examination of the methods and costs of providing traveler information

Transcription

EXAMINATION OF THE METHODS AND COSTS OF
PROVIDING TRAVELER INFORMATION
GREGORY YOVA, QVISION
WITH STUDY CONCEPTION AND DATA COLLECTION ASSISTANCE BY SEAN WALCOTT
July 2014
Examination Of The Methods And Costs Of Providing Traveler Information
2014
Synopsis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
The Problem.................................................................................................................................................................. 4
General survey results .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Critical trends ................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Solutions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
What are the options? .................................................................................................................................................. 7
SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
QvisonTechnology.com
2|P a g e
2014
EXAMINATION OF THE METHODS AND COSTS OF
PROVIDING TRAVELER INFORMATION
GREGORY YOVA, QVISION
WITH STUDY CONCEPTION AND DATA COLLECTION ASSISTANCE BY SEAN WALCOTT
July 2014
SYNOPSIS
Providing useful and actionable traveler information has become a major
issue for all DOTs. This service has generally been relegated to a lower
priority due to the need to focus on providing video, technology,
communications, and logistics to the TMC and related departments and
agencies. However, studies show that the demand for real-time
information is growing exponentially. It is currently the most valued
commodity on the internet. As economic losses continue to rise because of
increasingly congested motorways, it is becoming a vital function of the
DOT to provide the best possible traveler information to the public.
Helping the transportation industry make progress in providing relevant and useful information to travelers in a
cost-effective manner requires an understanding of current models and the associated costs. Typically DOTs are
doing one or several of the following:
1. Nothing
2. Still images, i.e., JPGs
3. Still images that update every few seconds
4. Live video streaming
5. Color coded maps
6. 511 systems with additional voice response travel information
Each method involves different costs and technological challenges, including the hidden costs of doing nothing. The
purpose of this white paper is to: 1) understand what is currently deployed by DOTs and the associated costs, 2)
review current alternatives, 3) discuss the urgency and need for providing quality traveler information, and 4)
discuss how providing traveler information is actually a cost savings to governments and agencies.
METHODS
We surveyed as many DOTs as possible to gain an accurate picture of what is being done to provide traveler
information, the associated costs, and the particular challenges of specific systems. The information has been
organized and compiled in an accessible and understandable format.
3|P a g e
2014
One challenge we faced was separating out the cost of providing traveler information (specifically images). While
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) are detailed in their scope, the expenses expressly associated with the capture and
sharing of images is not always obvious. We did our best to work with the survey respondents to determine those
specific costs.
Our survey also conducted research in relation to the cost benefits of implementing a traveler information system
and what means of delivery and media are the most useful to the travelers.
THE PROBLEM
Traveler information has typically been relegated to a low level distraction for DOTs. The mandate for DOTs is
roadway safety and function. With a myriad of responsibilities, projects, departments, budgets, and emergencies
of all sorts, most DOTs simply haven’t had the time or impetus to deal with traveler information. As the demand
for these services has increased, each DOT is faced with yet another problem that has a variety of solutions, must
work within the constraints of their existing systems, must be adaptable to technological limitations of legacy
equipment, and creates implementation issues. Each agency takes on the project starting from scratch and does
its best to create a solution that can be launched with the least amount of headaches.
The value of traveler information is difficult to quantify. This fact makes it difficult for DOTs to build a business case
for investing in it. Also, the value of reducing congestion affects the wider economy. Therefore, the specific benefit
to a DOT’s bottom line is not always immediately identifiable unless a variety of factors are taken into account, such
as the level of need for emergency services, damage to assets, and other costs that occur at a
higher rate in congested situations. Because spending money on traveler information will incur
a cost to DOTs who are already working within tight budgets, they are less inclined to do so,
even though a case can be made that the expense will actually lead to net savings.
As mentioned, each method of providing traveler information involves different costs and
technological challenges, including doing nothing. Our survey results are clear that the
majority of agencies are feeling the need to provide better traveler information and efficient
sharing of video with other agencies. However, no single solution has shown itself to be both
valuable to the end user and cost-effective for the DOT. (See “Survey Results” below)
GENERAL SURVEY RESULTS
In general, our survey showed the following:
o Most agencies are providing some level of traveler information to the public.
o The majority of images being made available are JPGs and frequently updated JPGs.
o Most agencies that provide traveler information are also providing some live streaming video.
o The majority of cameras in use are legacy analog cameras using digital encoders.
o Based upon this survey, the average cost per camera to provide traveler information is $3,000 in one-time
costs (includes camera purchase). We believe this number is actually higher based upon other costs
revealed in the survey.
o It was not possible to determine an average recurring annual cost per camera to provide traveler
information, although the lowest cost provided was $150 per camera per year for JPGs.
4|P a g e
o
o
o
o
2014
For agencies using encoders on analog cameras, the cost “Per Channel” was between $150 and $2,000, with
an average of $600.
Transcoder costs for live stream delivery were from $125 to just under $1,000 per channel, with an average
of $500 per channel and an annual maintenance cost of $150 per channel.
The majority of DOTs delivering images/video to travelers were incurring bandwidth fees. Some were due
to cellular connections to cameras, some were internal, and the majority were ISP fees to deliver content
to users.
Sixty percent of DOTs provide images/video to other agencies and 75% are planning to improve their ability
to provide images/video to other agencies.
Equipment and Costs for Implementation of Traveler Information – Survey Results
ITEM
COST ONE TIME
COST RECURRING
IP Camera
$1,500 to $5,000
Maintenance and replacement
Encoder for analog cameras
$600 per channel
Maintenance and replacement
Transcoder for video stream
$500 per channel
$150 per channel per year
Servers
$100 - $400 per channel streaming Maintenance
$20 - $60 per channel JPGs
Extra bandwidth charges
Initialization fee
$20 - $500 per camera per month
depending upon use and provider
Software
$100 - $400 per channel
$120 - $400 per camera per year
IT Hours
Insufficient information
Insufficient information
CRITICAL TRENDS
The Texas A&M Transportation Institute’s (TTI) annual Urban Mobility Report showed that highway commuters and
freight-hauling truck drivers each lose an extra 67 hours per year and 32 gallons of fuel per year in jammed traffic
compared with free-flowing travel. TTI researchers calculated that extra time and fuel use while drivers were
gridlocked cost the overall U.S. economy $121 billion in 2011, and that congestion costs will surge to $199 billion
by 2020. Average congestion costs in 2011 were put at $818 per commuter per year.
“The nation’s network of highways, roads, and bridges isn’t equipped to handle the huge growth in traffic that’s
expected in coming years,” said Bill Logue, President and CEO of FedEx Freight. Speaking in Houston at the annual
conference of the National Industrial Transportation League, Logue said the U.S. transportation infrastructure isn’t
even sufficient to handle today’s needs, let alone those of the future. “We must begin to address aging
infrastructure across every mode of transportation,” he said. Logue cited a prediction by the U.S. Federal Highway
Administration that traffic volume on roads and highways will more than double between 2010 and 2040. Most of
the growth will take place in urban areas which are already under stress. Improvements in the system are “vital to
economic growth, the creation of jobs and access to goods and services,” he said. (Logistics & Transportation
11/18/2013)
Currently the commodity most in demand on the internet is real-time information. It is the “gold” of the cyber
world and allows institutions and individuals to make decisions that can save significant amounts of time and
money. Users are demanding real-time information in every sector and transportation is under pressure to provide
5|P a g e
2014
it. The demand for real-time data can be seen in the proliferation of data trending websites, use of big data, and
instant feeds for everything from medical monitoring to manufacturing, security, finance, weather, social trends,
power grid, and a long list of other applications.
With gridlock becoming more and more of a certainty, quality of life is suffering for
commuters in many cities. Increasingly, once pleasant locales are experiencing
traffic just like the big cities. This drives down satisfaction among residents, has an
economic cost in lost productivity, takes an emotional toll on individuals and
families, and can make a city less desirable. However, simply knowing ahead of time
what the traffic situation is like (be it good or bad) can have a dramatic positive
effect on travelers, just as not knowing has a negative effect. Per the Journal of
Public Transportation:
o Eighty percent of transit users indicated that uncertainty regarding delays caused them frustration.
o Transit users overestimate wait time by 24-30%.
o Real-time information reduced perceived wait time by 20-26%.
With useful real-time information, travelers are not only less frustrated and have a more positive perception of
traffic; they are also able to make real-time decisions and adjust planned routes on their commutes or journeys.
This benefits everyone involved.
SOLUTIONS
It is clear that real-time traveler information is vital to the management of increasing congestion, economic losses,
and traveler dissatisfaction. But what are the most viable, useful, and cost-effective solutions for DOTs to
implement? In order to propose the most effective solution, it is important to understand the underlying dynamics
of traffic congestion.
There are many scientific and engineering theories about the dynamics of gridlock but no specific theory holds up
in 100% of real life conditions. However, we can definitely say that, under non-event conditions, gridlock happens
when flow exceeds capacity, i.e., there are too many cars for the motorway to handle. We can also say that once
gridlock is reached, the likelihood of collisions and extended gridlock rises exponentially. Gridlock also brings with
it negative effects at many levels, as mentioned earlier. Furthermore, gridlock costs DOTs and the state money in
direct and indirect expenses – whether through the immediate costs of accidents and damage to assets or the
broader view of increased economic losses and commuter dissatisfaction or the long list of other negatives. Thus,
it would appear that helping to avoid gridlock would be a primary objective of traveler information.
A study called Urban Network Gridlock: Theory, Characteristics, and Dynamics by Hani S. Mahmassani, Meead
Saberi, Ali Zockaie K., pointed out that gridlock could be avoided and also resolved more quickly by what they called
“adaptive drivers.” At its core, traveler Information should aim to provide a means for load-leveling that is
performed by the traveler. This gives the motorway more headroom before gridlock because travelers will take the
initiative on their own to make adjustments without needing to wait for instructions. Some will delay travel, take
surface streets, alter their choice of freeways or main arteries, or take other measures to avoid the congestion if
possible. This approach makes travelers themselves part of the solution to gridlock, rather than just part of the
problem for DOTs to solve.
6|P a g e
2014
WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS?
In order to provide traveler information to the public, transportation agencies currently have the following options:
1. Do nothing – This choice is fast becoming a losing proposition because of all of the negative impacts of
congestion and gridlock are guaranteed. Perhaps it has been a good choice to sit on the sidelines because no
solid, cost-effective solution has been available. However, it is becoming more and more prudent to supply
traveler information to the public.
2. Still images, i.e., JPGs – This is by far the most popular solution, along with JPGs that update frequently. This is
probably because DOTs already have cameras deployed along the majority of their roadways and are receiving
video feeds at the command center which makes capturing JPGs relatively simple. However, there are definitely
costs associated with capturing JPGs from a video stream. Per our survey, some of the known costs are:
a. For each analog camera, an encoder is required to convert to a digital signal.
b. Dedicated servers are required to run the software that processes the images.
c. Software for processing JPG’s must be purchased or sub-contracted.
d. Integration, testing, and roll-out involve associated IT costs.
e. Bandwidth charges may be incurred at some point in the network chain.
While still images are a step forward, their effectiveness is limited. Typically, stills are useful in medium to light
traffic where they can confirm those conditions for the traveler. However, when there is congestion or gridlock,
still images are of little use since there is no way to gauge traffic flow. It is important for a traveler to understand
whether traffic is stopped, moving at 5 miles per hour, or 25 miles per hour. Travelers cannot make good decisions
7|P a g e
2014
without this information. Even with updating JPGs, there may not be enough information for the user.
Furthermore, as frequently updating JPGs get closer together, the system is then approaching live streaming and
taking on the inherent costs.
3. Live video streaming – Live streaming would appear to be ideal except for the cost. However, multiple negative
issues are associated with streaming:
a. It is expensive. Bandwidth charges can range from $100 to $500 per camera per month. If the camera
is on a cell modem, that number can be much larger. And there may be ISP costs to deliver the videos
to users.
b. It requires expensive hardware such as IP cameras or encoders, transcoders (one per camera), and
servers to manage the streams (one active stream per CPU core).
c. It requires one camera for every view.
d. The DOT must have adequate bandwidth in the internal network to deliver as many concurrent streams
as are being requested at approximately 150 to 250 Kb/s.
e. To avoid significant internal IT demands, the whole traveler information project can be sub-contracted
but a careful implementation is required and costs will be increased.
Aside from the high cost, live streaming can be an excellent source of traveler information but there are also
inherent flaws which limit its effectiveness. The internet was not designed to transport live video. The packets that
are sent are simplex communication, meaning there is no feedback on bad packets, dropped packets, latency, or
packets arriving out of order on a grand scale. According to a personal interview with the CTO of a major video
streaming company, live streaming works without problems approximately 85% of the time (less on mobile devices).
This means that a premium is being paid for a solution that only works most of the time – and even less on mobile
devices which are what most travelers would be using to access the streams. Additionally, there is a growing
concern from users that live streaming on mobile devices is gobbling up disproportionate amounts of their allocated
monthly data.
A study was conducted to understand how long users view a traveler information video before clicking away. The
average time was between only two to three seconds because the brain is able to assess a familiar situation very
quickly. This presents the question – If the average view time is only a few seconds, is live streaming with its large
expense and high need for tech support really necessary?
4. Color coded maps – Traffic flow maps on navigation and mobile devices
are helpful. Their strengths are the same as still images – they are great
for light to medium traffic situations. However, when the route turns
“red,” there is simply no way to know what that really means. Other
issues include:
a. While there are a variety of technologies being developed and
used for traffic flow, none yet is super accurate at slow speeds.
The algorithms are getting better but it is very difficult to
measure rate of travel when traffic is crawling. Additionally, the
latency on the good numbers is often too large to be of use when
traffic is slow.
b. In a recent test, we traveled to several large U.S. and European
cities to compare live traffic to the maps being generated by the
major navigation companies. We used the three largest providers and had them all running on separate
devices at the same time as we entered various congested areas of the cities. We found at least a 25%
8|P a g e
2014
incidence of false “red” conditions being shown at any given time. To clarify, at least 25% of the time,
we were on roads that were completely clear of traffic but the navigation map showed them as red.
c. As of the summer of 2011, Google Navigation stated that it would no longer provide travel time
estimates. "...We have decided that our information systems behind this feature were not as good as
they could be," Mabasa said. "Therefore, we have taken this offline and are currently working to come
up with a better, more accurate solution." (“Google Quietly Pulls Flawed Travel Times from Maps,”
PCWorld, July, 2011) It is unclear whether Google has officially resumed wait time estimates since the
feature was not removed from existing apps.
No doubt this technology will improve but it is still not fully developed nor consistently reliable. As a friend recently
exclaimed on a drive through Los Angeles, “I looked at the map and it showed red at the 405/10 freeway. What
does that mean? Is it stopped, five miles per hour, or fifteen?”
5. A new traveler information option called “Qvision” is now available which utilizes a new, patented technology
to deliver updated video without the cost of live streaming. This software was originally created to solve a
problem at the world’s busiest border crossing. However, once it was developed, investors saw the opportunity
for use of the technology in all areas of transportation.
Immediately upon implementation of Qvision at the San Diego / Tijuana border crossing, a 15 to 20% reduction
in wait times was noted. This was determined to be the result of automatic load-leveling which travelers were
able to accomplish by viewing updated video clips of the 24 lanes available for entering the U.S. (See “Qvision
Solves Enormous Problem at US/Mexico Border Crossing”)
Some benefits of this new technology for DOTs are:
a. Cost – The cost to implement the system is equal to or less than the cost of providing JPGs or rapidly
updating JPGs. Travelers receive updated videos that have all the benefits of live streaming without
the cost and need for dedicated hardware.
b. Bandwidth – This system uses very little bandwidth due to its completely new design. It is not a
repackaged version of any current video technology. Where it is in use on cameras with a cellular
modem connection, the monthly data limit is not being reached.
c. Economy of fewer cameras – Because this technology is not live streaming, a single PTZ camera can be
utilized to take from two to eight different video views. This could cut hardware costs significantly for
the DOT.
d. Simplicity – The system does not require extensive integration with existing DOT systems.
e. Sharing videos with other agencies and/or media is done through an administration page that allows
the DOT to assign privileges and a number of security restrictions. The user then logs in through any
browser on any device to access the permitted images.
f. Mobile – The videos are pre-formatted to play on any device without the need for a special application
and they use very little bandwidth from the user’s data plan.
An article entitled “Bordering on Genius” in Thinking Highways (Feb 2014) says: “Qvision Technology is a reliable,
advanced video service that takes advantage of the capabilities of today’s computing and advanced video
distribution. It provides near real-time looped moving images from traffic cameras that are updated at regular
intervals. All the hassles of streaming are gone because the images are slightly delayed, but they are still real-time
enough for effective monitoring of a road. And unlike jpegs they give an accurate, high quality, moving view of the
traffic, thus giving a good idea of speed as well as volume.”
9|P a g e
2014
SURVEY RESULTS
Surveys were sent to DOTs and also distributed through ITSA. We would like to thank the DOTs who participated.
The results are generally useful for understanding a cross section of DOTs – whether they are providing traveler
information, how they are doing so, and the common issues involved. Some areas of the study, particularly the
costs of providing images and the amount of IT support required, were a bit thin. However, there was enough data
to start a basic framework of equipment and costs involved in current efforts to provide traveler information to the
public.
Q1 Results of this survey will be published in a white paper. Please indicate how you want your
specific data to be handled:
Q2 Please provide your name and contact information :
Forty percent of participants asked that we maintain confidentiality in their answers. For that reason, none of the
results will be linked to the particular DOT who provided the answer.
Q3 Which department of transportation do you represent ?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CalTrans - District 8 (San Bernardino/Riverside Counties)
CalTrans District 7 (Los Angeles & Ventura County)
Caltrans District 3
City of Arcadia, California
City of Burbank, California
City of Laguna Niguel, CA Public Works
Florida DOT
Illinois DOT
Maryland State Highway Administration
Minnesota DOT
Nevada DOT
New Jersey DOT
New York State DOT
Pennsylvania DOT
Palmdale, CA - Public Works Traffic Engineering
Texas DOT
Virginia DOT
10 | P a g e
2014
Q4 How many roadway cameras does your DOT currently operate?
Q5 How many of your cameras are used to provide traveler information?
2500
Cameras
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Survey Participant - DOT
Number of DOT’s that have listed percentage of IP cameras
11 | P a g e
2014
Q7 Please list the various makes and models of cameras being used by your agency:
Answer: American Dynamic, Pelco, Cohu, WTI, Pelco Spectra, Iteris, Cohu I-View, Axis IP, Javilin, Sony Ipela, ACTi,
Bosch, CoreTec, Teleste MPX, Cornet, CHART ATMS provides PTZ control, Infonova
12 | P a g e
2014
Q10 Do you have figures for the cost per camera or total cost of delivering images to the public?
Q11 If you know the cost per camera or the total cost per year for delivering images to the public,
please enter it here. Answered: 8 Skipped: 15
Answers: This was clearly an area that was not easy to pinpoint as seen by the number of participants who skipped
the answer. We did get some figures but it was extremely difficult to put them into context of one-time costs, onetime fees, recurring fees, maintenance fees, hardware costs, etc. Of those that answered “Cost per Camera,” the
numbers ranged from $150 to $5,000 with an average of approximately $3,000. We believe this is the one-time
cost to get a camera set up and networked. Of those who answered “Total Cost per Year,” the numbers ranged
from $90,000 to just under $1,000,000. There was insufficient data or clarity to categorize or deliver any useful
information. We made attempts to work with DOT representatives to unravel the numbers. However, given the
time limit of this study and the way that these costs are mixed in with control center costs and then either
subcontracted out and unable to break down the exact costs or, the data was not readily available or broken down.
Also, it was not possible to determine an average recurring annual cost per camera to provide traveler information,
although the lowest number was $150 per camera per year for JPGs.
13 | P a g e
2014
Q14 If your agency uses encoders to convert to digital, where are they located?
Q15 If your agency uses encoders to convert to digital, what is the cost of the encoder hardware?
(This question refers to ENCODERS only. Encoders convert the stream to digital for transmission.
This should not be confused with transcoders that are used to process the stream for distribution.)
Answer: Ten participants responded to “Per Channel” costs with results from $150 to $2,000 with an average of
$825. The ten that responded to “Total Cost” were from $5,000 to $300,000 for an average of $425 per channel.
Q16 Do you use transcoders to distribute or manage the video streams?
Q17 What is the cost of your transcoder hardware?
Answers: Two thirds of the participants are providing some sort of streaming video. Of those, half are using
transcoders to serve the streams. Per channel/stream costs were stated to be from $125 to just under $1,000 for
an average of $500 per channel.
Q18 What does it cost on a yearly basis to maintain and upgrade the hardware encoders and
transcoders?
Answer: The majority of participants had no knowledge of these costs. There were 3 responses with figures that
were $10,000, $37,000, and $150,000 with an average of $150 per channel per year.
14 | P a g e
2014
Q19 How many IT hours are spent to setup and maintain the encoders and transcoders per year?
Answer: Insufficient data.
Q21 How many servers do you have for external CCTV feeds?
Q22 How many streams per server?
Answers: The average number of streams per server is about 40 for those who are doing live video streaming. For
those doing JPGs, the numbers of cameras per server is much higher – 100 and above – due to the greatly reduced
processing required for still images. The average of 40 live video streams per server must be based upon a duty
cycle of 20% per stream since streaming technology currently can only process one stream per CPU core.
15 | P a g e
2014
NOTE: Ten people responded to this question. Presumably these are the ten who are incurring extra bandwidth
fees. Based upon the respondents’ data, it appears that these charges and fees are associated with the use of live
streaming video somewhere inside or outside of their agency system.
Q24 What is the cost of the server hardware or service? Hardware, Fixed Service, Recurring
Service costs.
Answer: The majority of participants were unable to identify the costs. Five DOT’s had figures available which
averaged out to $100 - $400 per channel for live streaming and $20 - $60 per channel JPGs.
Q25 How many IT hours are spent to setup and maintain servers per year?
Q26 Are you paying any licensing fees for the use of certain media formats or media streaming
software? If so, please provide the cost.
16 | P a g e
2014
Q28 What is the cost to provide these different formats to travelers?
Answer: All but one respondent either did not know the cost or stated that it was included in whatever service
they were using to provide images/video to the public.
Q29 Are there any additional costs to maintain and upgrade the delivery of this information to
mobile and desktop devices? If so, what are those costs?
Q30 How many IT hours are spent to set up and maintain this service to travelers per year via
different formats?
17 | P a g e
2014
Q33 If you selected yes, what needs will be meet by providing better stream sharing for external
agencies?
Answers:
 They will need upgraded feeds.
 Better communication and collaboration between agencies
 Better variety of formats and data rates, easier for agency to manage.
18 | P a g e


2014
Convert all analog to digital video
Currently the real-time streaming video feeds provided through internet time out after a couple of minutes.
The planned dedicated external agency/media connection will provide connection without time-outs.
19 | P a g e

examination of the methods and costs of providing traveler information

Transcription

Similar documents

Vol3#10 - Mt Traveler

experience the power of 3! 3 incredible bands on 1 ticket

GUIDING LIGht IN marketING

HMO/POS Travel Guide

Lentil Ladybird Tutorial

Media Kit - Frequent Flyer Services

Multimodal 511 System for California`s Inland Empire Page 5

Wyndham Hotel Group - Corporate

Country of marvels

Georgia Navigator – Past, Present and Future