1. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Cellular Probe Feasibility Study

2. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

3. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Project Background

4. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

5. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Overview Project History Project Team –Kansas Department of Transportation –Cellint –Kansas City Scout –Telvent Farradyne Project Funding

6. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study KDOT Goals Determine the general feasibility of the cell probe technology. Determine possible applications for the cell probe average speed data. –Incident detection –Speed mapping –Travel times –Performance measures

7. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Project Timeline January 2006 – Discussions begin between KDOT and Cellint. February 2006 – Scout begins providing speed data to Cellint. March 2006 – Cellint creates a website with speed bands.

8. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Project Timeline (Cont.) June through August, 2006 – Cellint provides blind speed data along the I-435 study corridor. Winter 2006/2007 – Scout analyzes the blind test data and produces a preliminary report. Summer 2007 – Final report to be completed.

9. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

10. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Data Analysis

11. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

12. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Analysis Overview General Feasibility Analysis Review how the Cellint speed bands change during accidents and construction lane closures. Detailed Speed Data Analysis Cellint provides blind cell probe speed data so Scout can perform an independent study.

13. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study

16. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

17. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Methodology

18. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

19. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Approach Slowdown analysis –Use two algorithms –Identify slowdowns –Match slowdowns –Compare results (percent matched, average lag)

20. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study

26. Approach General characterization –Excellent, good, fair, or poor –Subjective criteria

27. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Approach Category analysis –Binned speeds (from ATMS) <25mph (red) 25-35mph (yellow) >35mph (green) –Compared bin for each time interval –R=R, Y=Y, and (R+Y)=(R+Y)

28. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study

29. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

30. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Conclusions

31. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

32. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Advantages No ROW required No FTEs required No DOT maintenance required Public-private partnerships Continuous coverage –Smart Work Zones Direct measure of travel times

33. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Caveats Time lag –3 to 12 min Congestion sensitivity –Why? –Pro or con? –Market saturation dependant? Volume sensitivity

34. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Summary Not for all applications… ATIS Travel times  Incident detection Performance measures

35. Cellular Probe Feasibility Study Summary Viable technology –Clearly reflects traffic Growing data source Young technology

36. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation

37. Cellular Probes Kansas City Evaluation K. Mark Sommerhauser Kansas City Scout karsten.sommerhauser@modot.mo.org Eric Meyer, P.E., PhD Telvent Farradyne Inc eric.meyer@telvent.abengoa.com K. Mark Sommerhauser Kansas City Scout karsten.sommerhauser@modot.mo.org Eric Meyer, P.E., PhD Telvent Farradyne Inc eric.meyer@telvent.abengoa.com Cellular Probe Feasibility Study