TD 2. 30: 94-141
`
`HITECTURE
`,
`EVALUATION ••• PUBLICATION NO.
`
`FHWA-RD-94-141 ... U.S . DEPARTMENT
`JULY 1995
`
`OF TRANSPORTATION ...
`
`01 OF 03
`24X
`SUPTDOCS/GPO
`i>.0001-0011
`
`TD 2.30: 94-141
`Travie
`r , System Architecture
`
`E
`
`UHIU. Of ~ASHIHGTOH LIBRARIES
`Travier,
`S~stem Architecture
`TD 2.30 : 94-141
`
`E
`
`1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
`3 935 2 10016 4 89 6
`
`GOVERN>JENT
`~f
`.. ✓~tt.eN&
`LNV. OF WASH. L~rtAi~itS
`
`FEB 211996
`u.s, DEPos;TCnY C~?Y
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`TravTek
`System Architec ture Evaluation
`
`Publication No FHWA •A0-94 · 141
`
`July 1995
`
`0 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
`of Trmsponotion (0~~rPa~1l~ill
`BEST COPY AVAILABLE
`
`~Depatrrent
`
`Resea.rch and Development
`TurNr-Falrt>ank HJghway Research Center
`6300 Georgetown Pike
`McLean , Vlrgltlia 22101·2296
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`BLANK PAGE
`BLANK PAGE
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`FOR£W no
`
`This rcpon iJ one or eight rcpon s produced as part or the evaluation of the Trnvtck operatio nal field
`ICSl. conducted in Orlando, Aorida, during 1992-1993. Trovtck. shor1 for Travel Technology, was an
`.,dv:inccd driver information and ttaffic mttnagcmcnt S)'Slcm lhat provided a combination of uu vclcr
`informtu1on SCl"'I~
`and route navigation and guidance support 10 the driver. Twelve individual but
`related studi~ were conducted during the cvolu:11ion. Evaluation go Is ond objoctivcs were
`rcpre!$Cntcd by the following t-a.sic qucstioru: ( I) Did the TrnvTck system work? (2) Did drivers save
`time and avoid congestion? (3) Wtll drivers use the ~-stem? (4) How cffccti"'C was vc,1cc guidnncc
`compared 10 moving mop nnd tum•by-tum d1Jplo) ? (5) Was TrnvTek !llfc? (6) Could TrnvTck
`benefit ar.1vclcrs \\ ho do not hove the TrnvTck iystem? (7) Will people be willing 10 pny for TrovTek
`features'!
`
`fa .. 1luotion do1a "'~re obt:uncd from more 1han 4.000 \'Olunu:x:r dnvcrs during the operat ion of 100
`-.pcciatly c:quip(k.~ au1omob1I !.'- for n 1-yc-ar period. Results of the cvaluo11on dcmonstnucd ond
`v,,lidntcd the concept of in-vehicle navigation and the provision of traveler in(onn.1tion scrvica to
`the dri"-cr The tel11 .1lm provided valuable rcsulu concerning the drivers' interaction with and use
`of the 1n-,ch1tlc disphl)~. This pmJcct has made many important contribu11ons supporti ng the goals
`::ind obJCC:11\Q or the lntclligcn1 Transportntion Systcrru~Prog.rom.
`C----
`
`-,'--«:- .· r;L-
`
`L , • Snxton. Dirc.-c1/r
`Office or Safct)' and , roffic
`Operations Research and Oc\,:Jopmcnt
`
`OTICE
`
`This document is disseminated under the spoNOr1hip of 1he Ocpartmcn1 of Transportation in the
`interest of information cxchnngc. The United Stutes GO\..ocmmcnt a.ssumes no liability for the
`contents or the use thcrcor. This report docs not cons1itu1c a standard, specification. or rcguhuion.
`
`The United Stoles Government docs not endorse product.s uf manufacturers. Trade nnd
`mruiufacturcrs· nomcs appear in this report only bcc.lusc they arc considered ~ntio
`l to the object
`of the document.
`
`BEST COPY AVAILABLE
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`u
`TravTek SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION
`
`7. Authol{t)
`C. Blumentritt K. Balke. E. Seymour, R Sanchez
`9. Ptffomwng gantraoon ~ tnd Addr ...
`Texas Transponation IMtitute
`8 l SO Nonh Central Exp~way. Suite 81 S
`Dallas, Texas 75206
`
`1----------------------t
`
`10 WOftt Uni No
`387A
`f1. COflll'aClOf~No
`
`12. SpontOMg AQenc, Name tnd Addf ...
`Office of Safety and Traffic Operations R&O
`Federal Highway Administration. 6300 Georgetown Pike
`McLean, VA 22101-2296
`15 Suppementaty Not•
`Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) - Frank Mammano. HSR-12
`
`13 Typed Report end PeriodCO\llnd
`Final Report
`11191 - 3194
`
`The rravTek System Architecture Evaluation documents in detail the Tra..,Tek system.
`including the Traffic lnformatfon Network (TIN), TravTek lnfonna1ion ~ces Center (TISC).
`Traffic Management Center (TMC) . and the TravTck vehicle The TravTek system achieved a high
`state c-f autom-.,:'ln Link travel time data were received automatically from the probe vducles.
`fttch •ay management system. and arterial control management system. These data were fused and
`dist11buted to the vehicles. all without operator intervention The process for estimating link travel
`tiines worked wcU c.'I the basis of infonnation available. Trav'Tek needed more high quality traffic
`information to provi~~ vehicle routing that had the benefit of accurate. up to minute traffic
`infonnation. Probe vchi.:.."---1 provided reliable travel times, but rcponed significant travel time
`variations on arterial links due to stop time at intersections. Incident information available to
`TravTek WIS sparse and usually not timely. Historical link travel time. map. and local information
`data base accuracy was good . A human factors stud~. regarding the TMC operation and
`environmen~ found operator improvemrnt was needed. The TravTdc system WIS very reliable,
`largely due to a distributed architecture. Problemq with the TravTek system were largely
`implementati"n related, as opposed to architecture related Lessons learned during TravTek are
`enumerated.. and conclusions are stat~ which sustain the overall success of TravTek.
`
`17. KeyWo«II
`TravTek. ATIS, IVHS Architecture.
`Architecture Evaluation
`
`19. Secunty c..r . (of thil report)
`Unclwified
`
`FOffll DOT F 1700.7
`
`18 ~ S1atefMnt
`No restrictions. This document is available to the
`public through the National Tecluuc&J
`Information Service, Springfield, Vif'8inia 22161
`20. Secuncy c..r (of ttMI pege)
`Unclassified
`
`21 No of Peget
`2SO
`
`22. Price
`
`•
`\
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`- ----
`-
`s1· (MODERN METRIC)
`Symbol Wh.nYouKnow .,,...,., Toflnd
`.,...,., Tol'IM
`APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITI
`- ........ 0,11111
`-Ill
`..... ... ...
`... ....
`.,__
`..__.
`....
`,,,...
`'"
`,..
`,..
`•
`,,,...
`.,.__,.
`""" .... .,.. .. O.OOlt
`.... ,.._..
`""
`......... 10,?M
`.... ,.....
`........ fl'
`.,,.
`_,
`..... 2.~1
`-
`..........
`.,,
`.....ITMtn
`......
`"" ""
`.............
`""
`14,W'9..__. o ...
`Ila w
`"""
`...
`...
`VOLUME
`,.,....
`,.,....
`..........
`........
`......... 1.307
`0.Ok
`UM
`'5 ,71
`
`-
`CONVERSION FACTORS
`APPROXIMATE COHYERSIONI FROM SI UNITS
`lymbof
`--Y•Know
`
`-
`
`--1
`
`9yfflbol
`
`llNOTH
`
`,.....
`Ill
`1.0I
`Ill
`1111 ~ oa,
`ARD
`
`m'
`
`tie
`
`ffll
`L
`Ill"
`Ill"
`
`a.elo,....,.
`
`UN
`
`....
`lndlee
`ecr.-.,..
`....,.1111ee
`
`rd
`
`IIO
`m1
`
`Md-
`
`aAiclNI
`
`II'
`
`•oi
`...
`..._
`c.Alla,.. .,,
`-· or
`
`II
`Ilg
`Mg
`(Of "I')
`
`MASS
`flWl!I
`0.035
`llloglWIIS
`lb
`2.207
`poundt
`lholt lone (2000 lb) T
`1.103
`ffl9IIIIIIIWIII
`(CM' ·1N4rto .... ,
`TEMPERATURE i••ec:t)
`._,,._
`-c ~ I.IC +32
`Felnnhelt
`"f
`~
`
`..
`
`cdffll
`
`IU.UYNAT10N
`
`0.ota
`Ila
`loocondlt9
`o.a,t
`Cllldt!MII'
`loot~
`FORCE Ind PRESSU'IE or STRESS
`
`._,. ~--0.1'5
`
`N
`
`ftNIOM
`
`0.221
`
`lo
`
`•
`
`lbf
`MW
`
`poundboe
`poundboeptf
`lqllWe Inch
`
`----·
`
`-----------
`
`-
`
`'"
`
`ft
`rd
`ml
`
`rndlet
`
`mlee
`
`LENOlM
`IU
`o.-
`0.'1,
`
`, .. ,
`
`Symbol
`
`Ill
`
`.,,. ""'-~
`...
`.,~ ~r.,..
`
`ICIU-INI
`
`mP
`
`ecpwe"""
`
`hi
`
`Md-
`
`AREA
`8'U
`0,0N
`o.m
`o.a
`UI
`VOLUME
`IU7
`
`a.elofNC
`
`O.mt
`
`ml
`L
`Ill"
`Ill"
`
`·
`
`eo -
`... -- 1.7N
`.,, a.elo,.. 0.1U
`...
`~ : v.,._.-.., 1000,.,,..•"-''""'"
`01 -·
`MASS
`.,_.
`tul
`-0.AM ~
`mevaor-
`0.907
`(ot .,,,.. 111n,
`,......
`~ Cf~ .• ........
`IU.UYNAT10N
`.,,
`..
`_..._.
`IOOCGldlt
`10.71
`,..a
`looc-llmbeltl
`....
`FORCE Ind PRESSURE or STRESS
`·-
`,_.,.
`.,...,. poundboeptf
`
`lb
`T
`
`"f
`
`fD
`I
`
`lbf
`
`poundt
`t holt tont (2000 lb)
`
`TEMPERATURE (euct)
`
`II
`11,11
`Mg
`(Of "I')
`
`l(F-3Z)'t ~
`
`'O
`
`poundboe
`
`~lndl
`
`~
`
`lilopetcall
`
`N
`kP•
`
`•S11tO.symbollDrliel~MfS,.wmofUnlll.~
`rounclng lhould "-madl ID OOffllllr wtfl hdlol,
`
`• d ASTM E310.
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`BLANK PAGE
`BLANK PAGE
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`PREFACE
`
`TravTck wu a joint public sector • private $CCtOr project to develop, test and evaluate an
`intes,ated driver information system and supporting infra.structure in metropolitan Orlando,
`Florida TrwvTek provided motorists with navigation, real-time traffic information. route
`selection and guidance. and motorist information services. TravTek systems were installed in 100
`1992 O1~ ... ;nobilc T oronados operating in a l 900 km1 area surrounding Orlando. Seventy-five of
`the e&rJ were in • car rental fleet for uie by visitors to Orlando and 25 of the can were used by
`loc,J rc:sidentai and for special controlled tests
`
`The project was the largest. moSt comprehensive advanced driver information system project
`to date attempted in the Uruted States. It officially started on March 23, 1992 and operated for 1
`by General Moton and
`yeu . TravTek wu a partnership between the private sector, r~ted
`the American Automobile Association. and the public sector, represented by the Federal Highway
`Administration, the Florida Ocpan.mcnt of Transportation, and the City of Orlando. Additional
`private sector panic:ipants included Motorola Md Avis.
`
`The TravTek evaluation consisted ofa series of eoMeeted researcn efforu that addraaed
`of the system. This effort was organized as a collection of major tub . Task A wu
`every~
`the Project Management task, and coordinated all efTon s of the evaluation team. u well u
`provided Ua.ison with the TravTck partners. Task B included the Rental User Study, to evaluate
`the drivers' impressions ofTravTek, and the Loc:&.I User Study, to evaluate the panicipation of
`local users in longer tenn experiments. Task C included the Yoked Driver Study, to evaluate the
`relationship between use of the TravTck functions and measures of driver/vehicle perfonnanoe,
`the Orlando Traffic Networic study. to evaluate alternative TravTck/driver interface features, and
`the Camera Car Study, to examine driver interactions with different versions of the TravTck in(cid:173)
`vehicle system. Task i> in,.uded the Debriefing and Interview Study, to gather qualiwivc
`infonnation from panicipants, an~ the Questionnaire Study, to obtain uJCr perceptions from a
`wider 1'1'.nge of attributes. Task E included the TravTek Modeling Study, to model lhe traffic and
`safety perfonnance of the TravTek system, and the Slf'cty Study, to evaluate the safety of using
`in-vehicle information systems. Tuk F wu the System Architecture Study. to evaluate all upectJ
`of the TravTck system design.
`
`This report presents the results of the Task F System Architecture Evalut .on. It documents
`in detail the TrevTck system, including the Traffic lnfonnation Netwotk (TD ), TravTck
`Information Services Center {TISC), Traffic: M&Mgemcnt Center (TMC), and the TravTck
`Vehicle. Each of thCSCI system entities hu an overall description. and in turn each entity hu a
`detailed functional description. a process description, and data flow diagrams. Issues addressed in
`the system architecture evaluation include: accuracy of the link travel times provided by the
`various real-time sources; accuracy and timeliness of the incident information broadc:ut to the
`TravTck vehicles; data bue accuracy; performance of the data fusion process; system operation
`considaations: evaluation of operator interface, network covering. and degree of automation;
`reliability of subsystems, TMC/vehiclc communications. and software; and system architecture
`features. The lessons learned during TravTek are given, and concl••~~"• are sweet which sustain
`the overall succcsa ofTravTelc.
`
`m
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Section
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`INTRODUCTION
`I
`Traflek BACKGROUND
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`TravTek £VALUATION
`. .
`TnvTck ARCBITECTURE EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`SYSTEM OVERVIEW
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`TRAFFIC INFORMATION NETWORK (TIN) . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .
`IO
`TravTek INFORMATION AND SERVICES CENTER (TISC) . . . . .
`. . . . . . . .
`l l
`TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER (TMq
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`TnavTek VEHICLE
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`. . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`...............................................
`SYSTEM DESCRIYl1ON
`17
`TRAFFIC INFORMATION NE'IWORK (TIN)
`. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`TIN Functional Description
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`Unk Travel Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
`Jncldent and Congestion Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
`Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 24
`INFORMATION AND SERVICES CENTER (TlSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`TnvTek
`TJSC Functional Description
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`TISC Procw Description
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`TISC Data Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`30
`TRAmc MANAGEMENT CENTER (TMC)
`. . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .
`30
`TMC Functional Description .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . 33
`Traffic Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
`Data logging
`Traffic DaJa Fusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
`Traffic Information Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
`Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
`Operator Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`TravTek VEBJCLE
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SJ
`Traflek Vehicle Functional Description
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
`Navigr,tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`Route &lectlon .
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
`Ro.11e Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 62
`Local Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
`Driver lnttrfac_e . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 66
`Yeh/cit Pro~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
`Data logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`
`iv
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(conwaued)
`
`Section
`
`b&c
`
`1S
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .
`QUALITY OF TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL INFORMATION
`75
`QUALl1Y OF TRAVEL TIME lNFORMA TION
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
`Evalu.1tioo Methodology
`Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 78
`RaultJ
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . .
`.
`. .
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
`System Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`Source Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . • . . . . .
`83
`QUALITY OF INCIDENT INFORMATION
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
`Evaluation Methodology
`. . . . . .
`. . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • . . . . . . . 97
`Dal.I Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . 97
`Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
`DATA BASE ACCURACY .........................
`. . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 101
`Historical Dal.I Base ..
`..
`........
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`101
`M-2p Data Base . . . . . .
`t 02
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`I 03
`Local Information Data Base .
`. .
`. . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`EVALUATION OF THE DA TA FUSION PROCESS
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`I 07
`. .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`DATA FUSION PROCESS .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`107
`Evaluation Methodology
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 111
`Dal.I Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
`Results . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`112
`EVALUATION OF SYSTEM AND NETWORK OPERATIONS .................
`119
`TMC OPERATOR INTERFACE .....................................
`119
`Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
`Information Analysis
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
`Job Analysis . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`120
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
`Workload Analysts
`Results . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 l
`/11/orma11on Flow Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 121
`Job A nalyr.s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . 123
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
`Workload Analysis
`Discussion . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
`CoocluJions
`. . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
`NE1WORK COVERING
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
`Network Description
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
`Oat.I Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
`Probe Vehicle Activity
`. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
`Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
`Conclusions
`DEGREE OF AUTOMATION
`........
`. . . ............................
`143
`Discussion
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
`
`V
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(coati.nutd)
`
`~ion
`
`e.
`SYSTEM R£LlAB1Ll1Y . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`147
`SUBSYSTEM RELlABlLITV
`. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`147
`Daca Sources . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.
`147
`Manual and Computer Generated Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`147
`Log Analysis
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
`Ons11e /111en 1iews of Key TravTelc Participan ts
`I SO
`. . . . . . . . . . . . • . .
`Results . .
`. .
`. . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . 151
`Results : June I Through De~mber JI. /991
`I 51
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Number of Failures . .
`. . . . .
`. . . . . . . . .
`. .
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`15 I
`Duration of Failures
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .
`l 52
`lime of Day Failures .
`.
`.
`. . . • . . . . • . . . . . .. 156
`Resu lts: January I ThrouFh !.!'lrch JI , 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
`Number of Failures . .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`160
`Duration of Failures
`• . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . • . . • . . . . .
`160
`Time of Day J-'ailures .
`. .. . . .
`. . . .
`. . • . . . . • • • . . . 164
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
`Results : June .'. 1992 Through March JI , 1993 .
`Number of failures
`.
`. . . . . • • . . . . . • . . • • . 168
`Duration of Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
`Time of Day Failures .
`. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
`. . . 179
`Onsite Interview Results
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . 180
`Condu,ions . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . .
`. .
`. . . .
`. . . . . . . .
`. . .
`.
`.
`TMCNEHICLE COMMUNICATION SUBSYSTEM RELIABILITY
`180
`Evaluation Methodology
`180
`Oat• Sources ........
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
`Results . . .
`. . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
`SOFTWARE RELIABILITY
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . .
`190
`I 95
`SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .
`195
`TravTek DISTRIBUTED ARCHITECTURE
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`196
`CENTRAL ARCHITECTURE DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
`...............
`RELA TIONSHlP OF Travf ek ARCHITECTURE TO PROBL EMS
`199
`CRITIQUE OF IMPLEMENTATION ...........
`. . . .. . . . . . ..
`199
`COMMUNlCA '"'OON SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
`.......................
`201
`IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA
`.
`.
`. . .
`.
`. . . .. . . .
`.. . . .. . .. • .
`202
`205
`LESSONS LEARNEO . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 205
`LJST OF LESSONS LEARNED
`205
`Lesson # I: Truncated Test Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . .
`Lesson # 2: Diagnostic Information in Distributtd System . . . . . . . . . .
`205
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
`Lason # 3: Improve Degrtt of Automation
`Lason .# 4: Map Data Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
`Lason # 5: Dual Map Dat a Bua
`in Vehicle .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
`Lason # 6: Manual Rttord Kttping
`. . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. 206
`
`. . . . . . .
`. . . . . . .
`
`Vl
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Section
`
`LESSONS LEARNED (Continued)
`
`Lason# 7: Quality or Travel Iorormation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
`Lesson# I: TMC Mlaual Rf'Cord Keeping . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
`Lesson # 9: TIN Network Con«pt
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
`Lesson# JO: Traffic Data Timeliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . 207
`Lason # II: Public/Private Partntnbip
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
`Lesson # 12: Development of Evaluation Plans . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . 207
`.
`Lason # 13: Timeliness a_nd QuaJjty or Incident Jnrormatioo
`. . . • . . . . 207
`Lason# 14: Importance o(JVJcbiat Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
`Lason# 15: lovotvment orProjtct Penonnel
`....
`. ........
`..
`...•
`208
`Lesson # 16: Perf'ormanct or Distributed System
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`208
`Lesson# 17: Operation otComplu System
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
`Lesson # 18: Benefits or A TIS !o Traffic Mangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
`Lesson # 19: Acceptable Level or Opuatjon
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
`Lesson # 20: Timely Processing or Log Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . 209
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER DAT A EVALlJA TIONS
`209
`CONCLUSIONS
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . .
`. . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 211
`APPENDIX A. TMC SYSTEM HARDWARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
`APPENDIX B. TMC OPERATOR MENU FUNCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
`APPENDIX C. DATA BASE OF TravTek AND FMC INCIDENTS
`(JANUARY 22~ 1993 THROUGH MARCO 26, 1993) . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . US
`APPENDIX D. PROBE VEIDCLE FREQUENCY BY MONTH
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
`REFERENCES
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
`
`vii
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`em
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . • . . . 2
`TravTek geographic area
`. . . . . . . . . . • . . . • • • . . . • • . . . • • . . . 9
`. . • .
`TravTek system diagram
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . • • . . .
`. . . • . . . • . . . . 13
`Traffic management center l~ tion
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . • . . . . • . . . . . • . •
`Vehicle information flow
`l S
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . • • • ..
`.. •
`Elements of traffic infonnation network
`18
`Ulustration of travel timr reporting function .
`. . . • • . . • • . . • . . . . . .
`20
`Data flow requirements for travel time reporting function
`• • • . . • • • • • • • • • • • 21
`Illustration of moderate and heavy congestion levels .
`. . • • . • • • • • • • • • •
`23
`Functional diagram of incid~ t/congestion reporting task .
`. . . • • . . . • • • . .
`24
`Data Oow rcquircm61lt.S for reporting incidents and conges,:.on
`. . • • . . . . • • . • .
`25
`Functional diagram of information dissemination process . . . .
`. . . . . . . .
`25
`Data flow requirements for disseminating travel time and incident information
`26
`TISC system .
`.
`. . . . . . . . .
`.
`. .
`. .
`.
`.
`28
`TISC helJJ desk information Oc-w.
`. . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . .
`. • . • . . • • • . . • • . . . • .
`31
`Tiv1C computer configuration
`. .
`. .
`. . . . . . . . • • . . . • • . . • • . . . • • • . . . • 32
`TMC basic system configuration
`. .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • • 3 2
`Traffic infonnation collection 1ata flow diagram
`. . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . • .
`35
`TMC log data diaribution path . . . . . . .
`. .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • • . . • • •
`38
`Vehicle tog data distribution path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . • . . . . • 39
`TMC data fusion process dat .. flow (all links updated each minute) . • . • • • . • • . .
`41
`Traffic dissemination funClion data flow
`. . . . • . . • . .
`43
`TMC/vchicle data radio system
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . • • • • • • • . 48
`TMC communications data flow
`. . • • . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`TMC operator screen display (rypical)
`• . . . . • • . . . . . . . . • • . . . • • . . . . • . . . • . 5 I
`TMC operator menu selection diagram
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`53
`54
`TMC operator interaction process data flow
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .
`55
`. .
`TravTek vehicle arc:hitccture
`. . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Layout of the TravTek equipment in the vehicle
`. . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 5S
`lntcractic:\S bct·.-it""n TravTek vehjcle functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
`Vehicle positioning function .
`. .
`. . . .
`. .
`.
`. . . . . • . • . . . • . . . • . . . .
`. . . . . 58
`.
`Vehicle navigation data Oow .
`. .
`. .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • • .
`59
`Vehicle route planning/route selection function
`. .
`. . • • . . • • • • • . . . . • . . . . . .
`61
`Illustration of route selection process for rerouting
`. . . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 63
`Route selection data flow
`. . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`63
`Route guidance fus,ctional diagram
`. . . • . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .
`64
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
`Route guidance d3ta flow
`Local infonnation functional diagram
`. . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 66
`Local infonnation data flow .
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . .
`66
`Driver interface function diagram . .
`. . .
`. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`68
`Data flow diagram for driver interface function . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`69
`
`figu re No.
`
`I.
`2.
`3
`4.
`S.
`6.
`7
`8
`9.
`IO
`11.
`12
`13.
`14.
`15.
`16.
`17.
`18.
`19.
`20
`21.
`22
`23
`24
`25.
`26.
`27.
`28.
`29.
`30.
`31
`32.
`33
`34.
`35.
`36.
`37.
`38
`39.
`40.
`
`vm
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`Figure No
`
`LIST OF FJG RE
`(Continued)
`
`41
`42
`43
`44
`4S
`46
`47
`48
`49
`so
`SI
`
`52
`
`SJ
`
`S4
`
`ss
`
`S6
`
`S7
`
`58
`59,
`60
`61
`
`62.
`
`63
`64.
`6S.
`66.
`
`Vehicle probe fanction
`Probe report data now
`Data logging function diagram
`In-vehicle data logging data now
`Distribution of winnin~ travel time sources for ins1rumentcd 111crial links
`Distribution of winning travel time sources for non-instrumented aneriaJ links
`Distribution of winning travel time sources on instrumented freeway links
`Distribution of winning travel time sources on non-instrumented freeway links
`Relative mor of sources of travel time information on freeway links
`Relative error of sources of travel time information on arterial links
`Correlation bet"'ccn travel times estimated using peed information from
`freeway surveillance syslcm and probe-measured travel times during ,\_\1
`peak periods
`Correlation between travel times esti"rrated using speed information from
`freeway surveill1nce system and probe-measured travel times during
`Off peak periods
`Correlauon between travel times estimated using spc-ed informauon from
`freeway surveillance system and probe-mCU4.rMf travel times during P f
`peak periods .
`Correlation between travel times estimated using delay measurements from
`computerized traffic signal system (UTCS) and probe-measured travel times
`during AM peak periods
`Correlation between travel times estimated using delay measurements from
`computerized traffic signal system (UTCS) and probe-measured tra,el times
`during Off peak periods
`Correlation between travel times estimated using delay measurcmmr, !Tom
`computerized traffic SJgnlll system (UTCS) and probe-measured tra,el times
`during PM peak penods
`Type of incident information logged at the TravTek traffic managcmen1 c~ter
`(TMC)
`Versions of navigation map data bases
`Versions of roJting map data bases
`Versions of local information data bases
`Jllustration of data fusion process on ,.on-instrumented TravTek traffic
`network link
`Illustration of data fusion process on link covered by real-time surveillance
`system (UTCS or freeway survcallanee system)
`Relative error rates for each iteration of the data fusion process in the Off peak
`Relative error rates for each iteration of the data fusion process in the AM peak
`Relative error rates for each iteration of the data fusion process in the PM peak
`vreater Orlando road map
`
`ew
`70
`71
`72
`73
`79
`80
`81
`82
`86
`87
`
`90
`
`91
`
`92
`
`. . 93
`
`94
`
`95
`
`99
`!04
`104
`IOS
`
`109
`
`110
`116
`117
`118
`132
`
`ix
`
`Google Ex. 1017
`
`

`

`fiaure No,
`
`LIST OF FIGURf..S
`(Continued)
`
`Em
`
`67.
`68 .
`69 .
`70.
`7 1.
`n .
`73
`74 .
`7~.
`76.
`n .
`78 .
`79 .
`80 .
`81.
`82 .
`83.
`84.
`BS.
`86.
`87
`[8.
`1'9.
`-X>.
`\' I.
`92 .
`93 .
`94 .
`9S.
`96 .
`97 .
`98 .
`99 .
`100.
`JOI.
`102.
`103.
`104.
`105.
`106.
`
`:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
`TravTck traffic link netwo rk .....
`Nwnber oflinks by roadway type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . 134
`Link caiegory distribution by distance . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . 134
`Tra vTelc vehicle probe repons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`l3S
`TravTclc traffic network - daily avnage
`link Ian . . . . . . • . . . .