Motivation, high level description for a portable IDS system Lee Alexander Pi-Ming Cheng Alec Gorjestani Arvind Menon Craig Shankwitz Intelligent Vehicles Lab University of Minnesota

Original Program u Crash analysis (done by CH2MHill) u Identification of problematic intersections in partner states (done by CH2MHill) u Design of a local surveillance system for each state who chooses to have one u States build intersection to our specs. u We bring it on line u We collect, archive, and analyze data. u States ready to add Driver Infrastructure Interface for Field Testing.

What we know now. u What we do know about state’s crashes v CH2MHill crash analysis indicated the crash characteristics similar in the states he has analyzed Far side crashes Drivers stopping and making subsequent bad decisions No strong correlation to geometry or sightlines Still don’t know one step or two for left/straight through maneuvers u Meeting on 18 January v States indicated not much interest in the investment of a surveillance system without active signage v States would like to test the fully functional system.

What we don’t know u Differences in driver behavior as a function of state/region u Need to quantify driver behavior to v Make sure we’re not missing anything v Develop a “universal” driver interface which will work in all regions of the county u How do we answer these questions? v Portable IDS surveillance system

How do we find out? u Portable IDS surveillance system v Take/ship system components to partner states v Work with each state DOT to install system Establish design early on all states can agree with v Collect data for one month State DOTs assist with system maintenance  Fuelling generators  Basic infrastructure support Sensor mounts, theft protection  Checking for vandalism / crash damage  (possibly) rebooting system (unlikely)

Can we do this? u States approve change of scope u Need to determine the level of involvement states willing to assume v More involvement, less overall cost, more bang for “our” buck v Need to determine specific outcomes expected by states.

Program budget u Original project budget: $430K u 8 States promised would be $504K u Spent so far: ~ $75K (CH2MHill crash analysis, meetings, initial portable system design) u Encumbered: ~$105 v CH2MHill remaining analysis, project salaries u Leaves: $250K v ~$175K system hardware & construction v ~$35K travel and system shipments v ~$40K salaries for data analysis and report writing

Program budget: Assumptions u State DOTs willing to visit site, refuel, check system status? v Saves project cost of having U personnel on site v System to be designed to require minimal external effort (Lee’s presentation) u DOTs allow laser scanners in median for crossroads surveillance? v Saves HUGE cost of IR cameras and masts. v Much better tracking performance.

Program budget: Assumptions u State DOTs willing to supply basic infrastructure? v Power for main system trailer? (we can do generator, too) v 3#U channel for mounting sensors Saves shipping costs, provides a measure of security for the equipment (looks permanent, not a target)

Program Modification u What do the states receive? v Quantification of the gaps drivers take at their intersection (look Gaussian, but means/variance vary quite a bit) v Measure of the interaction between minor road and major road traffic v Report documenting their intersection v A Head-start on the deployment of the full system in their state v One channel of video to record intersections u Solicit commitments?

Follow Up from Last Meeting u Vehicle classification performance improvement u Crossroads surveillance performance improvement.

Vehicle Classification: Height Only Cars Lt. Truck SUV Med. Truck Semi. Truck

Vehicle Classification: Length and Height

Crossroads Surveillance: Before and After Before: Open Issue v January : only capture 2/3 straight-thru maneuver u Now: Issue resolved v Extra radar aimed at crossroads detects vehicle motion, eliminates false maneuvers u Future: not use cameras in crossroads v Loop detectors in permanent locations v Laser scanners in median v Approach taken with the portable site