Medical Wearable’s and Autonomous Vehicles (and Work Zone ITS)

screenshot-www-linkedin-com-2017-01-10-10-12-32Marty Weed, who recently retired from WsDOT, is a good friend and still very much involved in work zone ITS. He ran across a talk on LinkedIn comparing medical wearable technology with autonomous vehicle technology. In the video Randy Hamlin, a VP and engineer at Phillips, said that both technologies are further ahead than policy or behavior. The technology won’t slow down adoption. Instead it will be policies or behaviors. I believe we can add Work Zone ITS to this comparison as well.

You can view his presentation HERE.

Mr. Hamlin stated that both industries have the opportunity to meet a very large and growing need. For medical wearable’s it is the opportunity to reduce chronic disease. For the autonomous vehicle industry it is the opportunity to reduce the chronic roadway fatalities of 30,000+ per year. But before either industry can make an impact, each must first achieve three key factors:

  1. Access
  2. Integration
  3. Adoption

Under access he said that for a technology to achieve widespread adoption it must be accessible. One easy way to make that happen today is to take advantage of the personal cell phone market. These devices have become very powerful, very inexpensive, and everyone owns one. So instead of expensive, stand alone systems, create hardware that interfaces with your phone using an app. This is already taking place in all three industries.

His second factor, integration, revolves around data. Medical wearable’s generate a great deal of data. So do autonomous vehicles. And so do work zone ITS systems. The data quickly overwhelms the practitioners. They quickly begin to ignore it and go back to doing what they did before. Because they just don’t know where to start in making use of that data. As he pointed out, data must be relevant.

Autonomous vehicle manufacturers are addressing this by keeping most of the data to themselves. They use it for product improvement and verification. They only release data to other users that is relevant. Data packages are customized for each group of users. This requires a good understanding of each user’s needs and habits, but results in faster and broader adoption.

Work zone ITS can learn from this. We must understand what our customers need from data. Traffic operations will want one package. Construction may want something else. And systems operations folks may want yet another set.

This will vary from state to state and even from one district office to another. A more urban district may watch volumes while a more rural district may be more interested in speeds or queue lengths.

As Mr. Hamlin said, for our systems to impact roadway work zone fatalities we must first achieve access and then integration. Only by packaging our data so that it is relevant can we hope to achieve the third factor, adoption. Once users become accustomed to receiving timely and useful data, they will come to depend on it. And once they depend on it, our systems will see far more common use.

Improving the Effectiveness of Smart Work Zone Technologies, Part 2

illinoisstudyIn our last post we discussed a brilliant new paper published in November by the Illinois Center for Transportation Studies. Today let’s look at their conclusions regarding work zone travel time systems. The writers point out that, “Two critical components for the success of a smart work zone deployment are the quality of the traffic data collected by sensor networks and the algorithms used for data processing.” We examined sensor types last time. Today we look at algorithms.

They conclude that, “The travel time estimation is consistently poor for all algorithms and sensor networks investigated in this study. The main reason is that the instantaneous travel time calculation is a poor estimator of the true travel time in a dynamic traffic environment. In addition, the use of Bluetooth sensors can only provide the travel time of vehicles that just exited the work zone. Consequently, the travel time estimation even using Bluetooth sensors is not likely to improve the accuracy of the travel time estimates when the traffic conditions are quickly changing.”

This makes perfect sense. In a work zone you are more likely to see frequent and dynamic queuing. And that is the kryptonite for every algorithm superman. It’s too bad, because we would all like to see accurate travel time estimates, especially for work zones with significant impacts. But, ironically, it is those impacts that make estimation so difficult.

They also discussed the potential use of more advanced algorithms. This is a subject for which I have only a very limited understanding. So I am not able to examine the relative advantages and disadvantages of popular methods. But for work zones, they really aren’t practical anyway. Unless it is a very long term project, one lasting several years, the work required ahead of time to test and adjust the algorithms is expensive and still won’t make much of a difference in the travel time accuracy.

As an industry, we have worked for years to make our systems faster and easier to set up. This, to my mind, would be moving backwards. Instead, let’s work to make our travel time estimates more useful to travelers. Perhaps it makes more sense to talk about delay times. Drivers seem to expect predicted travel times to match their experience perfectly. But when it comes to delay times, they are more likely to be relieved when the delay they encounter is slightly less than predicted.

Work Zone ITS and Data Sharing Services

wazeOn January 2nd iCone announced a new data-sharing partnership with Waze.  Waze, as you may know, collects travel time data from its users and then shares it with them. Users may also note special problems like work zones or crashes as they travel. They even note the prices at individual gas stations.

Waze already shows the work zones reported by state DOTs. But now any work zone equipped with iCones will also show up. After all, not all work zones are reported. And not all that are reported actually take place. Better yet, they will appear as soon as the work begins, and they will disappear as soon as the work ends, making this truly real-time!

This is important for one simple reason. As work zone data is generated by our systems, it quickly overwhelms the DOTs. Most systems offer a live feed to the DOT but only a very few DOTs have incorporated that data into their DOT travel time systems. Portable work zone system data stands alone and apart from permanent systems. So it is not reaching Waze or Inrix or any travel time system. And that means it is not reaching the end user.

This new partnership skips the intermediate step and supplies the data directly to Waze. Users will begin seeing the benefits right away, rather than years from now. Drivers will become more aware of work zones and many will bypass them altogether. In both cases work zones become safer, and our roads more efficient.

Read the press release HERE.

Learn more about Waze or download the app HERE.

Improving the Effectiveness of Smart Work Zone Technologies, Part 1

illinoisstudyA brilliant study was published in November by the Illinois Center for Transportation Studies entitled “Improving the Effectiveness of Smart Work Zone Technologies.” The principal researchers were Yanning Li, Juan Carlos Martinez Mori and Daniel Work. Download it here.

It is brilliant for a couple of reasons. It moves past the studies we conduct over and over again that look at the effectiveness of smart work zone systems. Those have been done, and there really isn’t much more to be learned from additional studies. We know they work. It has been proven. Enough said.

Instead, this study looks at ways of making something good, even better. There is so much new information is this study that we will discuss it in two separate blog posts. This first one will look at their conclusions regarding sensor types, sensor spacing, and missing data. The second will consider travel time estimation and, in particular, their recommendation of the Kalmar filter algorithm.

Let’s begin with sensor types. The study focuses primarily on doplar and side-fire (RTMS) sensors.  They compared the advantages and disadvantages of each and concluded that for most work zones systems there is no advantage to RTMS type sensors. The RTMS provide more accurate flow measurements than radar due to fewer occlusion issues. But they do cost more and are more difficult and time-consuming to set-up and configure. They wrote the, “analysis indicates the types of sensors do not have significant influence of the performance of existing smart work zone systems. It is suggested the choice of sensor types should depend on the specific requirements and constraints in each work zone.”

They went on to say that given the extra cost of RTMS, you are normally better off spending that money on additional doplar sensors, as more sensors improve the data quality far more than the sensor type. Of course, if lane by lane counts and classifications are needed to meet the deployment goals, RTMS is the only practical solution.

Next they discussed sensor spacing. Most of us in the work zone ITS industry suggest sensor spacing of between 1 mile and one-half mile apart. This study confirms what we learned through experience. They said the closer you place your sensors to each other, the better the data quality. “When more sensors are deployed, the systems provide faster notification of changes of the traffic conditions and increase the estimation accuracy of the traffic conditions.”

However, anything closer than a half mile apart provides negligible additional benefits. “When the sensor spacing is smaller than 0.5 mile, the benefit of additional sensors … is marginal.”

A third topic they covered was missing data records. This has not been covered in any detailed way in previous studies. But it is important. They studied only two projects but for those projects found they were missing as much as 10% of the data records. They did point out that the system messages continued to be sent to the message signs. But what if the interruption was sufficient to delay those messages?

One vendor suggested the data records were missed due to the cellular carrier dropping them in favor of voice transmissions. If true, this underlines the need for redundant communications. Satellite backup or better cell service is a must. If data is dropped for more than a few seconds it could affect the timeliness of warnings to traffic upstream. And if that data will also be used for work zone performance measurement, it causes additional problems. A measure of system data transmission performance should be included in the evaluation of every work zone ITS deployment.

So, in short, simple systems with more sensors are better than more complicated ones.

Spacing of a half to one mile is best. Anything greater quickly loses accuracy and anything less is not cost-effective.

And agencies should require a data transmission reliability report to be sure that most of it is getting through, even during major incidents.

In a future post we will return to this study to examine algorithms, especially for travel time systems. In the meantime, download this important study!

Adapting Existing Technology to Unusual Traffic Problems

The work zone ITS industry has produced many creative ways to help mitigate the impacts to traffic from work zones and to protect workers from that same traffic. But often the problems we solve aren’t the same ones we set out to address. This is true for most industries when they encounter new technology.

According to author H. W. Brand it was true for the movie industry as well. When the first “talkies” were released, “Sam Warner (of Warner Brothers’ fame) convinced his brothers to purchase a technology that allowed the attachment of sound to recording film.” “The initial appeal was that sound would permit theaters to dispense with the orchestras that played accompaniment to otherwise silent films.” Today we can’t imagine movies without the sounds of explosions, gun fire, and, of course, dialogue.  But they were focused on the economic benefits of the technology and so missed what we all see as the obvious artistic advantages.

The same is often true in our industry. Our technologies are more mature now, though new ideas are introduced every day. But too often we miss good opportunities to improve the safety or efficiency of our roads because we don’t have a prepackaged system ready to deploy.

In fact, we do have them ready. We just don’t think it through far enough. Most of our systems use sensors to measure traffic flow, then compare that data to a set of rules, which then trigger outputs like messages to message signs, or alarms at a traffic management center. So it does not matter what your traffic concern is, a system can probably be created to address it. And while such a system could be called “custom”, it won’t normally be saddled with the costs and lead times normally associated with custom systems.

Redding Map

A good example was a demo project done for Caltrans a few years ago. They were closing one of their busiest ramps in Redding for reconstruction. The plan called for them to send traffic to alternate ramps. But no one of those was capable of handling the volumes at the closed ramp. Road-Tech proposed a simple solution. A sensor was placed on each of the alternate ramps. And portable changeable message signs directed traffic to the best alternate. As traffic backed up on the first alternate ramp the sensor detected the stopped traffic. That caused the system to change the message signs to recommend the second alternate ramp. If that ramp backed up traffic was sent to a third alternate ramp.

It was simple, inexpensive, and worked very well. The only problem encountered was public outreach efforts scared everyone away. So the volumes were never as high as expected. But this does show what can be done with the tools we already have. No one talks about alternate ramp systems. But it turns out we had one ready to go. We just didn’t know it.

Next time you are faced with a traffic problem, try to imagine a rule. That rule would say, “If traffic does X, make Y happen.” So if traffic slows I want to change the message signs to warn of STOPPED TRAFFIC AHEAD. Or if average traffic speeds exceed 75 MPH, I want to send an alarm to the police department. If you can come up with a rule, a solution is probably already available. Keep that in mind and you’ll be surprised what can be done!

The Illinois Model for Procurement of Work Zone ITS

Yesterday I had the pleasure of sitting in on yet another Smarter Work Zones webinar from the Every Day Counts folks. This was lucky number 13 in this wonderful series and looked at procurement of work zone ITS. You can download the recording in a few days at: https://www.workzonesafety.org/swz/webinars

Early in the webinar an attendee, Charles Martin, made a statement in the chat box that I thought helped focus the discussion. I believe he once worked for Maryland SHA and that experience and perspective showed through when he said, “I find that the most complicated issue to determining how to fund adding SWZ’s often it is not one project driving the need, but rather several. One may have Fed-aide, and others may not. (N)one of the projects may have funding to add ITS.”

The webinar that followed may not have answered his concerns completely, but it did offer several innovative options that should work in most situations.

Todd Peterson of FHWA began by giving an overview of procurement methods and explained that the best option depends on the type of work zone ITS you plan to use. Jerry Ullman of Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) ran through the different contracting methods that three states (Massachusetts, Texas and Iowa) have used and shared some lessons learned. Finally, Matthew Daeda of Illinois DOT went into detail on his state’s approach and that’s what we will talk about today.

Illinois uses a two level approach to procurement of work zone ITS. For larger contracts and longer term projects they try to identify the need as early in the process as possible. This is usually accomplished as a lump sum line item in the bid documents. Details regarding the types and quantities of devices are included in the special provisions. When they know they will have serious traffic impacts, they include WZITS and other mitigation strategies in the bid documents.

They will also add WZITS under change order when impacts are greater than expected. Again this is done with the same language they use when it is included in the bid.

Illinois

But for smaller projects and short duration traffic impacts, they are now using an on-call contract. Each district advertises a bid for this on-call service. Districts 1, 8 and 9 already have three year contracts in place. Districts 2, 3 and 5 have or will soon have contracts in place. Districts 4, 6 and 7 will follow suit very soon. The on-call work zone ITS is paid for using HSIP funding.

These on-call contracts are intended to provide queue warning for projects with a duration of two weeks or less. In District 1 (Chicago) and 8 (St Louis) the vendor supplies 4 changeable message signs and 4 sensors. In more rural District 9 the vendor supplies 1 changeable message sign and 4 sensors. Each district adjusts the quantities to fit the needs of that district. District 9 includes rates for monthly rentals. Districts 1 and 8 only include daily and weekly rates.

This contracting method offers several advantages:

  1. The state only pays when the system is needed.
  2. They work directly with the vendor and that greatly improves communication.
  3. Staff has direct access to the system data and to make changes.
  4. By bidding for each district local companies are more likely to win, thus reducing response time.

Mr. Daeda offered several lessons learned. He said that one vendor installed software in their TMC that did not work well with their firewall. In the future he would like to require vendors to install and test any software before getting a notice to proceed.

He would like a pay item for supplemental devices. Then he could add more sensors or message signs when they are needed.

When deployments run over a month, they currently pay for a month at the monthly rate and for additional days beyond that at higher daily and weekly rates. Mr. Daeda wants to change that going forward to be at a percentage of the monthly rate once the system has been out for more than a month.

Matthew plans to clarify language regarding relocation of devices. And there have been times when he wished he could add camera trailers.

In our last blog post, “The State of the Work Zone ITS Industry”, we talked about the many ways in which 2015 was a landmark year. This webinar is a perfect example of that. These EDC events just keep getting better. The speakers were all on topic and very professional. The webinar service worked without interruption. And the attendees asked great questions.  If you haven’t watched them yet, you are missing out on a great experience!

Improving the Effectiveness of Smart Work Zone Technologies, Part 2

illinoisstudyIn our last post we discussed a brilliant new paper published in November by the Illinois Center for Transportation Studies. Today let’s look at their conclusions regarding work zone travel time systems. The writers point out that, “Two critical components for the success of a smart work zone deployment are the quality of the traffic data collected by sensor networks and the algorithms used for data processing.” We examined sensor types last time. Today we look at algorithms

They conclude that, “The travel time estimation is consistently poor for all algorithms and sensor networks investigated in this study. The main reason is that the instantaneous travel time calculation is a poor estimator of the true travel time in a dynamic traffic environment. In addition, the use of Bluetooth sensors can only provide the travel time of vehicles that just exited the work zone. Consequently, the travel time estimation even using Bluetooth sensors is not likely to improve the accuracy of the travel time estimates when the traffic conditions are quickly changing.”

This makes perfect sense. In a work zone you are more likely to see frequent and dynamic queuing. And that is the kryptonite for every algorithm superman. It’s too bad, because we would all like to see accurate travel time estimates, especially for work zones with significant impacts. But, ironically, it is those impacts that make estimation so difficult.

They also discussed the potential use of more advanced algorithms. This is a subject for which I have only a very limited understanding. So I am not able to examine the relative advantages and disadvantages of popular methods. But for work zones, they really aren’t practical anyway. Unless it is a very long term project, one lasting several years, the work required ahead of time to test and adjust the algorithms is expensive and still won’t make much of a difference in the travel time accuracy.

As an industry, we have worked for years to make our systems faster and easier to set up. This, to my mind, would be moving backwards. Instead, let’s work to make our travel time estimates more useful to travelers. Perhaps it makes more sense to talk about delay times. Drivers seem to expect predicted travel times to match their experience perfectly. But when it comes to delay times, they are more likely to be relieved when the delay they encounter is slightly less than predicted.

https://www.workzonesafety.org/publication/improving-the-effectiveness-of-smart-work-zone-technologies/