TravTek Evaluation
`Yoked Driver Study
`
`Publication No. FHWA-RD-94-139
`
`October 1995
`
`U.S. Department of Transportation
`Federal Highway Administration
`
`Research and Development
`Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
`6300 Georgetown Pike
`McLean, Virginia
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`This report is one of eight reports produced as part of the evaluation of the Travtek operational field
`test, conducted in Orlando, Florida, during 1992-1993. Travtek, short for Travel Technology, was an
`advanced driver information and traffic management system that provided a combination of traveler
`information services and route navigation and guidance support to the driver. Twelve individual but
`related studies were conducted during the evaluation. Evaluation goals and objectives were
`represented by the following basic questions: (1) Did the TravTek system work? (2) Did drivers save
`time and avoid congestion? (3) Will drivers use the system? (4) How effective was voice guidance
`compared to moving map and turn-by-turn displays?(5) Was TravTek safe? (6) Could TravTek
`benefit travelers who do not have the TravTek system? (7) Will people be willing to pay for TravTek
`features?
`
`Evaluation data were obtained from more than 4,000 volunteer drivers during the operation of 100
`specially equipped automobiles for a l-year period. Results of the evaluation demonstrated and
`validated the concept of in-vehicle navigation and the provision of traveler information services to
`the driver. The test also provided valuable results concerning the drivers’ interaction with and use
`of the in-vehicle displays. This project has made many important contributions supporting the goals
`and objectives of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Program.
`
`L Saxton, Director
`Office of Safety and Traffic
`Operations Research and Development
`
`NOTICE
`
`This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the
`interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the
`contents or the use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
`
`The United States Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trade and
`manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object
`of the document.
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`1. Report No.
`FHWA-RD-94-139
`
`2. Government Accession No.
`
`3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
`
`EVALUATION YOKED DRIVER STUDY
`
`6. Performing Organization Code
`
`7. Author (s)
`V. Inman, R. Sanchez, C. Porter, L. Bernstein
`
`9. Performing Organization Name and Address
`Science Applications International Corporation
`3045 Technology Pkwy
`Orllando, FL 32826
`12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
`Office of Safety and Traffic Operations R&D
`Federal Highway Administration
`6300 Georgetown Pike
`McLean VA 22101-2296
`
`15. Supplementary Notes
`Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Frank Mammano, HSR-12
`
`8. Performing Organization Report No.
`
`IO. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
`3B7A
`11. Contract or Grant No.
`DTFH61-91-C-00106
`13. Type of Report and Period Covered
`Final Report, Nov. 1991, June
`1994
`14. Sponsoring Agency Code
`
`I
`
`16. Abstract
`The Yoked Driver Study was 1 of 12 investigations conducted as part of the TravTek operational test of an advanced traveler
`information and traffic management system (ATIS/ATMS). The TravTek system consisted of the Orlando Traffic Manage-
`ment Center (TMC), the TravTek vehicles, and the TravTek Information and Services Center. The TMC broadcast updated
`travel times for TravTek traffic links to the TravTek vehicles once each minute. The TravTek vehicles broadcast their com-
`pleted link travel times back to the TMC for transmission to the other TravTek vehicles. The vehicles were equipped to pro-
`vide route planning, route guidance, and a data base of local services and attractions. The primary purpose of the Yoked
`Driver Study was to evaluate the value of real-time traftic information, route planning, and route guidance to (a) trip effi-
`ciency, (b) navigation performance, and (c) driving performance. The study also examined willingness-to-pay, user percep-
`tions of the system, and user recommendations.
`A controlled experiment was conducted in which sets of three TravTek vehicles traveled between selected origins and desti-
`nations during peak afternoon traffic.Each of the three vehicles wa s configured differently: one provided route planning and
`route guidance that utilized real-time traffic information. A second provided the same route planning and route guidance ex-
`cept that it did not utilize real-time traffic information.. The third required that drivers plan the trip and navigate “as they
`normally would.”A total of 222 volunteer drivers participated i n the experiment.
`TravTek benefits to individual drivers included a travel time saving and a reduction in perceived workload. Real-time traffic
`information produced a network trip efficiency by routing many of TravTek vehicles that received it onto arterials.. Although
`vehicles that received real-time information tended to travel farther, and to travel farther on lower class roadways, they did
`not have significantly longer travel times.User perception and performance data suggest that the system was easy to learn
`and easy to use. Participants in this study indicated that they would be willing to pay about $1000 for a system such as the
`one they drove.
`17. Key Words
`TravTek, ATIS, ATMS, IVHS, ITS, Real-Time Traffic
`Information, Route Guidance, Route Planning
`
`18. Distribution Statement
`No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
`the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia
`22161
`20. Security Classif. (of this page)
`Unclassified
`REPRODUCTION OF COMPLETED PAGE AUTHORIZED
`
`19. Security Classif. (of this report)
`Unclassified
`Form DOT F 1700 7
`
`(8-72)
`
`21. No. of Pages
`103
`
`22. Price
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS
`
`ENGLISH TO METRIC
`
`LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)
`1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm)
`1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm)
`1 yard (yd) q 0.9 meter (m)
`1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km)
`
`METRIC TO ENGLISH
`
`LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)
`1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)
`1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)
`1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)
`1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)
`1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)
`
`AREA (APPROXIMATE)
`1 square inch (sq in, in2 = 6.5 square centimeters (cm2)
`1 square foot (sq ft, ft2 = 0.09 square meter (m2)
`1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2)
`1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2)
`1 acre = 0.4 hectares (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)
`MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)
`
`AREA (APPROXIMATE)
`1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)
`1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2)
`1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)
`1 hectare (he) =10,000 square meters (m2) = 2.5 acres
`
`MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)
`
`1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gr)
`1 pound (lb) = .45 kilogram (kg)
`1 short ton = 2,000 pounds (Lb) = 0.9 tonne (t)
`
`1 gram (gr) = 0.036 ounce (oz)
`1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)
`1 tonne (t) =1,000 kilograms (kg) = 1.1 short tons
`
`VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)
`
`VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)
`
`1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml)
`
`1 milliliters (ml) q 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)
`
`1 tablespoon (tbsp) q 15 milliliters (ml)
`1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml)
`1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l)
`1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)
`1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)
`1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)
`1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3)
`1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3)
`TEMPERATURE (EXACT)
`[(x-32)(5/9)] oF q y oC
`
`1 liter (1) = 2.1 pints (pt)
`1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)
`1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)
`1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)
`1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)
`
`TEMPERATURE (EXACT)
`[(9/5) y + 32] oC q x oF
`
`QUICK INCH-CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION
`
`INCHES
`CENTIMETERS
`
`0
`I
`0 1
`
`8
`9
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`1
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`I
`2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
`
`I
`
`10
`
`25.40
`
`QUICK FAHRENHEIT-CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION
`
`oF -40°
`-40°
`° C
`
`-22O
`I
`-3O°
`
`14°
`
`-4°
`1
`-2O° -l0°
`
`I
`
`32°
`
`I
`
`O°
`
`I
`
`1O°
`
`20°
`
`30°
`
`40°
`
`50°
`
`50° 68°
`
`I
`
`86°
`
`I
`
`104°
`
`I
`
`122°
`
`I
`
`140°
`
`I
`
`60°
`
`158°
`
`I
`
`70°
`
`176°
`
`I
`
`80°
`
`194°
`
`I
`
`90°
`
`212°
`
`I
`
`l00°
`
`For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NBS Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and
`Measures. Price $2.50. SD Catalog No. Cl3 10286.
`
`iv
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Section
`
`Page
`
`OVERVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
`INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`PURPOSE OF TEST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`Issue 1: Does the Availability of Real-Time Traffic Information and
`Electronic Navigation Assistance Improve Trip Efficiency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
`Issue 2: Does the Availability of Real-Time Traffic Information and
`Electronic Navigation Assistance Improve Overall Driver Performance? . . . . . .8
`Issue 3: What are Drivers Willing to Pay for TravTek Features and
`Functions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`Issue 4: Is the TravTek Driver Interface Usable and Useful? . . . . . . . . . .10
`METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`DURATION OF TEST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`TEST CONFIGURATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`Navigation Plus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`TEST CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`TravTek Traffic Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`Origin/Destination Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
`Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`MATERIALS AND INSTRUMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`Pre-Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
`Observers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
`In-Vehicle Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`Debriefing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
`Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
`Test Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`Assignment to Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
`
`Section
`
`Page
`
`Issue: What are Drivers Willing to Pay For TravTek Features and Func-
`tions?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
`Issue: Is the TravTek System Usable and Useful?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
`DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
`Issue 1: Does the Availability of Real-Time Traffic Information and
`Electronic Navigation Assistance Improve Trip Efficiency? . . . . . . . . . . . 85
`Issue 2: Does the Availability of Real-Time Traffic Information and
`Electronic Navigation Assistance Improve Overall Driver Performance? . .87
`Issue 3: What are Drivers Willing to Pay for TravTek Features and
`Functions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88
`Issue 4: Is the TravTek Driver Interface Usable and Useful? . . . . . . . . . . 89
`CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`Figure
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Overview of the TravTek system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`Schematic representation of the TravTek vehicle architecture. . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`TravTek Guidance Display. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`The TravTek Route Map displays the planned route as an overlay on the
`heading up map display. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
`
`O/D 1 began in a residential neighborhood south of downtown Orlando
`and west of Orange Blossom Trail. It ended in a residential neighborhood
`north of downtown Orlando. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`O/D 2 began in a residential neighborhood north of downtown Orlando
`and ended in a residential neighborhood south of downtown and east of
`Orange Avenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`O/D 3 began in a residential neighborhood south of downtown Orlando
`and ended in a residential neighborhood north of downtown and east of
`Orlando Avenue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Trip planning time as a function of vehicle configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`
`Travel time as a function of vehicle configuration and O/D. . . . . . . . . . . .32
`
`Travel times for yoked dyads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
`
`Travel times for all Navigation Plus and Navigation yoked pairs that
`made no wrong turns and for which the Navigation Plus configuration re-
`ceived a different route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
`
`Actual and predicted travel times as a function of vehicle configuration
`and whether the Navigation Plus member of the yoked pair planned a dif-
`ferent route than the Navigation member. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
`
`Predicted and actual travel times for Navigation Plus vehicles that were
`given a different route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
`
`Predicted and actual travel times for Navigation Plus vehicles that were
`given the same route as Navigation vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
`
`15.
`
`Travel distance for all yoked triads with complete trips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`Figure
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
`
`Page
`
`Travel distance for all yoked pairs of Navigation Plus and Navigation
`drivers that completed their trips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
`
`Travel distance for all Navigation Plus/Navigation dyads where the Navi-
`gation Plus configuration planned a different route and no driver made a
`wrong turn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
`
`The locations where Navigation Plus and Navigation configuration driv-
`ers most frequently made wrong turns on O/D 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
`
`The time delay before drivers noted that they were off the planned route
`was significantly longer for the Control configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
`
`Total time elapsed between going off route and returning to a planned
`route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
`
`Questionnaire items related to driving performance were rated on a six
`point Likert scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
`
`An example of a willingness-to-pay scale in the questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . .63
`
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system “such as the one
`you drove.”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
`
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system purchased as
`“options on a new car.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
`
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system purchased as “an
`add-on to any car.”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
`
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system as added cost on a
`weekly rental rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68
`
`An example of the training checklist used to rate driver proficiency in
`entering a destination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
`
`28.
`
`An example of the TravTek “keyboard”interface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
`
`vi
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`Table
`
`Page
`
`LIST OF TABLES
`
`1. Does the availability of real-time traffic information and electronic navi-
`gation assistance improve tripefficiency? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`2. Does the availability of real-time traffic information and electronic navi-
`gation assistance improve overall driver performance?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`
`3. What are drivers willing to pay for TravTek features and functions?. . . . . .10
`
`4. Is the TravTek system usable and useful?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`5. Number of drivers that completed O/D’s as a function of vehicle configu-
`ration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`
`6. Analysis of variance summary table for travel time of all triads. . . . . . . . .31
`
`7. Analysis of variance source table for travel time of yoked Navigation Plus
`and Navigation drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
`
`8. Analysis of variance source table for travel distance of all yoked triads
`that completed their trips. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
`
`9. Overall congestion rating summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
`
`10. Mean congestion ratings recorded by observers as a function of vehicle
`configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
`
`11. Overall congestion level by vehicle configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
`
`12. Mean distance traveled by vehicle configuration and road class. . . . . . . . 43
`
`13. Mean distance traveled by vehicle configuration and road class for yoked
`triads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
`
`14. Mean congestion level by vehicle configuration for 22 yoked dyads. . . . .44
`
`15. Mean distance traveled by vehicle configuration and road class for 22
`yokeddyads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
`
`16. Close-call or near-miss statistics as a function of vehicle configuration. . 46
`
`17. Incidence of trips on which at least one abrupt turn was recorded. . . . . . 47
`
`vii
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
`
`Table
`18. The incidences of trips with one or more abrupt turns when the Naviga-
`tion Plus vehicle selected an alternative route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`
`Page
`
`19. The frequency of trips with abrupt maneuvers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
`
`20. Frequency of trips with abrupt maneuvers by Navigation Plus and Navi-
`gation pairs for trips when the Navigation Plus configuration took an al-
`ternative route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
`
`21. Number of drivers who made wrong turns as a function of vehicle con-
`figuration (yoked triads). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`
`22. Number of drivers who made wrong turns as a function of vehicle con-
`figuration (yoked dyads). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
`
`23. Number of drivers in each wrong turn classification for dyads where the
`Navigation Plus driver received an alternative route.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`
`24. Number of drivers who made wrong turns as a function of O/D (yoked
`triads). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
`
`25. Percentage of drivers in yoked triads who made at least one wrong turn. .50
`
`26. Number of drivers who made wrong turns as a function of O/D (yoked
`dyads). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`
`27. Description of maneuvers that resulted in a driver’s first wrong turn. . . .51
`
`28. Wrong turn classification for Navigation Plus and Navigation triads as a
`function of vehicle configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
`
`29. How drivers got back onto a planned route. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
`
`30. Mean workload ratings for yoked triads as a function of vehicle configu-
`ration, type of workload, and trip segment (category). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
`
`3 1. Items from the Yoked Driver Study and Orlando Test Network Study
`questionnaire that were selected to represent driver opinion of the
`TravTek system’seffect of on driver performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
`
`32. Correlation matrix of 14 questionnaire items that concerned driving per-
`formance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
`
`33. Factor structure for the four factor solution with quartimax rotation. . . . .62
`
`34. Summary of responses to the willingness-to-pay questions. . . . . . . . . . . 64
`
`
`viii
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
`
`Page
`Table
`35. Proportion of participants who said they would pay nothing. . . . . . . . . . . .66
`
`36. Frequency of judgments as to whether the TravTek system would be use-
`ful forat home driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
`
`37. Mean ratings for questionnaire items used to assess TravTek’s utility as a
`routing and navigation aid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
`
`38. The percentage of drivers who answered system information questions
`correctly each time they were asked. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
`
`39. Mean number of training runs to attain proficiency at entering a destina-
`tion by gender and age group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
`
`40. Average number of errors (sample size in parentheses) in performing each
`of five system manipulation tasks.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
`
`41. Overall, what impressions do you have about TravTek now that you’ve
`had a chance to test drive the future? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
`
`42. What was your favorite feature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
`
`43. What was your least favorite feature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
`
`44. While driving with TravTek, were there any situations where TravTek
`was especially helpful?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80
`
`45. While driving with TravTek, were there any situations where TravTek
`was not helpful? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
`
`46. Did the training you were given prepare you for driving with TravTek? . . 83
`
`47. Can you think of anything that could be improved about TravTek to make
`it better?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
`
`ix
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`TravTek was a joint public and private sector operational field test of an advanced trav-
`eler information and traffic management system (ATIS/ATMS).Public sector partici-
`pants were the City of Orlando, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Florida
`Department of Transportation.The American Automobile Association, and General
`Motors were the private sector participants.
`
`The TravTek system was composed of three primary components: the TravTek vehicles,
`the TravTek Information and Service Center (TISC), and the Traffic Management Center
`(TMC). Once each minute, the TMC broadcast updated travel times for TravTek traffic
`links to the TravTek vehicles.The TravTek vehicles broadcast their link trave l times
`back to the TMC for transmission to the other TravTek vehicles.The vehicles were
`equipped with software and computers that provided route planning, route guidance, and
`a data base of local services and attractions.
`
`The Yoked Driver Study was 1 of 12 evaluation studies conducted as part of the opera-
`tional test. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the contributions of real-
`time traffic information, route planning, and route guidance to trip efficiency and driver
`performance.
`
`A yoked methodology was used.That methodology called for three TravTek vehicles to
`depart at 2-min intervals from the same origin for the same destination during peak after-
`noon traffic.Sending the vehicles on the same trip at the same time of day was intended
`to ensure that they would be subject to the same network environment.Each of the three
`vehicles was configured differently.One was in the Navigation Plus configuration. To
`plan efficient routes, the Navigation Plus configuration utilized real-time traffic informa-
`tion for 1,488 traffic links. A second vehicle was in the Navigation configuration. This
`configuration used the same route planning software as the Navigation Plus configura-
`tion, but did not use real-time traffic information.The third vehicle was in the Control
`configuration. The drivers of Control configuration vehicles planned and navigated as
`“they normally would.” That is, in the Control configuration drivers used a paper map or
`a transcribed list of instructions.
`
`A total of 222 drivers participated in the Yoked Driver Study.Of these drivers, 108
`contributed to complete Yoked triads, where a triad consisted of one Navigation Plus,
`one Navigation, and one Control configuration vehicle.On days when three drivers were
`not available for testing, Yoked dyads with Navigation Plus and Navigation configura-
`tion vehicles were run.
`
`The Navigation Plus and Navigation configurations each resulted in a large trip planning
`time savings compared to the Control configuration.The Navigation Plus and Naviga-
`tion configurations also yielded significant en route travel-time saving, but this saving
`was not observed on all origin destination pairs.
`
`1
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`The availability of real-time information to the Navigation Plus vehicles often resulted in
`the Navigation Plus vehicles planning different routes than those planned by the Naviga-
`tion vehicles. On average, when taking a different route, the Navigation Plus vehicles
`traveled a greater distance than the Navigation vehicles, and traveled farther on lower
`class roadways. Despite this, they did not experience significantly longer travel times.
`Two conclusions are suggested by the real-time traffic information findings: (1) if travel
`time information for arterials had been better, a travel time saving might have been ob-
`served; and (2) by avoiding adding to the delay on the Interstate, Navigation Plus vehi-
`cles contributed a network travel time saving.
`
`Near accident and abrupt maneuver performance measures indicate that driver perform-
`ance in the Navigation Plus and Navigation configurations was at least as good as that in
`the Control condition. Drivers’ reported significantly reduced workload when using the
`TravTek system compared to the Control condition, Furthermore, in questionnaire re-
`sponses, drivers indicated that TravTek helped them drive more safely and helped them
`find their way.
`
`Questionnaire responses suggest that participants would be willing to pay about $1000
`for a system such as the one they drove. Participants also indicated a willingness to pay
`about $28/week additional for a rental car with a system such as the one they drove.
`Participants rated route guidance as the most valuable TravTek feature, followed by
`navigation assistance (a moving map with present position), and real-time traffic infor-
`mation.
`
`Evidence is also presented that suggests the TravTek system was easy to learn and easy
`to use.
`
`TravTek’s Voice Guidance was most frequently named as participants’ “favorite”
`TravTek feature.The sound quality of the voice guide was most frequently identified as
`the least liked TravTek feature and the one that most needed improvement.
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`TravTek was a joint public and private sector operational field test of an advanced trav-
`eler information and traffic management system (ATIS/ATMS).“’ 2) Public sector par-
`ticipants were the City of Orlando, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Florida
`Department of Transportation. The American Automobile Association, and General
`Motors were the private sector participants.
`
`The TravTek Evaluation consisted of a series of behavioral, engineering, and modeling
`studies designed to evaluate the TravTek system from multiple perspectives. The Yoked
`Driver Study was a behavioral and systems study to evaluate the value of
`l Real-time traffic information.
`l TravTek’s route planning and route guidance functions.
`The study examined value with respect to:
`l Trip efficiency.
`l Navigation performance.
`l Driving performance.
`Driver perceptions of the TravTek system, ease of learning, and willingness-to-pay for
`TravTek functions were also examined.
`
`There were multiple objectives for the TravTek system. From a driver’s perspective,
`goals included navigation assistance, congestion avoidance, reduction in trip times, and
`access to information about the local area. From a safety perspective, either an en-
`hancement in safety, or, minimally, no increase in risk was expected. From a traffic
`systems perspective, goals included decreased congestion, increased in fuel economy,
`and an increased safety. The purpose of the Yoked Driver Study was twofold: (1) to
`evaluate the ability of the TravTek system to meet its objectives, and (2) to provide guid-
`ance as to which alternative implementations might best fulfill the objectives.
`
`The Yoked Driver Study focused on the value of real-time traffic information to the
`TravTek system. The performance of visitors to the Orlando area in navigating between
`Orlando origins and destinations was observed under three conditions:
`l TravTek route planning and route guidance supplemented with real-time
`travel information.
`l TravTek route planning and route guidance without the benefit of real-time
`travel information.
`l Route planning and route guidance without the aid of the TravTek system.
`
`Google Ex. 1016
`
`

`

`BACKGROUND
`The TravTek system architecture was composed of three primary components: the
`TravTek vehicles, the TravTek Information and Service Center (TISC), and the Traffic
`Management Center (TMC). These three components are described briefly here, with the
`focus on aspects that are important to the objectives of the Yoked Driver Study. The
`reader may refer to Rillings and Lewis for additional details about the TravTek system.(2)
`Figure 1 provides a graphical overview of the TravTek system architecture. In the fig-
`ure, data links are indicated by arrows. It can be seen that the vehicle both received and
`transmitted data. Data transmitted by the vehicle included travel times across TravTek
`network roadway segments.
`
`Traffic Sensors
`
`l Restaurants
`l Entertainment
`
`l Map Information
`
`Traffic lnformatio
`
`Cellular Phone
`
`Global
`
`Figure 1. Overview of the TravTek system.
`
`TravTek made a wealth of information available to drivers. This informat