Performance and Limitations of Cellular-Based Traffic Monitoring Systems. Cellint Traffic Solutions

www.cellint.com Performance and Limitations of Cellular-Based Traffic Monitoring Systems Cellint Traffic Solutions 1 Leading provider of cellular-based traffic data collection solutions

2 Introduction For the past 10 years, cellular-based traffic monitoring solutions have been a promise waiting to come true During these years, all independent evaluations demonstrated relatively poor results This year seams to be the breakthrough: 3 independent evaluations, by different DOTs, show great success by Cellint s TrafficSense Results show similar performance to road sensors in measuring local speed and detecting slowdowns Best possible travel time measurement

This is a broken clock. Still, it shows the correct time twice a day Unlike a traffic monitoring system 3

4 A broken traffic monitoring system will indicate the correct speed for about 22 hours a day since traffic is mostly free flow except during rush hour 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 24/01 23:37 24/01 23:17 24/01 22:57 24/01 22:37 24/01 22:17 24/01 21:57 24/01 21:37 24/01 21:17 24/01 20:57 24/01 20:37 24/01 20:17 24/01 19:57 24/01 19:37 24/01 19:17 24/01 18:57 24/01 18:37 24/01 18:17 24/01 17:57 24/01 17:37 24/01 17:17 24/01 16:57 24/01 16:37 24/01 16:17 24/01 15:57 24/01 15:37 24/01 15:17 24/01 14:57 24/01 14:37 24/01 14:17 time The average daily error rate can be less than 5% for: A system that doesn t detect slowdowns at all A system detecting slowdowns with 50 minutes delay! Conclusion: Average daily speed error should not be a relevant parameter for evaluating traffic monitoring systems

Atlanta Project Independent Evaluation TrafficSense provides area-wide coverage for construction zone management: 5 Most sensors over GA400, one of the busiest corridors in Atlanta, were disconnected due to construction TrafficSense provides data, since last year, over the highway and adjustment arterials Performance evaluation conducted by URS for the Georgia Department of Transportation Major findings: TrafficSense speed over short segments (250 meters) matched the sensors speed very well in all speed ranges TrafficSense travel time was highly accurate, even during the most congested times

Atlanta Project Independent Evaluation Speed Range (mph) Mean Difference % 20-30 3.82% 30-40 7.13% 40-50 6.65% 50-60 2.63% 60-70 -8.88% 6

7 Atlanta: TrafficSense Data is Incorporated for GA400 on Georgia DOT Official Website

Kansas City: TrafficSense Pilot Area 8 0-30 MPH: RED 30-45MPH: YELLOW 45+ MPH: GREEN

KC Project Independent Evaluation System was deployed over entire corridor in less than 2 months TrafficSense data was compared to inductive loops data of SCOUT (KC traffic management center) Independent evaluation by Kansas Department of Transportation shows: 9 5.9 minutes average delay in detecting slowdowns Less than 5 mph speed difference in all ranges Quoting the pilot report: TrafficSense data clearly reflects traffic conditions very well The Cellint system successfully proved the viability of the technology for traffic applications

KC Project Evaluation Method [1] TrafficSense speed comparison with road sensors Magenta: Sensor 69 I-435 WB at US-69 Blue: TrafficSense 10 Speed changes are detected immediately (similar to sensors)

KC Project Evaluation Method [2] TrafficSense speed comparisons with road sensors Magenta: Sensor 69 I-435 WB at US-69 Blue: TrafficSense 11 Average speed difference over 5 days - 2.76 mph If no slowdowns were detected it would be 4.5 mph

KC Project Evaluation Method [3] TrafficSense speed comparisons with road sensors Magenta: Sensor 136 I-435 EB at Wornall Road Blue: TrafficSense 12 TrafficSense had significantly fewer false slowdown detections than the Kansas City sensors

Tel-Aviv: Independent Evaluation of an Israeli DOT Agency 13 Two competing cellular-based solutions failed this test

9:36 8:24 Tel-Aviv Independent Evaluation [2] TrafficSense Travel-time Comparisons With Road Sensors and Test Drives (Drives conducted by the Israeli DOT) Minutes 7:12 6:00 4:48 3:36 2:24 1:12 Test Drive Road Sensors TrafficSense 0:00 14:40 pm 15:08 pm 15:54 pm Conclusions: Sensors are less accurate during speed fluctuations 14 TrafficSense travel-time average difference: 9.3%

Israeli National Road Company: Project Evaluation Tested 3 cellular-based systems over Highway 1 and Arterial 44 Validated data from the independent evaluation demonstrated 1 minute latency for TrafficSense in detecting slowdowns as compared to road sensors, at the location of the sensors TrafficSense proved to be better than other solutions by far 15

TrafficSense Slowdown Detection: A Delay of Only a Few Minutes 25 20 15 Operator's Subscriber Penetration (%) 10 5 0 Tel-Aviv Atlanta Kansas City Springfield MO Detection Latency Over Major HWs (minutes) 16

17 TrafficSense Unique Advantage All cellular-based technologies except TrafficSense are using the location of cell sites (antenna towers) to estimate the location of vehicles This theoretical estimation, either based on some type of triangulation, or on cell sector statistics, has many significant, inherent inaccuracies TrafficSense doesn t require the location of the cell sites at all, but rather uses ground-truth measurements for location reference data This enables TrafficSense to achieve orders of magnitude better location accuracy and slowdown detection latency TrafficSense method and technology are protected by granted patents in the US and Europe

Limitations of All Cellular-Based Monitoring Systems Not enough data for accurate detection during late night hours But only 1% of congestion events occur at night No accurate volume counting Accurate volumes are not critical for traffic control if you have local speeds, slowdown detection and travel times One can get good statistical estimates over time for road planning from the cellular system Can t differentiate between lanes But once a lane is separated by terrain it can be differentiated due to a different cellular signature (only TrafficSense) Except for HOV lanes, this data not relevant for traveler information and doesn t affect the response to road 18 management problems

Q&A: Smart Use of Cellular-Based Monitoring Systems Would you pay orders of magnitude more on traditional systems for a metro-wide deployment just due to the night time detection limitation of cellular-based systems? Probably not Do you really need volume counting every half mile for real time road management purposes? Probably not. However a measurement at least in one point between each two junctions is useful for road planning How can I ensure proper performance and not get 50- minute detection delays for slowdowns on major highways? Talk to colleagues from other States DOTs who conducted independent objective studies and who checked slowdown detection latency, not only average daily speeds 19

Testing System Performance What do we test? We don t need a system to detect free flow, so focus should be on slowdown detection Slowdown Detection Latency: Can only be tested by road sensors, since floating drive test can only randomly detect a slowdown when it starts Less than 8 minutes average latency can be provided on highways and major arterials Travel Time Measurements During Speed Fluctuations Must be conducted over short segments, otherwise traffic conditions can change significantly during a single measurement Must have statistical significance, since travel times may vary between two cars by 300% for the same traffic conditions (same road segment/ same time) 20

Experience Cellint s systems were installed successfully over more than 5000 miles during the last year in the US, Europe and Israel Technology performance was tested and validated by several DOTs and cellular operators All customers are very happy with system performance (100% success rate, no strikeouts!) 21

www.cellint.com TrafficSense Most Cost Effective Solution for Road Management Most Accurate and Timely Travel Time Thank You! Cellint Traffic Solutions www.cellint.com info@cellint.com 22 US 973-714-6150 Israel +972-524-77-33-77

Implementation Procedure (100 miles*) Installation at the Cellular Network (hours) Off-line Mapping and Signature Preparation (days) Calibration and Tuning (weeks) System Operational *Procedure can be conducted in parallel with several teams for larger deployments 23

GPS sources GPS Detection only a few samples per day per road section on highly-occupied urban highways Resulting in hours of delay in detecting slowdowns if detected at all! 24

System Highlights Plug and Play System Modular system, super short deployment time Flexible to road changes and constructions Virtual Sensors in Small Intervals (every 250 meters in urban area) Provide Both : Travel time updated to the minute Very accurate and immediate incident alerts Local traffic speed measurement similar to road traffic sensors Differentiating Between Close and Parallel Roads. Only vehicles that are 100% correlated to a specific road are used for measurements (i.e. 5% of the vehicles are filtered) 25

TrafficSense Overview TrafficSense extracts anonymous information from the cellular network to provide accurate and real time Incident alerts few minutes delay relative to road sensors Travel time the highest resolution and accuracy Local traffic speed similar to road sensors TrafficSense is the most cost-effective solution for traffic control and traveler information Low price per mile with high resolution (lower cost systems will have 40 minutes delay in detecting slowdowns on major urban freeways) Quick installation with no traffic obstacles or dangerous work zones Metro-wide deployment for the cost of one highway deployment with traditional technologies System was successfully benchmarked against road 26 sensors and test vehicles by several DOT agencies

TrafficSense System Overview Base Stations Antennas System located at the cellular facility, no installation on road Standard, passive interface to the cellular network (e.g. Agilent) No modification to the cellular network, nor to the handset Only anonymous data is extracted Only traffic information leaves the cellular facility Cellular Switch One way on A links Cellular Operator Facility Application Server (Final Customer) Agilent Probe Cellint s Pattern Matching Server Firewall Central Traffic Server Anonymous data Only travel time data 27

Ayalon HWY Performance Evaluation (1) TrafficSense speed comparisons with road sensors Magenta - Loop Sensors Blue - TrafficSense kph Sensor 1 No Sensor Sensor 2 120 100 75 50 25 00 06:00 22:00 06:00 22:00 06:00 22:00 Time 28 Conclusions: Speed changes are detected immediately (similar to sensors), and average speed difference 3.4 mph