MN IDS Intersection Construction Update

MN IDS Test Intersection u Design Completed 15 Jan 2004 u Design review with Mn/DOT traffic, geometric, district, and ESS engineers v Good advice Recommendations for sensor mounts (3# U channel) Nothing in the median lasts  Revised cross-roads surveillance Laser sensors to Visible Light/IR Cameras v Explored opportunity to cooperate on construction Month of negotiations, didn’t work out.  ROC 52  ESS

MN IDS Test Intersection u Mid-February, back to drawing board u Began RFP Process with U Purchasing v Facilities Management Buyer Handled RFP process v Regents Approval > $100,000 v Much interaction with Mn/DOT on RFP document v Request for Bids was let 23 March 2004 v One bid, Shane Electric in Zumbrota, MN Trenching Under-road pushes Power cabinet construction (thanks, Ray!) Installation of Camera Masts

MN IDS Test Intersection u Mn/DOT Assistance (Feb 06 Meeting) v Sensor posts v Reflectors v Special Needs Mowing Plowing u U Assistance v Live video streams from Intersection v Useful for maintenance

MN Test Intersection Final Design

Instrumentation u Mainline v Vehicle speed, position, lane of travel (Radar) v 2000 foot coverage before Xroads (Radar) v 800 foot coverage beyond (Radar) v 53’x36’ coverage at camera (IR/Visible) v Hardwired and Wireless Communication Cost and performance trade-off analyses u Crossroads v Vehicle type (Radar and laser based) v Vehicle approach speed (adapt VA technology at a later date?) v Trajectory leaving minor road Right turn (camera + radar) Straight through (camera) Left turn (camera + radar)

MN Test Intersection-Mainline Sensors Radar Camera Suite (for evaluation) Camera FOV 53’x36’ Radar to track vehicles past crossroads (primarily for minor road trajectory recording)

Mainline Highlights u Camera / mast provides independent means to verify v Radar performance v Camera performance v Gap tracker performance v Emerging technologies u May or may not be part of final system v Benefit:cost analysis v Poor weather capability of vision based systems

Mainline Radar Sensor

Laser / Radar Sensor Mount Approved by Mn/DOT Right-of-Way Engineer 350 Crash worthy Will include break-away conduit and connector Will include reflector at top of 3# U channel

Radar Performance Results: Geometrics

Radar Performance Results: Coverage

Radar Performance Results: Lane Classification Errors

Radar Performance Results: Speed Errors

Intersection Crossroads-Vehicle Trajectory C4 FOV C3 FOV Cameras at intersection corners capture the trajectory of vehicles entering intersection from minor roads. Mn/DOT advised that median-based sensors won’t live. (Crashed out).

u Advantages v Lower Cost ($10k per camera) v Can order camera with desired lens (saves cost of purchasing additional lenses_ v Flexible (more camera, cover more area) u Disadvantages v Multiple cameras require multiple masts ($6k per mast) v Lower resolution makes image processing more difficult Intersection Surveillance – 160x120 Pixels (tests Thursday, 15 April 2004)

Example of 160x120 IR camera

u Advantages v Higher Resolution – simplifies image processing v One 320x240 camera can cover more area than 2 160x120 cameras v Potentially lower costs (fewer masts, less cabling, etc.) u Disadvantages v Higher Cost baseline - $15K v Comes with fixed 25 degree FOV lens v Additional lens $5k Intersection Surveillance – 320x240 Pixels (tests Thursday, 15 April 2004)

Example of 320x240 IR camera

Single Camera Configuration Pixel Sizes at far field: A x 17.6" A x 8.8"

Double Camera Configuration Pixel Sizes at far field: A x11.61" A x5.8" Previous configuration A x 8.8"

Camera Based Validation – Tracking Example (ca. March 2003) Tracking on this side No tracking on this side

Camera Mount Detail

Intersection Crossroads – Vehicle Classification Horizontal Laser Scanner Vertical Laser Scanner Classification Capable T-300 Radar Classification Capable T-300 Radar

R/WIS Data from Intersection Mn/DOT updates at 10 Minute intervals. Data collected every 10 minutes

Information Available from Intersection u Distribution of gaps accepted by drivers v for right turns v for left turns v for crossing intersection (see next page) Cross-correlated with v Vehicle type / size v Driver age (macroscopic level, limited basis initially) v Driver gender (limited basis initially) v Weather effects (R/WIS 0.9 Mile away), with in-road sensors (collecting data already)

Information Available from Intersection (cont’d) u Maneuvers executed by drivers from minor road v Left turn in one stage or two? Variation in left and right gaps accepted for each maneuver type Cross-correlation with vehicle type v Crossing intersection in one stage or two? Variation in left and right gaps accepted for each maneuver type Cross-correlation with vehicle type

Information Available from Intersection (cont’d) u Response of mainline traffic v Speed adjustment if stationary vehicle on minor road Do mainline drivers adjust speed if a vehicle is spotted on minor road? Will mainline drivers move to left lane (when possible) to provide a lane for the minor road traffic? v Reaction of drivers on major road if too small gap is accepted Braking? Lane change? Other?

Design Detail: Main Controller Cabinet

Design Detail: Intersection Cabling

Intersection Build Details u Hardware v Cameras, radar, lasers, camera masts, radar stations, etc., ordered or out on bid. v iDAQ (intersection Data AcQuisition) computers built u Software v Camera based vehicle tracking software under continued development (20 FPS vs. existing 5 FPS for improved tracking and robustness) v Wireless system integrity software scaled from Demo 2003 version v IR Camera demo/eval at U of MN 15 AP 2004

Intersection Build Details – costs (Don’t Panic!) Radar Stations Vehicle Classification Stations Vision Systems Central Cabinet Ethernet and Video Cable $191,837

Partner State Research Intersections u Minnesota Intersections v 4 Camera masts (eval) $24K v 4 Laser sensors for vehicle classification validation $26K v 2 or 4 IR Cameras $40k v 4000 ft. of trenching (no cost estimate yet) v Wireless and Hardwired ethernet $18K DSL, $4K wire v Wired for big power u Partner Intersections v 1 Camera Mast at Xroads $6k v Eaton radar likely validated $0K v 1 IR Camera $10 or 20K v 3000 feet of trenching (no cost estimate yet) v (hopefully) Wireless ethernet v Significantly lower power requirements States’ Savings: $84 K, making investment $207,000 Power and Data costs approximately $150/mo

Schedule Adherence TODAY Intersection Brought On-line Human Factors Simulator DII Testing Begins Final Report Preparation Begins

Questions? Comments? Problems? Field Trip!