For the third time, Buena Vista County supervisors have hit the brakes on a proposed high-tech traffic tracking system — this time, putting the idea on hold indefinitely.
County Engineer Bret Wilkinson updated the board Tuesday on the latest proposal from Urban SDK, a system that would provide detailed traffic information for roads throughout the county.
Wilkinson said he and Buena Vista County Sheriff Kory Elston continued conversations with the company, which offered the county another price reduction.
The latest proposal is for a one-year contract costing $35,091.22.
The proposal is a major reduction from where the contract started.
Urban SDK initially proposed a two-year contract costing more than $137,000. That proposal included traffic analytics as well as a satellite-based road mapping component that Wilkinson believed could eventually save the county money on surveying for road projects.
After the company acknowledged the mapping technology was not yet available as originally represented, that component was removed and the price was reduced to about $91,059 for two years.
The latest proposal focuses solely on the traffic data, including vehicle counts, speeds and turning movements.
Wilkinson said the information could be used by the secondary roads department to evaluate traffic patterns, safety concerns and future infrastructure projects. He said Elston could use the information to help identify areas for traffic enforcement and determine where deputies should focus their efforts.
Urban SDK says its platform uses connected vehicle and GPS data to provide traffic speed information and traffic volumes without requiring the installation of traffic-counting hardware. The Florida-based company says its system is used by more than 300 communities across North America.
Wilkinson told supervisors the county’s information would be updated daily, although the data would be about seven days behind.
Supervisors questioned whether the system would provide enough value to justify the roughly $35,000 cost, particularly with some traffic information already available through existing county and Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) resources.
Wilkinson said the county’s existing traffic counts don’t provide the same type of information, particularly when it comes to turning movements, and they’re collected much less frequently.
The board also discussed traffic cameras. The Iowa DOT operates a camera along Iowa Highway 7, but Wilkinson said the county does not have regular access to that video.
Buena Vista County also has cameras that provide still images, primarily for monitoring winter road conditions. Wilkinson said those cameras aren’t designed to collect traffic counts or turning-movement data.
Supervisors also discussed whether the county could offset the cost through outside funding.
Wilkinson said the Governor’s Traffic Safety Bureau offers grants, although he wasn’t sure whether the Urban SDK purchase would qualify. The board also discussed applying for a Buena Vista County Foundation grant and potentially using grant funding to cover part of the cost.
Supervisors questioned whether they should commit county money to the contract before knowing whether outside funding would be available, and whether the county should try to have a grant cover a portion of the cost.
There was also discussion about whether a one-year contract would provide enough time to collect useful information, particularly with several major road projects planned or underway.
The board discussed whether having more detailed, current traffic data could help the county determine where infrastructure improvements are needed and how traffic patterns change during construction and harvest. But some supervisors questioned what the county would ultimately do with additional traffic information when traffic counts are already available for major roads.
Supervisors also discussed the timing of the proposal. If the county waited for a grant, it could miss some of the immediate traffic patterns Wilkinson and Elston hoped to monitor, including harvest traffic.
But after discussing the cost, potential grant funding and how the information would be used, the board reached a consensus to wait. There was no formal vote Tuesday. Supervisors indicated they could revisit the proposal during a future grant cycle or budget discussion.
