday 0.58 4.09 3.55
Weekends 1.78 5.23 3.72
Weekdays 2.69 6.14 4.23
All Days 2.35 5.8 4.06
Buffer time (minutes) Planning time (minutes) Travel time (minutes)
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM
Monday 1.1 4.85 3.72
Tuesday 0.62 4.42 3.7
Wednesday 0.61 4.35 3.66
Thursday 1 4.76 3.71
Friday 0.52 4.28 3.64
Saturday 0.41 3.96 3.43
Sunday 0.57 4.08 3.48
Weekends 1.07 4.53 3.61
Weekdays 2.03 5.48 3.85
All Days 1.57 5.03 3.76
User Delay Cost Comparison
Before Condition After Condition
Comparisons of changes in User Delay Cost show substantial reductions in cost and hours of delay in the
After condition, across all categories.
Prototype Template (Back)
Performance Assessment Sidebar • Reliability elements description • User Cost Delay description
Reliability Comparison • Before & After:
− Buffer Time − Planning Time − Travel Time
• Percent change • Brief summary statement
User Delay Cost Comparison • Before & After:
− Delay Cost − Hours of Delay − Data Validity
• Brief summary statement
1
2
3
1
2
25% (Weekdays) 11% (Weekdays)
7
3
9% (Weekdays)
Some Lessons Learned (about the Department)
Project files/documentation spotty, tracking system antiquated, critical errors
• Boxes of project files in a warehouse • Project Reporting System outdated, not user-friendly • Project changes (no signal at Squirrelwood Road) never updated in pool sheets
Project timeline excessive • 18 years from Problem Statement to completion ($1.3M job, 9 months to construct)
On-going monitoring important • Retired PM observed traffic conditions that are now similar to the “Before” condition • Some project elements not built as planned; other improvements were necessary, thus shorter project life
Glover Avenue intersection improvements needed in conjunction with Squirrelwood
Road signalization 8
Some Lessons Learned (using the Suite)
Choose visualizations wisely annotate • Telling the story • Scale of visualization to available report space
Supplement visualizations to highlight the results • Easier to understand/read • So detail is not lost
Check results for validity/reasonableness • User Delay Cost results were questionable
Consider the effect of external factors • e.g.; impact of The Great Recession and high gas prices
Understand the results in anticipation of scrutiny • “Shouldn’t Travel Time + Buffer Time = Planning Time?”
Supporting photos (ground/aerial) are a real plus • Confirms numbers, easy to grasp, worth a thousand words (see Skycomp photos on cover)
9
Questions/Comments?
John C. Allen, Section Chief
Bureau of Commuter/Mobility Strategies New Jersey Department of Transportation
1035 Parkway Avenue Trenton, NJ 08625
10
Overview of DVRPC efforts
• Before/After evaluations• Congestion Management Process (CMP) analysis• DOT support• Newsletters/communications
Congestion Management Process (CMP)
• Further integrating archived operations data in criteria analysis
• Figuring out how to include arterials
DVRPC
VPP data helped PennDOT make the case for $40 million flex to SEPTA for congestion mitigation during I-95 construction
DVRPC
MAP-21 Performance Measures
• Discussion of lessons learned from use of archived operations data and measures to develop some bullets for voluntary consideration in MAP-21 congestion and reliability NPRM comment letters
Relevant NPRMs
• System Performance Measure (Rule 28) -latest estimated issuance: August 25, 2014
New VPP Contract Implications
• Changes to VPP Suite after June 30th with the new contract with focus on the perspective of users– George Schoener: Executive Director, I-95 Corridor
Coalition
Potential VPP Suite Refinements• Discussion of potential VPP Suite refinements to get
user comments– Michael Pack: Director, CATT Laboratory, UMD
• Potential need to change thresholds used in the Suite• “Scheduling” of reports vs. “customized” reports• Experienced Travel Times• Selection of date/time ranges used for calculating
average travel times
Brief Discussion of NPMRDS HERE Data
• Technical issues• Next steps
National Reviews
• Range of national groups publishing reviews of our regions and states
Meeting Wrap-Up
• Additional thoughts• Next steps
Partners Using Archived Operations Data Zoe Neaderland, Manager, Office of Transportation Safety & Congestion Management(215) [email protected]
For more information, please contact:
VPP Suite User Group John C. Allen, Section ChiefNJDOT Bureau of Commuter/Mobility Strategies (609) [email protected]