TravTek Evaluation
`Orlando Test Network Study
`
`Publication No. FHWA-RD-95-162
`
`January 1996
`
`
`
`U.S. Department of Transportation
`Federal Highway Administration
`
`Research and Development
`Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
`6300 Georgetown Pike
`McLean, Virginia 22101-2296
`
`FORD EX. 1010
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Samuel 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. 1010, p. 2
`
`

`

`1. Report No.
`FHWA-RD-95-162
`
`2. Government Accession No.
`
`4. Title and Subtitle
`TravTek Evaluation ORLANDO TEST NETWORK STUDY
`
`7. Author (s)
`V. Inman, R. Sanchez, L. Bernstein, C. Porter
`
`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
`Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Frank Mammano, HSR-12
`
`3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5. Report Date
`January 1996
`6. Performing Organization Code
`
`8. Performing Organization Report No.
`
`IO. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
`3B7A
`11. Contract or Grant No.
`DTFH61-91 C-001 06
`13. Type of Report and Period Covered
`Final Report, Nov. 1991, Sept.
`1995
`14. Sponsoring Agency Code
`
`16. Abstract
`The Orlando Test Network Study was one of a series of 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 Management 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 link travel times back to the TMC for transmission to the other TravTek vehicles. The vehicles were equipped
`to provide route planning, route guidance, and a data base of local services and attractions. The primary purpose of this study
`was to evaluate the effects of alternative driver interfaces on driver performance, navigation performance, driver perception,
`driver preference, and willingness-to-pay.
`A controlled experiment was conducted in which up to six TravTek vehicles traveled the same origin to destination (O/D)
`pairings to evaluate six alternative information presentation configurations: five TravTek alternatives and a control configura-
`tion. Three visual display conditions were tested: a moving map display, a symbolic guidance display, and a condition with no
`visual display. Two aural conditions were tested in combination with the three visual conditions: synthesized voice guidance
`and no voice guidance. The six information presentation configurations were evaluated both in the day and at night. Five of
`six combinations utilized the TravTek and one configuration (no visual display and no voice guidance) was considered the
`Control condition. The drivers in the Control condition had to plan and navigate to their destination as “they normally would”
`without the use of automated route planning and route guidance. Data from 3 18 drivers are presented.
`TravTek benefits to individual drivers included travel time savings and a reduction in perceived workload. Both the moving
`map and simplified turn-by-turn visual displays were very effective compared to the Control condition, particularly when the
`visual displays were supplemented with synthesized voice guidance. 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
`
`19. Security Classif. (Of this report)
`Unclassified
`Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) REPRODUCTION OF COMPLETED PAGE AUTHORIZED
`
`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
`
`21. No. Of Pages
`89
`
`22. Price
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 3
`
`

`

`(Revised September 1993)
`
`Ibf/in2
`Ibf
`
`square inch ,
`poundforce per
`poundforce
`
`0.145
`0.225
`
`kilopascals
`newtons
`
`FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
`
`foot-Lamberts fl
`fc
`foot-candles
`
`0.2919
`0.0929
`
`candela/m2
`lux
`
`ILLUMINATION
`
`kPa
`N
`
`cd/m2
`lx
`
`kPa
`
`N
`
`cd/m2
`lx
`
`“F
`
`temperature
`Fahrenheit
`
`1.8C + 32
`
`temperature
`Celcius
`
`“C
`
`“C
`
`TEMPERATURE (exact)
`
`(or “metric ton”)
`
`kilograms
`grams
`
`(or "t")
`mg megagrams
`
`g
`9k
`
`cubic meters
`cubic meters
`liters
`milliliters
`
`square kilometers
`hectares
`square meters
`square meters
`square millimeters
`
`m3
`m3
`L
`mL
`
`km2
`ha
`m2
`m2
`mm2
`
`m meters
`meters
`millimeters
`
`kilometers
`
`m
`m k
`
`Volumes greater than 1000 I shall be shown in m3.
`
`mL
`
`m3
`m3
`
`L
`
`cubic meters
`cubic meters
`liters
`milliliters
`
`km2
`ha
`m2
`m2
`
`square kilometers
`hectares
`square meters
`square meters
`square millimeters
`
`mm
`
`m
`m k
`
`kilometers
`meters m
`meters
`millimeters
`
`0.765
`0.026
`3.765
`29.57
`
`VOLUME
`
`2.59
`0.405
`0.636
`0.093
`645.2
`AREA
`1.61
`0.914
`0.305
`254
`LENGTH
`
`cubic yards
`cubic feet
`gallons
`fluid ounces
`
`square miles
`acres
`square yards
`square feet
`square inches
`
`miles
`yards
`feet
`inches
`
`NOTE:
`yd3
`ft3
`gal
`fl oz
`
`mi2
`ac
`yd2
`ft2
`in2
`
`mi
`yd
`ft
`in
`
`Symbol
`
`To Find
`
`Multiply By
`
`When You Know
`
`Symbol
`
`Symbol
`
`To Flhd
`
`Multiply By
`
`When You Know
`
`Symbol
`
`short tons (2000 lb) T
`lb
`pounds
`ounces
`oz
`
`Yd3
`ft3
`gal
`fl oz
`
`mi2
`ac
`yd2
`ft2
`in2
`
`mi
`yd
`ft
`in
`
`cubic yards
`cubic feet
`gallons
`fluid ounces
`
`square miles
`acres
`square yards
`square feet
`square inches
`
`miles
`yards
`feet
`inches
`
`1.103
`2.202
`0.035
`MASS
`
`1.307
`35.71
`0.264
`0.034
`
`VOLUME
`
`0.366
`2.47
`1.195
`10.764
`0.0016
`AREA
`0.621
`1.09
`3.26
`0.039
`
`LENGTH
`
`rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E360.
`SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate
`
`kilopascals
`newtons
`
`6.69
`4.45
`
`square inch
`poundforce per
`poundforce
`
`Ibf/in2
`Ibf
`
`FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
`
`candela/m2
`lux
`
`temperature
`Celcius
`
`3.426
`10.76
`
`foot-Lamberts
`foot-candles
`
`ILLUMINATION
`or (F-32)/1.8
`5(F-32)/9
`
`temperature
`Fahrenheit
`
`fl
`fc
`
`“F
`
`(or ‘metric ton”)
`megagrams
`kilograms
`grams
`
`TEMPERATURE (exact)
`
`0.907
` 0.454
`26.35
`MASS
`
`short tons (2009 lb)
`pounds
`lb
`oz ounces
`
`T
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 4
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`Section
`1
`OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................
`3
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................
`3
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................
`6
`PURPOSE OF TEST .........................................................................................
`6
`OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................
`Issue 1: Does TravTek improve driver navigation3............................... 6
`Issue 2: Does TravTek improve overall driver performance? .............. 7
`Issue 3: Does driver interface usability vary with display con-
`figuration?.................................................................................... 9
`Issue 4: Do drivers perceive TravTek as useful, usable, and safe?....... 9
`Issue 5: Do drivers prefer particular TravTek display configu-
`rations?...................................................................................... 10
`11
`METHODS ..................................................................................................................
`11
`DURATION OF TEST ....................................................................................
`11
`TEST CONFIGURATIONS............................................................................
`11
`Route Planning and Route Guidance ..................................................
`11
`Displays.................................................................................................
`14
`TEST CONDITIONS ......................................................................................
`14
`TravTek Traffic Network.....................................................................
`14
`Origin/Destination Pairs ......................................................................
`Ambient Lighting ................................................................................. 17
`17
`Drivers ..................................................................................................
`18
`MATERIALS AND INSTRUMENTATION ..................................................
`19
`Pre-Tests ...............................................................................................
`19
`Observers..............................................................................................
`20
`In-Vehicle Logs.....................................................................................
`20
`Debriefing.............................................................................................
`21
`Questionnaire .......................................................................................
`21
`DETAILED TEST PROCEDURES ................................................................
`21
`Test Schedule........................................................................................
`23
`RESEARCH DESIGN .....................................................................................
`RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 27
`Issue 1: Does TravTek improve driver navigation3............................. 27
`Issue 2:Does TravTek improve overall driver performance?............ 38
`Issue 3: Does driver interface usability vary with display con-
`figuration?.................................................................................. 45
`Issue 4: Do drivers perceive TravTek as useful, usable, and safe?..... 50
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 5
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`Section
`
`Page
`Issue 2: Does TravTek improve overall driver performance? . ........... 76
`Issue 3: Does driver interface usability vary with display con-
`figuration?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
`Issue 4: Do drivers perceive TravTek as useful, usable, and safe? . . . . . 77
`Issue 5: Do drivers prefer particular TravTek display configu-
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................................................78
`rations?.
`CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
`REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
`
`iv
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 6
`
`

`

`Figure
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`17.
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`35
`
`47
`
`Page
`Overview of the TravTek system......................................................................... 4
`Schematic representation of the TravTek vehicle architecture.............................. 6
`The 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.............................................................................. 15
`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................................................................................................. 16
`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................................................................................................ 16
`Trip planning times as a function of Visual Display, Time of Day, and
`Voice Guide...................................................................................................... 28
`Travel time en route as a function of Visual Display, Voice Guide, and
`Time of Day...................................................................................................... 29
`Mean congestion levels as a function of time of day and O/D............................. 30
`Travel distance as a function of Visual Display, Voice Guide, and Time of
`Day................................................................................................................... 31
`Time off route as a function of Visual Display, Time of Day, and Voice
`Guide................................................................................................................ 34
`Time to detect deviation from the planned route as a function of Visual
`Display, Time of Day, and Voice Guide.............................................................
`This is an example of the training checklist used to rate driver proficiency
`in entering a destination.....................................................................................
`Questionnaire items related to driving performance were rated on a six
`point Likert scale...............................................................................................
`51
`An example of the TravTek “keyboard” interface.............................................. 66
`An example of a willingness-to-pay scale in the questionnaire............................ 69
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system “such as the one you
`drove.”..............................................................................................................
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system purchased as
`“options on a new car.”....................................................................................
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system purchased as “an
`add-on to any car.”............................................................................................
`Estimated market penetration for the TravTek system as added cost on a
`weekly rental rate..............................................................................................74
`
`73
`
`.73
`
`74
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 7
`
`

`

`LIST OF TABLES
`
`.
`
`24
`
`32
`
`33
`
`33
`33
`
`Pam
`.7
`Does TravTek improve driver navigation? ..........................................................
`.8
`Does TravTek improve overall driver performance? ...........................................
`.9
`Is the TravTek system usable and useful? ...........................................................
`Is the TravTek system perceived as useful, usable, and safe?...............................
`.9
`Do drivers prefer particular TravTek display configurations? ............................. 10
`The Orlando Test Network Study experimental design with sample size for
`trip planning times measure. ..............................................................................
`Percentage of drivers completing O/D’s by Visual Display and Voice
`Guide conditions . ..............................................................................................
`Distribution of trips with one, more than one, and no wrong turns as a
`function of Visual Display and Voice Guide.. .....................................................
`Distribution of trips with one or more wrong turns as a function of Visual
`Display, Voice Guide, and Time of Day.. ...........................................................
`Number of wrong turns as a function of O/D.....................................................
`Distribution of the navigation errors for first wrong turns as a function of
`36
`Visual Display and Voice Guide. .......................................................................
`How drivers got back onto a planned route....................................................... 37
`The frequency of abrupt maneuvers as a function of Visual Display, Voice
`.39
`Guide, and Time of Day. ..................................................................................
`Close call statistics as a function of Voice Guide and Visual Display................. .40
`Workload ratings as a function of Voice Condition and Display Type. .............. .42
`Workload ratings as a function of Trip Segment and Workload Type.. ...............43
`Workload ratings as a function of Time of Day and Category. ...........................43
`Workload ratings as a function of Voice Guide and Trip Segment. ................... .43
`Workload ratings as a function of Voice Guide and Trip Segment
`excluding the No Visual Display conditions (i.e., Control and Voice Guide
`.44
`only). ...............................................................................................................
`Workload ratings as a function of Time of Day and Type of Stress. .................. .44
`Mean subjective workload ratings for the en route trip segment (N = 243)........ .45
`Mean number of training runs to achieve proficiency at entering a
`destination by Gender, Age Group, and Time of Day.........................................
`Average number of errors in performing each of five system manipulation
`tasks as a function of Gender, Age Group, and Time of Day.. ...........................
`The percentage of drivers, broken out by age group, who answered system
`information questions correctly the first time they were asked...........................
`Items from the Yoked Driver Study and Orlando Test Network Study
`questionnaire selected to represent driver opinion on the effect of the
`TravTek system on driver performance..............................................................
`Correlation matrix of 14 driving performance variables in the
`53
`questionnaire .....................................................................................................
`Factor structure for the four factor solution with quartimax rotation.. ................ 54
`
`47
`
`.48
`
`.49
`
`52
`
`Table
`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.
`
`vi
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 8
`
`

`

`LIST OF TABLES (continued)
`
`Table
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`31.
`
`32.
`33.
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`37.
`
`38.
`39.
`
`Page
`
`.55
`
`The questionnaire items used to assess TravTek’s utility as a routing and
`navigation aid and the obtained mean ratings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`The frequency of responses to the question of whether the TravTek
`system would be useful for “at home”driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
`Display configuration preference rating means and confidence intervals. . . . . . . . . . . . .57
`Overall, what impressions do you have about TravTek now that you’ve
`hada chance totest drive the future? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
`What was your favorite feature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
`What was your least favorite feature? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
`While driving with TravTek, were there any situations where TravTek was
`especially helpful?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
`While driving with TravTek, were there any situations where TravTek was
`not helpful? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
`Did the orientation you were given prepare you for driving with TravTek? ..... . . 66
`Can you think of anything that could be improved about TravTek to make
`it better?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`.67
`Summary of responses to the willingness-to-pay questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
`Proportion of participants who said they would pay nothing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`. 72
`
`vii
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 9
`
`

`

`OVERVIEW
`
`TravTek was a joint public and private sector operational field test of an advanced traveler
`information and traffic management system (ATIS/ATMS). Public sector participants
`were the City of Orlando, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Florida Depart-
`ment 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). The TMC broadcast updated travel times for TravTek traffic links to the
`TravTek vehicles once each minute. The TravTek vehicles broadcast their link travel
`times back to the TMC for transmission to the other TravTek vehicles. The vehicles had
`software and computers that provided route planning, route guidance, and a data base of
`local services and attractions.
`
`The Orlando Test Network Study was one of several evaluation studies conducted as part
`of the operational test. This study examined the effectiveness of the TravTek route plan-
`ning and route guidance user interface. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate
`the effects of alternative driver interfaces on driver performance, navigation performance,
`driver perception, driver preference, and willingness-to-pay.
`
`The methodology called for up to six TravTek vehicles to travel the same origin to desti-
`nation pairs (O/D’s) to evaluate six alternative information presentation configurations:
`five TravTek alternatives and a control configuration. Both visual and aural modalities
`were examined. Three visual display conditions were tested: a moving map display, a
`symbolic guidance display, and a condition with no visual display. Two aural conditions
`were tested in combination with the three visual conditions: synthesized voice guidance
`and no voice guidance. The six information presentation configurations were evaluated
`both in the day and at night. Five of six combinations utilized the TravTek Navigation
`mode and one configuration (no visual display and no voice guidance) was considered the
`Control condition. The drivers in the Control condition had to plan and navigate to their
`destination as “they normally would” without the use of automated route planning and
`route guidance.
`
`A total of 322 drivers participated in the Orlando Test Network Study. Of these drivers,
`249 completed each of three origin/destination (O/D) trips. The results showed that vehi-
`cles using the TravTek navigation system derived a large saving in trip planning time com-
`pared to the Control condition. Vehicles using TravTek also showed a significant en
`route travel time saving.
`
`Near accident (close call) and abrupt maneuver performance measures indicate that driver
`performance with the TravTek configurations was at least as good as that in the Control
`configuration. Drivers’ subjective workload estimates suggest a reduction in visual effort
`when using the TravTek system compared to the Control configuration. Furthermore, in
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 10
`
`

`

`questionnaire responses, drivers indicated that TravTek helped them drive more safely and
`helped them find their way.Although there were no significant difference s among the six
`display configurations with respect to the probability of making a wrong turn, there were
`qualitative differences in the types of turn errors that drivers made. That is, when using
`conventional navigation techniques drivers were most likely to err by bypassing planned
`turns. With TravTek configurations, rather than overlooking a turn, drivers were more
`likely to turn too soon or in the wrong direction
`
`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 an
`additional $28 per week for a rental car with a system such as the one they drove. Partici-
`pants rated route guidance as the most valuable TravTek feature, followed by navigation
`assistance (a moving map with present position), and real-time traffic information. De-
`spite the finding that the sound quality of the Voice Guide was most frequently identified
`as the least liked TravTek feature, and the feature that most needed improvement,
`TravTek’s Voice Guide was also the most frequently named “favorite” TravTek feature.
`Evidence is also presented that suggests that the TravTek system was easy to learn and
`easy to use.
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 11
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`TravTek was a joint public and private sector operational field test of an advanced traveler
`information and traffic management system (ATIS/ATMS). Public sector participants
`were the City of Orlando, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Florida Depart-
`ment 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 Orlando
`Test Network Study was a behavioral and systems study to evaluate the benefits of:
`
`l Alternative TravTek visual and aural display configurations.
`l TravTek’s route planning and route guidance functions,
`
`The study examines benefits with respect to:
`
`l Trip efficiency.
`l Navigation performance.
`l Driving performance.
`l Driver preference.
`l Driver perception.
`l Willingness-to-pay,
`TravTek system goals may be viewed from multiple perspectives. From a driver’s per-
`spective, goals included navigation assistance, congestion avoidance, reduction in trip
`times, and access to information about unfamiliar areas. From a safety perspective, either
`an enhancement in safety, or, minimally, no increase in risk was expected. From a traffic
`systems perspective, goals included decreased congestion, increased fuel economy, and in-
`creased safety. The perspective of the Orlando Test Network Study is primarily that of
`the drivers. The objective of the Orlando Test Network Study was to assess the influence
`of in-vehicle TravTek display configurations on driver navigation and driving performance
`as well as to assess driver preferences. Trained observers rode with volunteer test partici-
`pants to record performance measures while the participants drove to unfamiliar destina-
`tions. Use of five TravTek vehicle configurations and a control configuration was ob-
`served both at night and during the daytime.
`
`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 were important to the objectives of the Orlando Test Network
`Study. The reader may refer to Rillings and Lewis for additional details about the sys-
`tem.(‘) Figure 1 provides a graphical overview of the TravTek system architecture. In the
`
`3
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 12
`
`

`

`figure, 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.
`
`l Construction Schedule
`l Police Agenices
`l Traffic Reports
`l Traffic Sensors
`
`Traffic lnformati
`and Events
`
`Local
`Events
`
`and Service Center
`
`l Businesses
`l Restaurants
`l Entertainment
`l Hotels
`l Map Information
`
`Cellular Phone
`
`Global
`Positioning
`System
`
`Figure 1. Overview of the TravTek system.
`
`TravTek made a wealth of information available to drivers. This information included:
`route planning; turn-by-turn route guidance; real-time traffic reports; and real-time traffic
`information inputs to route planning. Some of the features of the TravTek system were:
`
`l Navigation - A variable-scale color map was displayed on a 128 mm (5 in)
`video display. The video display, an option on the Oldsmobile Toronado, was
`positioned high on the dashboard and to the driver’s right. The navigation system
`used a combination of dead-reckoning, map-matching, and Global Positioning
`System information to indicate the vehicle’s position on the map. The vehicle’s
`position was indicated by a horizontally centered icon positioned three-fourths of
`the distance from the top of the screen. When the vehicle was in DRIVE the map
`was displayed with a heading-up format.
`
`l Route Selection - An in-vehicle routing computer provided the minimum-time
`route from the vehicle’s current position to a selected destination. The minimum-
`time criterion was subject to constraints such as turn penalties, preference for
`higher level roadways, and avoidance of short-cuts through residential areas.
`
`l Route Guidance -When a route had been computed, a sequence of guidance
`displays provided maneuver-by-maneuver driving instruction. The visual guidance
`display could be augmented by synthesized voice that provided the next turn di-
`rection, distance to the turn, and the name of the street on which to turn. The
`driver could switch between a maneuver-by-maneuver Guidance Display and a
`Route Map. The Route Map showed the planned route as a magenta line traced
`
`4
`
`FORD EX. 1010, p. 13
`
`

`

`over the Navigation display moving map. Buttons on the steering wheel hub were
`used to swap between the Guidance Display and the Route Map and to turn the
`voice guidance function off or on. Human factors issues that were considered in
`the design of the TravTek driver interface are discussed by Carpenter, Fleischman,
`Dingus, Szczublewski, Krage, and Means.(2) The G