National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix A - Survey
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Survey Responses." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26094.
×
Page 92

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

82 A P P E N D I X B Survey Responses Question 1: Which of the following private sector cellular and/or GPS-collected probe data does your agency currently use/purchase or plan to in the near future? Currently Use/Purchase Planning to Use/Purchase in the Near Future Do Not Use/Purchase and Have No Plans to Do So. Speed Data (real-time or historic avg. speed on one or more road segments) AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI LA, MD, NE, OR MT Origin-Destination Data (data that describes the origin and destination of a trip) AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, IA, ID, IL, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, NM, NV, OH, OR, RI, SC, TX, UT, VA, WA AZ, CT, GA, HI, KS, MD, MO, NJ, OK, PA, TN IN, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NY, VT, WI Route/Trajectory Data (data that describes the path and routes of a trip from an origin to a destination) AR, CT, ID, KY, MA, MD, ME, OH, VA, WA AL, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MN, MO, NJ, M, PA, RI AZ, IA, IL, IN, KJ, LA, MI, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NV, NY, OK, OR, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WI Location-Based Services (data obtained from 3rd party apps on smartphones that periodically report the location of users) AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA, WA CT, KS, ME, NM, TN AZ, HI, ID, IN, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, VT

Survey Responses 83 Question 3: Which of the following private sector cellular and/or GPS-collected probe data does your agency currently use/purchase or plan to in the near future? Companies States AirSage CT, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MS, OR, TN, WA ATRI AR, FL, IL, MI, MN, MS, OR, RI, TN, WA Cuebiq OH Google AR, GA, HI, ID, IA, KS, MI, WA HERE Technologies AL, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NJ, NY, NC, OK, OR, SC, TN, TX, UT, WI INRIX AL, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MS, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA Lyft None NPMRDS AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, GA, ID, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI StreetLight AZ, AR, CT, FL, GA, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NC, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, WA TomTom IN, ME, MD, NH, OR, WI Uber None Waze AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MO, NH, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VT, WI Other CO, IL, KY, MA, MN, NM, PA, VA, WA, WI Not Applicable MT “Other” answers included • CO = Zonar, Verizon Fleet for GPS. • IL = Safe Graph. • KY = GoodVisions. • MA = LBS Via Verizon through consultant. • MN = We don't make use of TomTom's data directly and have not acquired data from them, but we are part of a pooled-fund study in which the research team is purchasing and using TomTom's data in their calculations of urban accessibility. • NM = Bing and Verizon. • PA = DOT Bluetooth. Question 2: Are there any other private sector cellular and/or GPS-collected probe data not listed above that your agency currently uses/purchases or plans to in the near future? If so, please describe the data below. • IN = Working with multiple auto manufacturers on enhanced probe data. Currently in the research side of the world. • KY = Trajectory Data that focuses on driving behavior parameters • Multiple = Waze • VA = We have used some STRAVA for bike studies/research, but have not made a wholesale purchase. • WA = Sugar Access. • WI = HERE traffic speeds through 511 vendor only for display on webpage.

84 Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation Question 4: In what general areas does your agency use these data? Area States Planning AL, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WI Public Relations/Media AR, CO, GA, IN, MA, ME, MN, NJ, NM, OR, PA, TN, UT, VA Real-time Operations AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, NE, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI Performance Management AL, AR, AZ, CT, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI Maintenance AL, GA, IL, MI, OR, PA, RI, UT, VA Asset Management TX, UT, VA Research AR, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, RI, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI Other AR, HI, ID, IL, MA, MN, NC, OH, PA, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI None of the above MT “Other” answers included: • AR: Fleet Management. • HI: Traveler Information. • ID: Overweight Trucking Routes. • IL: Travel Demand Model Development. • MA: Travel model calibration activities. • MN: We are making use of some probe data sources to assist in construction project management specifically the management of impacts from work zone operations. • NC: Signal system timing prioritization. • OH: Travel demand model networks (in combination with floating car surveys). • PA: Overnight truck parking. • UT: Construction, VSL. • VA: Project prioritization, winter maintenance (WAZE). • VT: Still exploring data quality with the I-95 CC and INRIX. • WA: WSDOT’s Rail and Public Transportation Divisions have used this type of data for a variety of unique uses such as passenger (intercity) rail and transit access. • WI: 511 Traveler information.

Survey Responses 85 Question 5: For what specific purposes does your agency use cellular and/or GPS-collected probe data? Specific Purpose States Adherence to evacuation notices, and monitoring of movements AL, NC Advertising/Billboard Placement/Mailers None After Action Incident Reviews AL, AR, CO, GA, IA, IL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA, WA Analysis of quick clearance legislation & towing and recovery practices AL, AR, KY, NE, OH, VA Arrival on Red/Green Analysis AL, IN, OH, VA Arterial Performance Measures AL, AR, CT, GA, IL, IN, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, ND, NE, NJ, OH, PA, UT, VA, WA ATSPM (Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures) AL, GA, IN, NJ, OH, PA, VA Automatically attributing congestion to various sources (signals, weather, construction, events, geometrics, etc.) AL, CT, IA, IN, KS, MA, MD, MN, NH, NJ, OH, PA, VA Before & After Studies AL, CT, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI Bottleneck Ranking AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KS, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, ND, NH, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI Corridor Study AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI Dangerous Slowdown Detection CO, IN, MA, ME, MO, OH, PA, VA Dynamic Tolling None Event Detection AL, CO, GA, IN, LA, MA, ME, MO, NE, NH, NJ, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT Freight Movement Analysis AR, CT, FL, ID, IL, LA, MA, ME, MN, MS, NC, NH, OR, PA, RI, TN, VA, WA Fuel and Charging Station Location Development None Holiday Travel Forecasts AL, CO, GA, IN, MA, NC, NH, NJ, OH, PA, UT, VA Justifying Transit Spending AL, GA, MD, ME, MI, OH, PA, TX, UT, VA Measuring economic impacts of project, information campaigns, etc. NH, WA Media Engagement CT, GA, MD, MN, VA Migration Analysis AR, CT, GA, NH, OR, PA, TN, VA

86 Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation Specific Purpose States Mileage Base User Fees None Mobility as a Service WA Model Calibration AR, AZ, CT, FL, ID, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NY, OH, OR, RI, SC, TN, UT, VA, WA Multi-Modal Trip Analysis (short or long-duration trips) MA, ME, TN, WA Operations Benefit-Cost Analysis AL, AR, GA, IN, KS, MD, ME, MI, NE, OH, OK, PA, UT, VA Origin-Destination Analytics AR, CO, CT, FL, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MN, MS, OH, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA Project Assessment Summary AR, FL, GA, MA, MD, MI, MN, NJ, NY, OH, UT, VA Project Prioritization/Scoring AL, AR, AZ, CT, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, MD, MI, MN, MO, NC, NH, NY, OH, UT, VA, WA Project Selection AR, CT, FL, GA, IN, MD, MI, MO, NH, NY, OH, TX, UT, VA, WA Project Study AR, CT, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MI, MN, MS, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI Public Participation Meetings CT, GA, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, UT, VA, WA Real-Time Work Zone Management AL, CO, CT, FL, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, MI, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, OK, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA Reliability Measurement AL, AR, AZ, CT, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NH, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI Responding to Citizen Complaints CO, GA, MA, MD, MN, NC, NH, NJ, OH, UT, VA, WA Select-Link Analysis AR, FL, MA, MD, ME, UT, VA, WA, WI Signal Analytics & Retiming GA, IN, MD, MI, NC, NE, NJ, OH, PA, VA, WA Significant Event Analysis (bridge collapse, commuter train derailment, eclipse traffic impacts, etc.) AR, CT, GA, IA, IN, LA, MA, MD, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, UT, VA, WA Situational Awareness (evacuation monitoring, winter weather operations, daily operations, etc.) AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, IA, IN, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA Systems Performance Reporting AR, AZ, CT, GA, IN, KS, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, UT, VA, VT, WI Transportation Energy Analytics (fuel consumption, emissions, etc.) None Travel Time Studies AL, AR, CT, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NH, NJ, OH, OK, OR, PA,

Survey Responses 87 Specific Purpose States RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA Travel Time on DMS AL, CO, GA, HI, IA, IN, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, NC, NH, NJ, NM, OH, OK, PA, RI, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI Traveler Information AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, MD, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI Trip Analytics CT, FL, IN, MA, MD, ME, MN, NJ, VA, WA Trip Incentivization WA Turning Movement Analysis CT, MD, ME, MN, OH, PA, WA Updating the CMP AR, MA, MD, MI, NC, NH, NY, PA, RI, VA User Delay Cost Analysis AR, CT, FL, GA, IA, KS, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, OH, OR, PA, UT, VA, WA Variable Tolling None Volume Estimation AR, CO, CT, FL, KS, LA, MD, ME, MN, MO, OH, PA, TX, WA What-if scenario analysis for development, counter-measures, lane closures, CAVs, etc. CT, KS, MD, ME, NJ, OH, PA, VA, WA Work Zone Impact/Audits AR, CO, CT, IA, KS, MA, MN, MO, NC, OH, PA, UT, VA, WA Other (please explain) ND, NV, VA, WA None of the above MT “Other” answers included • ND: Enforcement resource deployment. • NV: MAP-21 reporting. • VA: We are exploring volume estimation for the future. • WA: Siting transit stations, access to transportation. Question 6: If your agency isn’t currently using GPS/cellular data, what are the reasons? Inhibiting Reason States Cost/lack of budget CT, KS, LA, NE, VA, VT, WA Concerns about quality and/or accuracy KS, LA, MT, ND, NE, VA, VT, WA Don’t know/understand/see benefit(s) MT, VT Don’t have a need MT The data are too big and/or we don’t know how to handle it CT, KS, LA, MT, VA Lack of leadership support KS Lack of control of data collection process KS, MT Perceived concerns over privacy ND Too much effort required to integrate data KS, LA, MT, VA Other (Please explain) VA, WA

88 Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation Inhibiting Reason States Not applicable AL, AR, CO, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NY, PA, RI, TN, UT “Other” answers included: • VA: Our agency is using the data so although I really should not have answered the question, I've checked those that we deal with regularly. • WA: Although WSDOT currently uses GPS/cellular data for both ongoing and project needs, the primary reasons WSDOT ceases using any given product or service comes down to the reasons checked above. Question 7: Does your agency perform any of the following? Action States Process and analyze raw data directly (using in- house staff) AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MO, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA Access data through a hosted analytics or visualization platform like iPeMS, RITIS, StreetLight, etc. AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA Pay a consultant to analyze the data for you AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI Not applicable HI, MT, NE, NM Question 8: What tools does your agency use to analyze the data whether in-house or purchased (SaS, R, MatLab, iPeMS, RITIS, StreetLight, Excel, etc.)? Tools that Agencies Say They Are Using States RITIS AR, CT, FL, GA, IA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NV, OH, OK, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT Excel AR, AZ, CT, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, ND, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, UT, VA, WA StreetLight AR, FL, IA, LA, MD, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, OH, PA, VA, WA ESRI or Similar GIS Tool FL, MD, ME, ND, OH, PA, SC, UT iPeMS AL, FL, GA, MN, NC, OR, UT, VA Tableau FL, KY, LA, ME, OR, PA, VA, WA R FL, ID, MI, MN, OR, SC, VA MS Access MA, ME, VA, WA Power BI LA, OH, PA, VA, VT SAS AZ, MN, ND, VA

Survey Responses 89 Tools that Agencies Say They Are Using States In-House Staff/Tools GA, PA Python ID, OH, SC, VA Hadoop KY, VA MatLab OR, VA Oracle MD, VA SPATEL NJ, NY TransCAD KY, OH AlgoReports AL ATSPM AL AVAIL NY C++ VA In-House Dashboards IL, IN, TX Java VA INRIX Analytics ID, IN, OH JMP OR Lonestar TX MS Azure Analysis Services OH SPSS VA SQL Server Management Studio OH VISSIM CT Question 9: How did your agency acquire the data? Acquisition Method States Through issuing an RFP AL, AZ, CO, FL, IA, IL, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TX, UT, WA, WI Shared by a partner agency FL, KS, KY, NE, NH, NY, WA Sole source procurement AR, FL, ID, IN, LA, MD, ME, MS, NV, NY, PA, RI, VA, WA Subscription FL, ME, MN, NE, NM, TX, WI Inter-governmental agreement with a university of other state AR, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, LA, MD, ME, MN, OR, PA, WA, WI Lumped together with the procurement or operations & maintenance of an ATMS, Traveler Information System, or other system purchase AR, FL, HI, KS, KY, ME, MN, NH, NJ, OK, TN Through an on-call contractor AR, CT, FL, GA, KS, KY, PA, TN, VA, WA Through a non-profit agency or academic institution (like the I-95 Corridor Coalition or a university) FL, GA, MA, MD, MN, NC, NH, NJ, OK, PA, TN, VT As part of a larger corridor study or project CT, FL, GA, KS, LA, MA, MD, ME, MS, OR, SC, TN, WA

90 Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation Acquisition Method States Other ID, IL, IN, MS, ND, OH, VA, WI Not applicable MT Question 10: Is your agency allowed to share the raw data or analytics application that you’ve purchase with these partners? Shared with… States MPOs AR, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, ID, KS, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, UT, VA, VT Consultants working for you AR, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, NEN, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, TN, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI Local DOTs/DPWs FL, GA, IA, KS, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, NC, NJ, NV, OH, PA, TN, VA University Partners CO, FL, GA, IA, IN, LA, MD, ME, MN, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, PA, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI Public Safety/First Responders FL, GA, IA, IN, LA, MD, ME, MO, NC, NJ, OH, VA Transit Agencies FL, GA, MD, ME, MN, NC, NJ, NV, OH, VA, WA The general public GA, NJ Media GA Other – Write In CT, IL, WI Not applicable HI, MT, ND, NH, NM Question 11: Are there any major decisions that your agency has made as a result of the use of probe data? If so, please explain or provide examples below. Alabama: Probe data analytics have played a large role in making our business case, which is leading to establishing funding for an annual capital program. We are also conducting research for trajectory based signal operations utilizing probe data. Arkansas: Calibrated the agency Road User Cost Analysis methodology - updated the network congestion screening methodology - major shift in emphasizing operations planning. Connecticut: Prioritized projects based on bottleneck analysis conducted. Georgia: Operational Improvement Program - uses data to determine bottleneck locations and develop projects. Safety Improvement Program - uses speed/congestion data to determine segments along corridors that may proactively indicate a problem; develops projects accordingly. Signal Operations Programs - tracks regionally significant corridor performance and allocates resources for signal re-timing and/or fine tuning accordingly; complete before after-studies to determine success; holiday travel patterns tracked to help determine appropriate staffing levels. Idaho: It has been used to support several big decisions but only as a secondary source of data. For example, it contributes to annual project prioritization in our "Safety & Capacity" program, but other

Survey Responses 91 mobility analyses are done first (such as travel demand model scenario comparisons) and only in cases where the analysis isn't a good fit for travel demand modeling would we use the INRIX data. Also, this type of data has been used in cases where we are trying to decide if further study is needed for a corridor study or the like. Kansas: Work Zone Traffic Management Plans. Kentucky: Development of Micro-Simulation Standards and Component to Data Driven Project Prioritization. Louisiana: Decided a new bridge over the Mississippi River Bridge in Baton Rouge was feasible. Massachusetts: Informed revisions to lane closures - prioritizing bottlenecks to target improvements (although not formally yet) - better holiday travel information - valuable before-and-after studies to help determine the most effective future highway modifications. Conversion to probe data for work-zone management (from former limited Bluetooth system). Maryland: MD Annual Mobility Report - Transportation Investments/ Projects - TSMO Strategy Evaluation. Michigan: Statewide Model development and calibration - Congestion management process development, monitoring, and assessment of regional congestion and reliability - Project scoring and prioritize and selection funding allocations. Minnesota: Most of the probe data sources that are used by various departments within our organization are relatively new, and as such have not been fully integrated into the decision-making and project evaluation process. Often they are used to either supplement traditional sources of analysis or to evaluate the implementation of projects post hoc. One exception to this was a recent exercise to analyze a few mobility projects in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St. Paul) metro area that would be high- priority projects in the event that additional funding became available. In this case, the StreetLight data platform was used to estimate likely trip origins for potential users of the improved roadway and how these are distributed spatially, especially between the metro area and Greater Minnesota. This was done to get a rough estimate of the incidence of benefits from a project. Missouri: Locations for congestion mitigation projects. Mississippi: No. North Carolina: Changed our approach to signal system re-timing prioritization process. Use probe data instead of contracting speed studies for certain analyses. North Dakota: To clarify my above responses, we have not recently used probe data beyond NPMRDS data. However, years ago, we have hired consultants on a few different projects to do O-D and travel- time studies, using AirSage and StreetLight data. New Jersey: Used frequently for lane closure hour decisions, analysis of personnel schedules based on travel demand. Ohio: Our TSMO Capital program funds projects largely on this data using the TOAST tool. We use probe/GPS speed data to determine the congestion measures (travel time performance and bottleneck

92 Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation ranking) and combine them with other safety and operations data sets to rank corridors based on operational performance. Several corridors are then selected for further review and study to apply for funding for TSMO countermeasures. Pennsylvania: The operating hours of one of our district traffic management centers were extended when analysis determined that their original hours did not cover the time of day when most heavy congestion crashes occurred. Deployment of smart work zone technology to automatically post queue protection messages. A traffic alerts application was developed to present probe and other crowdsourced data to traffic center operators for improved situational awareness. Used mostly in before/after signal timing efforts. Look to expand in upcoming larger corridor and area-wide plans. Rhode Island: Not yet, but hopefully the data will be used in the future to make major decisions. Tennessee: From the operations and planning side, decisions have been made as a result of information gained from probe data. This includes how resources have been utilized to respond to roadway incidents, and decisions on projects in the planning phase. Texas: It shapes our project selection, which can vary by district. Utah: Project selection, project prioritization, maintenance of traffic. Virginia: VDOT has used probe data for a range of decisions in the following areas: (1) Effectiveness of various operational strategies and decision to appropriate funds accordingly (2) Identification of congestion Hot spots and development of countermeasures (3) Probe data is one component of our project prioritization calculation. Washington State: WSDOT's Rail, Public Transportation, and Planning groups have used this type of data to help inform a lot of planning studies and analysis. Wisconsin: Subject to open records law.

Next: Appendix C - Anticipated and Theoretical Use Cases »
Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation Get This Book
×
 Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation
Buy Paperback | $79.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Over the last decade, state departments of transportation (DOTs) have begun to use vehicle probe and cellular GPS data for a variety of purposes, including real-time traffic and incident monitoring, highway condition, and travel demand management. DOTs are also using vehicle probe and cellular GPS data to inform system planning and investment decisions.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Synthesis 561: Use of Vehicle Probe and Cellular GPS Data by State Departments of Transportation documents how DOTs are applying vehicle probe and cellular GPS data for planning and real-time traffic and incident monitoring and communication.

In December 2021, an erratum was issued.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!