Minnesota Guidestar Evaluation of Non-Intrusive Technologies for Traffic Detection Farideh Amiri Minnesota Department of Transportation Traffic Records Forum

Minnesota Guidestar Presentation Outline Background Test Site Test Methodology Vendors and Technologies Test Results - Qualitative Issues -Preliminary Field Results Future Test Activities

Minnesota Guidestar Easily deployed without disruption of traffic flow Safer for staff to deploy Sidefire, Overhead, under Pavement or Under Bridge Mounting Definition of Non-Intrusive Technologies

Minnesota Guidestar FHWA & Mn/DOT sponsored test of NIT: –Hughes Test: –NIT Phase I: 1995 – 1997 –Report is available at: Success of initial test led FHWA to fund Phase II –Permanent Test Facility Bicycle and Pedestrian Test Background

Minnesota Guidestar Evaluate full capabilities and limitations of devices Test in varying weather and traffic conditions Test in varying mounting conditions (overhead/sidefire, heights, offsets) Historical and Real-time/ITS applications Test Goals

Minnesota Guidestar Standard Test Methodology Develop standard test procedures –Makes results useful to national audience –Makes tests repeatable by other agencies –Reduce amount of duplicate testing –Coordinate with other standards (ASTM) Develop standard statistical procedures –Make results easy to interpret Develop standard report guidelines

Minnesota Guidestar Test Site - Freeway I-394 at Penn Avenue –Free flow to heavy congestion –Inductive loops in place –Three mainline lanes –Two reversible HOV lanes –Catwalk and adjustable mounting poles –Crank-up pole for “side fire” devices

Minnesota Guidestar NIT Shelter - Outside

Minnesota Guidestar NIT Shelter - Inside

Minnesota Guidestar Sidefire Tower

Minnesota Guidestar Overhead Mounting Structure

Minnesota Guidestar Test Site - Intersection I-394 at Penn Avenue –Multiple lane and single lane approaches –Congested in peak periods –Inductive loops in place –Utilize existing poles

Minnesota Guidestar Intersection Site

Minnesota Guidestar Test Methodology Volume, speed, occupancy, presence, classification Compare to baseline Different test conditions –Mounting location (height and offset) –Traffic levels –Time of the day –Different weather

Minnesota Guidestar Participating Vendors and Technology Group Schwartz Electro-Optics (active infrared) 3M (magnetic) ECM (microwave) SmarTek (passive acoustic) Image Sensing Systems (video) Traficon (video)

Minnesota Guidestar Participating Vendors and Technology Group (cont) Novax (ultrasonic) ASIM – Passive Infrared – Passive Infrared/ Ultrasonic – Passive Infrared/Ultrasonic/Microwave

Minnesota Guidestar ASIM, Schwartz

Minnesota Guidestar Video Detectors

Minnesota Guidestar Vendor Considerations –International vs. National vs. Local Presence –Level of Support Provided Wholesaler Only Integration Support –Support track record History with large deployments? Responsive to customer needs? How long in market? References available?

Minnesota Guidestar Vendor Support Schwartz 3M ECM SmarTek Autoscope Traficon Novax ASIM

Minnesota Guidestar Ease of Installation/Calibration Schwartz 3M ECM SmarTek Autoscope Traficon NovaxN/A ASIM

Minnesota Guidestar Baseline Results Manual count of videotape for groundtruth –4-hours of tape (am peak, midday, pm peak, evening) –Count tape multiple times Freeway results indicate absolute error of less than 2 percent Intersection results mixed

Minnesota Guidestar Freeway Baseline

Minnesota Guidestar Overview Results - Freeway SensorMounting No. of Lane Freeway VolumeSpeed ASIM – Passive IROH/SF12%11% ASIM – Passive IR/ UltOH/SF19%- ASIM – IR/Radar/ UltOH13%4% Schwartz - Active IROH11%6% Autoscope – VideoOH/SF31 - 2%1 - 3% Traficon – VideoOH/SF32 - 4%4 - 8% SmarTek – P. AcousticSF %6 - 8% 3M - MahneticUnder32 – 3%2 - 6%

Minnesota Guidestar Overview Results - Intersection SensorMounting No. of Lane Intersection VolumePresence ASIM – Passive IR/ UltSF1-0% Autoscope – VideoOH119%0% Traficon – VideoOH112%0 – 20% SmarTek – P. AcousticSF1-0%

Minnesota Guidestar Mounting Impact on Sensor Performance Two sensors tested at all mounting heights 3 Bases, 5 Heights, 3 Lanes Results Presentation Base vs. height and lane Lane vs. height and base Height vs. base and lane

Minnesota Guidestar Field Test Results Video performs better when: –Higher –Closer to freeway Passive Acoustic performs better when: –45-degree angle between traffic and sensor

Minnesota Guidestar Preliminary Results (Con.) Each Lane: Performance vs. height and base

Minnesota Guidestar -Lane occupancy -Speed -Presence -Vehicle classification (length and height) ITS Applications Real-time Data

Minnesota Guidestar Real-time Data Vehicle-by-vehicle data recorded by data acquisition system: –Occupied time –Speed

Minnesota Guidestar Occupied Time Loop ALoop B 16’ Travel Time Loop Detection Schematic

Minnesota Guidestar Loop 1 Occupied Time Check

Minnesota Guidestar Phase I Results Review (Weather) Most devices performed well in varying weather conditions Video devices affected by wind and lighting conditions Active infrared device affected by rain and snow. Wet pavement caused over counting. Snow caused poor vehicle tracking Passive acoustic device affected by low temperature (Undercounting along freeway, over counting at intersection Passive magnetic device affected by low temperature

Minnesota Guidestar General Results Most devices suited to temporary applications Performance varies little from technology to technology Heavy traffic had some impact at freeway Intersection counting not as accurate Factors to consider –Ease of installation,calibration and maintenance –Mounting flexibility –Power supply needs –Amount of vendor support

Minnesota Guidestar Heavy Traffic Impact Example

Minnesota Guidestar Next Test: Bike/Ped Detection Developed Test Plan –Literature Review –Detection Applications Curbside/Crosswalk Ped Detection (Intersection) Intersection Bicycle Approach Historical Data (Trail) –Parameters: presence, volume, speed, direction

Minnesota Guidestar Pedestrian Detection

Minnesota Guidestar Pedestrian Detection

Minnesota Guidestar PNIT Pooled fund study “Portable Non-Intrusive Technologies” Schedule –Administration, Now –Research, January 2003 –Design and fabrication, April 2003 –Field evaluation, Summer 2003 –Report, December 2003 –Present Results at NATMEC conference, May 2004

Minnesota Guidestar PNIT Goals are: –Research existing portable systems –Build on current design to design and fabricate a new PNIT –Prepare detailed PNIT system design and cost documentation – Evaluate PNIT system in the field under a verity of test conditions –Disseminate results

Minnesota Guidestar Rapid Deployment

Minnesota Guidestar Unique Applications

Minnesota Guidestar For more information projects.dot.state.mn.us/nit Thank you