TravTek Global Evaluation and
`Executive Summary
`
`Publication No. FHWA-RD-96-031
`
`March 1996
`
`U.S. Department of Transportation
`Federal Highway Administration
`
`Research and Development
`Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
`6300 Georgetown Pike
`McLean, Virainia 22101-2296
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`FOREWORD
`
`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.
`
`C. Tignor, Ph.D., P.E.
`Acting 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.
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`1. Report No.
`
`FHWA-RD-96-031
`4. Title and Subtitle
`
` Technical Report Documentation Page
`2. Government Accession No.
`3. Recipient's Catalog No.
`
`5. Report Date
`
`Mar-96
`
`TRAVTEK GLOBAL EVALUATION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`6. Performing Organization Code
`
`7. Author(s)
`
`8. Performing Organization Report No.
`
`V. W. Imnan, J. I. Peters
`9. Performing Organization Name and Address
`Science Applications International Corporation
`3045 Technology Pkwy
`Orlando, FL 32826
`12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
`
`Office of Safety and Traffic Operations R&D
`Federal Highway Administration
`6300 Georgetown Pike
`McLean, VA 22102-2296
`15. Supplementary Notes
`
`10. 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
`
`Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: FrankMammano, HSR-12
`
`16. Abstract
`
`TravTek was an operational field test of an advanced traveler information systems (ATIS) and advanced traffic management
`systems (ATMS) technologies. This paper summarizess the findings from the series of studies that constituted the TravTek
`evaluation. Two field studies, three field experiments, and four analytical studies are summarized. The Rental User Study and
`Local User Study were naturalistic field studies of the use of the TravTek system by rental drivers and high-mileage local area
`residents respectively. The Yoked Driver Study, Orlando Test Network Study, and Camera Car Study were field experiments
`that empirically assessed the in-vehicle TravTek subsystem with respect to measures of performance that included trip plan-
`ning time, travel time, subjective workload, wrong turns, glance location, and glance duration. The Modeling Study extrapo-
`lated expected system performance from field studies and experiments for various levels of market penetration, traffic condi-
`tions not observed in the field, and measures of performance not directly measured in the field. The Modeling Study projected
`effects on fuel consumption, vehicle emissions, accident risk, and other measures for market penetration levels of 1 to 100 per-
`cent. The Safety Study reviewed and integrated safety-related statistics across all TravTek studies and expanded on Modeling
`Study methods to project safety benefits. The Architecture Study thoroughly documented the TravTek system and evaluated
`system components that included: communications, data bases, hardware, software, and system staffing.
`Study results showed that the TravTek system was reliable. The distributed information processing system was found to be vi-
`able. The system helped drivers save substantial trip planning and travel time. It also was effective in helping drivers avoid
`congestion. Both visitors and local users used the system frequently, and provided a median estimate of the value of the system
`in a new car of about $1000. The turn-by-turn Guidance Display and Voice Guide were very well received. Visitors and local
`users used these features for the majority of their trips, and results of field experiments suggest that the Guidance Display and
`Voice Guide yielded improved driving and navigation performance over navigating to unfamiliar destinations by conventional
`means. The Safety Study showed that the system was safe, and suggested a small safety benefit for a fully deployed system. The
`Modeling Study findings suggest that a TravTek system would benefit not only system users, but also non-equipped vehicles
`that share the road with system users. The TravTek operational test was a success. The TravTek evaluation demonstrated that
`users found the system useful, easy to use, and safe. Field experiments showed that the system reduced trip planning and travel
`time, and improved driving and navigation performance. System users indicated that they were willing to pay for a system such
`as the one they drove during the operational test.
`17. Key Words
`18. Distribution Statement
`
`TravTek, ATIS, ATMS, IVHS, ITS, Evaluation
`19. Security Classif. (of this report)
`
`No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
`the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
`20.Security Classif. (of this page)
`21. No of Pages 22. Price
`
`Unclassified
`Form DOT F 1700.7(8-72)
`
`101
`Unclassified
`Reproduction of completed page authorized
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`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
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Section
`1
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................
`1
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................
`1
`The TravTek Partnership ................................................................................................
`1
`The TravTek System........................................................................................................
`2
`The TravTek In-Vehicle System......................................................................................
`3
`The Traffic Management Center ....................................................................................
`3
`The TravTek Information and Services Center..............................................................
`3
`The TravTek Network .....................................................................................................
`3
`THE TRAVTEK EVALUATION........................................................................................
`4
`Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................................
`4
`Approach ..........................................................................................................................
`4
`THE TRAVTEK STUDIES .................................................................................................
`5
`Field Studies .....................................................................................................................
`6
`Field Experiments ............................................................................................................
`7
`Analytical Studies ............................................................................................................
`8
`RESULTS .............................................................................................................................
`Did the System Work?...................................................................................................... 9
`10
`Did Drivers Save Time and Avoid Congestion? ...........................................................
`Will Drivers Use the System”......................................................................................... 10
`How Effective were tbe Turn-By-Turn, Moving Map, and Voice Guidance
`Displays?.............................................................................................................. 10
`Was TravTek Safe?......................................................................................................... 11
`Could TravTek Benefit Travelers Who Do Not Have the System?............................... 12
`Will People be Willing to Pay for TravTek Features?................................................... 12
`12
`CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................
`13
`Implications for Deployment .........................................................................................
`15
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................
`15
`THE TRAVTEK PARTNERSHIP ....................................................................................
`15
`THE TRAVTEK SYSTEM................................................................................................
`17
`THE TRAVTEK IN-VEHICLE SYSTEM ........................................................................
`18
`Data Base of Local Information ....................................................................................
`18
`Navigation Assistance ....................................................................................................
`19
`Route Planning ..............................................................................................................
`19
`Route Guidance .............................................................................................................
`20
`Real-Time Traffic Information......................................................................................
`21
`Location Assistance .......................................................................................................
`22
`Built in tutorial and help ...............................................................................................
`22
`TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTER.............................................................................
`24
`TRAVTEK INFORMATION AND SERVICES CENTER..............................................
`26
`THE TRAVTEK TRAFFIC NETWORK .........................................................................
`29
`TRAVTEK EVALUATION ...................................................................................................
`
`
`iii
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`Section
`Page
`OPERATIONAL FIELD TEST OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`VARIABLES OF INTEREST............................................................................................
`30
`Vehicle Subsystem Variables .........................................................................................
`31
`System Variables ............................................................................................................
`32
`CRITERION MEASURES ................................................................................................
`32
`32
`In-Vehicle Systems .........................................................................................................
`34
`TravTek System Measures ............................................................................................
`34
`TRAVTEK EVALUATION DATA SOURCES................................................................
`35
`Questionnaires...............................................................................................................
`35
`Debriefings.....................................................................................................................
`36
`In-vehicle data logs........................................................................................................
`TravTek Information and Services Center (TISC) logs ............................................... 36
`37
`Traffic Management Center (TMC) logs ......................................................................
`37
`Freeway Management Center (FMC) Logs ..................................................................
`37
`Observer Logs ................................................................................................................
`38
`Camera Car Video .........................................................................................................
`38
`Camera Car Data Log ...................................................................................................
`39
`TRAVTEK STUDIES .............................................................................................................
`39
`NATURALISTIC FIELD STUDIES .................................................................................
`40
`Rental User Study..........................................................................................................
`41
`Local User Study............................................................................................................
`41
`FIELD EXPERIMENTS ....................................................................................................
`42
`Yoked Driver Study .......................................................................................................
`43
`Orlando Test Network Study ........................................................................................
`44
`Camera Car Study .........................................................................................................
`45
`ANALYTICAL STUDIES..................................................................................................
`45
`Modeling Study..............................................................................................................
`47
`Safety Study ...................................................................................................................
`48
`Architecture Evaluation ................................................................................................
`50
`Global Evaluation ..........................................................................................................
`51
`EVALUATION RESULTS .....................................................................................................
`DID THE TRAVTEK SYSTEM WORK“......................................................................... 51
`Did the System Function According to Specification3.................................................. 51
`Did End Users Perceive the System to Work?............................................................... 54
`DID DRIVERS SAVE TIME AND AVOID CONGESTION”.......................................... 55
`Did the TravTek Trip Planning Feature Save Time”.................................................... 55
`Did TravTek Route Guidance Save Time?.................................................................... 56
`.56
`DidReal-Time Traffic Informatio nResult in a Time SavingsBenefit?.....................
`WILL DRIVERS USE THE SYSTEM’............................................................................. 58
`58
`What Users Did ..............................................................................................................
`59
`What drivers said about using TravTek .......................................................................
`
`iv
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`Page
`
`78
`
`78
`79
`
`77
`77
`77
`
`Section
`HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE TURN-BY-TURN, MOVING MAP, AND
`VOICE GUIDANCE DISPLAYS“.......................................................................... 60
`60
`Driving Performance .....................................................................................................
`61
`Navigation Performance ................................................................................................
`63
`Driving safety.................................................................................................................
`64
`Ease of learning..............................................................................................................
`65
`Ease of Use .....................................................................................................................
`66
`User Preference ..............................................................................................................
`WAS TRAVTEK SAFE?.................................................................................................... 67
`COULD TRAVTEK BENEFIT TRAVELERS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE
`TRAVTEK SYSTEM9............................................................................................ 71
`.75
`WILL PEOPLE BE WILLING TOPAY FOR TRAVTEK FEATURES?....................
`LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EVALUATING THE
`TRAVTEK OPERATIONAL TEST ......................................................................................
`TRAVTEK DESIGN ..........................................................................................................
`Designing for Safety of the TravTek System Paid Off..................................................
`Resources Required for Data Base Development and Maintenance were
`Underestimated ..................................................................................................
`Time Needed for Testing, Validation, and System Shake-Down was
`Underestimated ..................................................................................................
`TRAVTEK OPERATIONS ...............................................................................................
`Lack of a System Manager During the Implementation Phase Delayed System
`Maintenance and Impeded Real-Time Diagnosis of System Health ............... .79
`A Verification and Validation Team was Needed to Test and Evaluate
`79
`Proposed Changes to the System Configuration ...............................................
`80
`A Configuration Control Board was Essential .............................................................
`The Help Desk Equipped with a TravTek Simulator was Extremely Useful ............... 81
`81
`TRAVTEK EVALUATION...............................................................................................
`The Organizational Design Adopted by the TravTek Partners Ensured
`and Evaluation Activities.. ..................... .81
`Coordinationof Design,Operation,
`82
`Early Consideration of the Evaluation Objectives Paid Off ........................................
`83
`Building TravTek for Evaluation Paid Off...................................................................
`83
`Recruitment of Test Subjects was Resource Intensive .................................................
`84
`Test Subjects Did Not Make Their Privacy an Issue ....................................................
`85
`Measuring the Impact of TravTek on Safety was Challenging ....................................
`Resources Required for Processing, Checking, and Archiving TravTek
`Evaluation Data were Underestimated..............................................................
`Integrated Data Base Design was Valuable ..................................................................
`GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON TRAVTEK EVALUATION
`LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................
`CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................
`REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................
`
`86
`87
`
`87
`89
`91
`
`V
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`13.
`
`14.
`15.
`16.
`17.
`
`18.
`19.
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`26.
`27.
`
`.58
`
`.66
`
`vi
`
`2
`
`21
`
`.23
`
`.26
`.27
`
`44
`.46
`48
`.52
`
`An overview of the TravTek system................................................................................
`Relationships among TravTek evaluation studies (boxes) and the data they
`yield (ellipses). ................................................................................................................
`5
`Some of the projected benefits of the TravTek system.....................................................
`9
`Overview of the TravTek system...................................................................................
`16
`An example of a screen from the local information data base. ........................................ 18
`TravTek Navigation Plus display...................................................................................
`19
`.20
`The TravTek Guidance Display....................................................................................
`The main help screen from which emergency and road service help could be
`accessed........................................................................................................................
`Emergency service and road service screens accessible in all TravTek vehicle
`configurations. ............................................................................................................. 21
`Schematic representation of the TravTek TMC and its relation to the TravTek
`system..........................................................................................................................
`The TravTek coverage area extended beyond Deltona on the North Winter
`Springs on the East: Orlando International Airport, Kissimmee and Walt
`Disney World on the South: and Winter Garden on the West., ......................................
`Percent of traffic network link distance as a function of road class. ...............................
`The TravTek Route Map displayed the planned route as an overlay on the
`heading up map display. ................................................................................................
`Data flow to and from the INTEGRATION model. ......................................................
`Overview of Safety Study technical approach................................................................
`Probe vehicle volumes band map for operational test period. ........................................
`Plot of coordinates reported by probe vehicles during a 10-day period in
`53
`September 1992............................................................................................................
`Trip planning times from TravTek field experiments (trips averaged 16 km). ................ .56
`.57
`Representative travel time findings from the Orlando Test Network Study...................
`The percentage of trips that TravTek renters with each configuration used
`TravTek features..........................................................................................................
`Percentage of trips that TravTek users installed and followed a route planned
`. ................................................... 59
`by the system. ...........................................................
`Average seconds per trip that each TravTek display option was selected by
`rental users...................................................................................................................
`Average seconds per trip that each TravTek display option was selected by lo-
`cal users. ...............
`. .. .
`............................................................................................... .67
`Orlando network effects of level of market penetration and traffic demand on
`68
`accident risk. .................................................................................................................
`Impact of LMP on trip travel time. ...............................................................................
`.72
`Impact of LMP on trip length. ..................................................................................... .73
`Impact of LMP on the average number of stops......................................................... . .73
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
`
`Page
`Figure
`Impact of LMP on the average number of wrong turns. ................................................
`.73
`28.
`74
`Impact of LMP on average fuel consumption. ...............................................................
`29.
`.74
`Impact of LMP on HC emissions.. ................................................................................
`30.
`74
`3 1. Impact of LMP on average CO emissions......................................................................
`Impact of LMP on NO, emissions................................................................................. 75
`32.
`75
`Impact of LMP on average accident risk. ......................................................................
`33.
`34. Cumulative willingness-to-pay indicated by renters for a TravTek system such
`as the one theydrove ....................................................................................................76
`82
`3 5. TravTek organizational structure...................................................................................
`
`vii
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`LIST OF TABLES
`
`Table
`1.
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`9.
`
`Paee
`Major TravTek operational field test participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`TravTek objectives and evaluation goals as set forth by the TravTek part-
`ners.(11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
`Questionnaires returned by Rental User Study participants shown as a function
`of vehicleconfiguration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
`Rental users’ assessment of whether TravTek interfered with their driving.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
`Local user’s perceptions of TravTek’s ability to help them find their way. .
` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
`Representative ease of learning ratings for TravTek in-vehicle system compo-
`nents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
`Mean number of trials and sample size (in parentheses) to achieve proficiency
`at entering a destination by gender, age group, and time of day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
`Rental user ratings of TravTek’s usability and understandability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
`Rental user ratings of liking for the visual route guidance displays with and
`without supplemental voice guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORD EX. 1008
`
`

`

`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`TravTek, short for “Travel Technology,” was an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) opera-
`tional field test. The purpose of TravTek was to perform research, development, test, and evalua-
`tion of advanced traveler information systems (ATIS) and advanced traffic management systems
`(ATMS) concepts.
`
`The TravTek Partnership
`
`TravTek was a joint public and private sector operational field test of an advanced traveler infor-
`mation and traffic management system (ATIS/ATMS). Public sector participants were the City of
`Orlando, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Florida Department of Transpor-
`tation. The American Automobile Association and General Motors were the private sector par-
`ticipants.
`
`The TravTek System
`
`TravTek consisted of three major subsystems:
`1. One-hundred TravTek vehicles.
`2. The Orlando Traffic Management Center (TMC).
`3. The TravTek Information and Services Center (TISC).
`An overview of the relationships between TravTek subsystems is shown in figure 1. The TravTek
`System Architecture Evaluation and reports by Sumner provide detailed descriptions of the
`TravTek system. (1,2,3) An inherent feature of each subsystem was automated data recording for
`evaluation purposes. These evaluation features are discussed in later sections of the report. Each
`of the TravTek partners was responsible for providing and maintaining specific sub-systems. The
`responsibilities of General Motors included providing the vehicles, the interface between the TMC
`and test vehicles, a data base, and systems engineering. FHWA provided for the TravTek evalua-
`tion, the system manager for the TMC, leasing of the radio subsystem, support for the Florida
`Department of Transportation’s freeway management center, and assisted the City of Orlando in
`operating and maintaining the TMC. The American Automobile Association provided a TravTek
`Information and Services Center that maintained the rental