1	Concept Development and Needs Identification for Intelligent Network Flow Optimization (INFLO)
2	Agenda 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Goals and Objectives of the Study 9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Summary of Findings from Research Analysis/Scan of Current Practice 9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Stakeholder Contribution Expectations 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. – 12:00 noon Open Group Discussion on Goals, Performance Measures, Transformative Performance Targets 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
3	Agenda (cont.) 1:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. Applications Overview and Breakout Group Discussion Format 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Concurrent Breakouts( (Discuss Application Scenarios for SPD-HARM, Q- WARN and CACC) 3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. BREAK 3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Concurrent Breakouts (Discuss User Needs for SPD-HARM, Q-WARN and CACC) 4:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. Full Group Debriefs of each Application Breakout 4:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Recap of Meeting, Next Steps and Conclusion
4	Introductions Name Organization Area of Expertise Meeting Expectations Webinar
5	Meeting Outcome To solicit input on goals, performance measures, transformative performance targets, scenarios and user needs for the INFLO bundle Document this input for incorporation into the Draft ConOps Document
6	DMA Program Background
7	ITS Research: Multimodal and Connected
8	USDOT Mobility Program
9	Dynamic Mobility Applications Program
10	Transformative Application Bundles: Prioritization Approach USDOT solicited ideas for transformative applications October 2010 - More than 90 submittals received Refine concepts to a manageable set of consolidated concepts (30) Consolidated concepts used in variety of exercises at Mobility Workshop, 11/30-12/1/10 and with other stakeholder groups
11	DMA Program Summary
12	Agenda 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Goals and Objectives of the Study 9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Summary of Findings from Research Analysis/Scan of Current Practice 9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Stakeholder Contribution Expectations 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. – 12:00 noon Open Group Discussion on Goals, Performance Measures, Transformative Performance Targets 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
13	The INFLO Bundle Intelligent Network Flow Optimization (INFLO) bundle of applications: Dynamic Speed Harmonization (SPD-HARM) Queue Warning (Q-WARN) Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC)
14	Goals of INFLO Utilize frequently collected and rapidly disseminated multi-source data drawn from connected travelers, vehicles, and infrastructure to: Improve roadway throughput Reduce delay Improve safety Reduce emissions and fuel consumption
15	INFLO Deployment Vision
16	Goals and Objectives of the INFLO Study Facilitate concept development and needs refinement for INFLO applications Assess relevant prior and ongoing research Develop functional requirements and corresponding performance requirements Develop high-level data and communication needs Assess readiness for development and testing
17	Project Tasks and Stakeholder Involvement
18	Agenda 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Goals and Objectives of the Study 9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Summary of Findings from Research Analysis/Scan of Current Practice 9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Stakeholder Contribution Expectations: Transformative Goals, Performance Measures, User Needs 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Applications Overview and Breakout Group Discussion Format 10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. BREAK 10:30 a.m. – 11:30 p.m. Q-WARN Concurrent Breakouts 11:30 p.m. – 12:00 p.m. Full Group Debrief of Q-WARN Discussions 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
19	SPD-HARM: Concept Overview Reducing speed variability among vehicles improves traffic flow and minimizes or delays flow breakdown formation Utilize V2V and V2I communication to coordinate vehicle speeds Provide recommendations directly to drivers in-vehicle Recommend speeds by lane, by vehicle weight and size, by pavement traction Dynamic Speed Harmonization (SPD-HARM) aims to dynamically adjust and coordinate vehicle speeds in response to congestion, incidents, and road conditions to maximize throughput and reduce crashes.
20	SPD-HARM Illustrative
21	SPD-HARM: Current Practice Overview Typical speed harmonization implementation objectives: Speed management and safety Speed control under inclement weather condition Incident management Tunnel and bridge safety Flow and safety control along work zones Solutions utilized: Variable speed limits Ramp metering Limitations: Corridor-focused Minimal focus on mobility improvements Limited precision and granularity Enforcement and adherence issues
22	SPD-HARM: Key Deployments Germany’s Autobahns: Speed Harmonization via VSL Signing Implementation highlights: 200 km of roadway covered Loops for traffic flow conditions, weather (fog) detectors VISSIM microscopic traffic simulation to tune VSL algorithms Advisory (non-enforced) speed limits Findings: 20-30% crash rate reduction in speed harmonization zones
23	SPD-HARM: Key Deployments, cont. United Kingdom’s M42: Speed Harmonization via VSL Signing
24	SPD-HARM: Current Research
25	SPD-HARM: Current Research, cont. 2009 TxDOT Speed Limit Selection Algorithm Research Study highlights: Multi-resolution simulation framework using VISSIM/VISTA Modeled segment of Mopac Expressway in Austin, TX Model was successful at achieving consistent flow harmonization Findings: Achieving speed harmonization did not translate to increased throughput However, was successful at delaying breakdown formation
26	Q-WARN: Concept Overview Queue warning (Q-WARN) aims to provide drivers timely warnings and alerts of impending queue backup. To reduce shockwaves and prevent collisions and other secondary crashes Predict location, duration and length of queue propagation Utilize V2V and I2V communication for rapid dissemination and sharing of vehicle information E.g., position, velocity, heading, and acceleration of vehicles in the vicinity Allows drivers to take alternate routes or change lanes Applicable to freeways, arterials, and rural roads
27	Q-WARN Illustrative
28	Q-WARN: Current Practice Overview Typical queuing conditions: Exit ramp spillback Construction zone queues Fog (visibility) Border crossings Solutions utilized: Infrastructure-based detection paired with static signs, variable speed signs/VMS, or flashers Limitations: Static, infrastructure-based solutions limit range and scope of queue detection
29	Q-WARN: Key Deployments & Studies Illinois State Toll Highway Authority: Adaptive Queue Warning Spillback detection for exit ramps and mainline Static sign-mounted flashers Tunable threshold algorithms
30	Q-WARN: Other Deployments
31	Q-WARN: Current Research
32	Q-WARN: Current Research
33	Q-WARN: Current Research Wireless Long Haul Queue Warning Applications for Border Crossings Spillback detection for exit ramps and mainline Static sign-mounted flashers Tunable threshold algorithms
34	CACC: Concept Overview Closely linked with SPD-HARM to reduce stop-and-go waves Utilizes V2V and/or V2I communication to coordinate vehicle speeds and implement gap policy Cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) aims to dynamically adjust and coordinate cruise control speeds among platooning vehicles to improve traffic flow stability and increase throughput.
35	CACC Illustrative
36	CACC: Current Practice Overview Typical (non-cooperative) adaptive cruise control objectives: Safety: maintaining safe following distances between vehicles
37	CACC: Key Initiatives
38	CACC: Key Initiatives, cont. UMTRI Study of the Effectiveness of ACC vs. CCC & Manual Driving Study highlights: Study involved studies involved 36 drivers who drove an 88-km route during off-peak hours Compared velocity and braking of participants Findings: No statistical difference was observed between velocities for ACC, CCC, and manual driving However, mean number of brake applications was found to be statistically different (5.8 applications for manual driving, 11.3 for CCC, and 7.4 for ACC)
39	CACC: Current Research
40	CACC: Current Research, cont.
41	CACC: Current Research, cont. 2011 Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Eco-CACC Study Study highlights: Proposed a system that combines a predictive eco-cruise control system (ECC) with a car-following model to develop an eco-CACC system Model uses the Virginia Tech Comprehensive Power-based Fuel Model (VT-CPFM) to compute the optimum fuel-efficient vehicle control strategies
42	CACC: Current Research, cont. Additional relevant studies and research examined: Coordination of Ad-hoc Groups Formed in Urban Environments (Biddlestone, Redmill, and Ozguner) Design and Experimental Evaluation of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (Ploeng, Scheepers, van Nunen, de Wouw, Nijmeijer) Vehicle Automation in Cooperation with V2I and Nomadic Devices Communication (Loper, a-Prat, Gacnik, Schomerus, Koster) A New Concept of Brake System for ITS Platoon Heavy Duty Trucks and Its Pre-Evaluation (Ishizaka, Hiroyuki, et al.)
43	SPD-HARM + Q-WARN + CACC: The Benefits of Bundling The following example illustrates how all three applications used in conjunction can help minimize the impact of a freeway incident on traffic flow… SPD-HARM benefits Q-WARN by slowing and managing upstream traffic, thus reducing the risk of secondary collisions CACC benefits SPD-HARM by providing a mechanism for harmonizing traffic flow and reducing or mitigating acceleration variability Q-WARN benefits CACC by providing the platoon sufficient notification of an impending queue to effectively manage a response The three INFLO applications are closely linked. By deploying them in concert, the effectiveness of each is improved:
44	Combined Q-WARN/SPD-HARM/CACC Illustrative
45	Agenda 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Goals and Objectives of the Study 9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Summary of Findings from Research Analysis/Scan of Current Practice 9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Stakeholder Contribution Expectations 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. – 12:00 noon Open Group Discussion on Goals, Performance Measures, Transformative Performance Targets 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
46	Stakeholder Contribution Expectations Input is being requested in five areas, for each application: Goals Performance Measures Transformative Performance Targets Scenarios User Needs
47	Stakeholder Contribution Expectations Goals: “High level objective describing the desired end result or achievement“ Performance Measures: From the FHWA Office of Operations website: “Performance measurement is the use of evidence to determine progress toward specific defined organizational objectives. This includes both quantitative evidence (such as the measurement of customer travel times) and qualitative evidence (such as the measurement of customer satisfaction and customer perceptions). Transformative Performance Targets: “Mark we want to achieve for each performance measure”
48	Stakeholder Contribution Expectations Example: Goal = “Reduce Secondary Incidents” Performance Measure = “Secondary Incidents” Transformative Performance Target = “40% Reduction in Secondary Incidents”
49	Stakeholder Contribution Expectations - Scenarios
50	Stakeholder Contribution Expectations – User Needs
51	Agenda 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Goals and Objectives of the Study 9:15 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Summary of Findings from Research Analysis/Scan of Current Practice 9:45 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Stakeholder Contribution Expectations 10:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. – 12:00 noon Open Group Discussion on Goals, Performance Measures, Transformative Performance Targets 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. LUNCH
52	SPD-HARM Goals
53	SPD-HARM Goals Increase roadway throughput Reduce roadway delay Reduce or eliminate shockwaves Diminished excessive speeds, for prevailing conditions Reduce Speed Variability Reduction in primary and secondary incidents
54	SPD-HARM Goals (cont.) Improve Tunnel and Bridge Safety Improve Speed Control in inclement weather Improve safety control in work zones
55	SPD-HARM Performance Measures
56	Performance Measures for SPD-HARM Throughput Delay Primary Incidents Secondary incidents Emissions Speed Compliance Public Opinion Travel Time Reliability Uniform Lane Utilization
57	SPD-HARM Transformative Performance Targets
58	Transformative Performance Targets for SPD-HARM 2% increase in throughput 25% reduction in primary incidents 35% reduction in secondary incidents 2% emissions reduction 75% speed compliance 70% of users provide positive opinion of the application 10% improvement in travel time reliability
59	Q-WARN Goals
60	Q-WARN Goals Reduce incidents approaching construction zones Reduce incidents approaching border crossings and other fixed queue points Reduce incidents approaching traffic incident areas
61	Q-WARN Goals (cont.) Reduce incidents approaching exit ramp spillover points Reduce incidents approach adverse weather condition areas (e.g. Fog areas, ice areas) Provide queue detection and warning capabilities without the use of intrusive devices (Detectors and DMS)
62	Q-WARN Performance Measures
63	Performance Measures for Q-WARN Primary Incidents Secondary Incidents Shockwaves Capital Cost Reductions Recurring Cost Reductions
64	Q-WARN Transformative Performance Targets
65	Transformative Performance Targets for Q-WARN 30% reduction in incidents approaching construction zones 30% reduction in incidents approaching border crossing and other fixed queue points 30% reduction in incidents approaching primary traffic incident locations 30% reduction in incidents approaching ramp spillover points 30% reduction in incidents approaching adverse weather locations 10% Reduce shockwave conditions in queue backup areas 75% Reduction in capital costs 75% Reduction in O&M costs
66	CACC Goals
67	CACC Goals Reduce collisions Reduced rear-end collisions Increase roadway capacity Reduce shockwaves Increase traffic flow density and efficiency Improve traffic smoothing Improve vehicle/driver reaction time Improve driver satisfaction
68	CACC Performance Measures
69	Performance Measures for CACC Collisions Rear-end collisions Roadway capacity Throughput Traffic flow density and efficiency Speed Variability Driver satisfaction
70	CACC Transformative Performance Targets
71	Transformative Performance Targets for CACC 25% reduction in average headway 15% increased roadway capacity 20% reduction in vehicle collisions/rear-end collisions 15% increased throughput 10% reduction in speed variability 70% of users provide positive opinion of the CACC application
72	Agenda (cont.) 1:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. Applications Overview and Breakout Group Discussion Format 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Concurrent Breakouts( (Discuss Application Scenarios for SPD-HARM, Q- WARN and CACC) 3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. BREAK 3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Concurrent Breakouts (Discuss User Needs for SPD-HARM, Q-WARN and CACC) 4:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. Full Group Debriefs of each Application Breakout 4:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Recap of Meeting, Next Steps and Conclusion
73	Breakout Groups Two Breakout Group Sessions Discuss Application Scenarios for SPD-HARM, Q-WARN and CACC – 1.5 Hours Break Discuss Application Scenarios for SPD-HARM, Q-WARN and CACC (1 hour) Return to Main Room at 4:15 for full group breakout discussions
74	Breakout Groups (Cont.) Assign Group spokesperson Record comments and discussions in breakout worksheets (in binder) Provide summary of results to group
75	Concurrent Breakouts (Discuss Application Scenarios for SPD-HARM, Q-WARN and CACC) 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
76	SPD-HARM Scenario 1: Congestion Management
77	SPD-HARM Scenario 2: Work Zone
78	SPD-HARM Scenario 3: Weather Conditions
79	SPD-HARM Scenario 4: INFLO BUNDLE COMBINED
80	Q-WARN Scenario 1: Event-Induced Queue
81	Q-WARN Scenario 2: Fixed Queue Generation Points
82	Q-WARN Scenario 3: Weather Event-Induced Queue
83	Q-WARN Scenario 4: Arterial Queuing
84	Q-WARN Scenario 5: INFLO Combined
85	CACC Scenario 1: V2V Cooperative Platooning
86	CACC Scenario 2: V2I Cooperative Platooning – Freeway
87	CACC Scenario 3: V2I Cooperative Platooning – Arterial
88	CACC Scenario 4: INFLO COMBINED
89	Concurrent Breakouts (Discuss User Needs for SPD-HARM, Q-WARN and CACC) 3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m.
90	What are User Needs? Formally documented customer requirements. These inputs from you would be used as a starting basis for designing the INFLO DMA Mapped to the System Requirements We will be working with the DRAFT User Needs during this meeting in hopes of confirming them.
91	SPD-HARM User Needs (1)
92	SPD-HARM User Needs (2)
93	SPD-HARM User Needs (3)
94	SPD-HARM User Needs (4)
95	Q-WARN User Needs
96	Q-WARN User Needs (1)
97	Q-WARN User Needs (2)
98	Q-WARN User Needs (3)
99	Q-WARN User Needs (4)
100	CACC User Needs
101	CACC User Needs (1)
102	CACC User Needs (2)
103	CACC User Needs (3)
104	Agenda (cont.) 1:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. Applications Overview and Breakout Group Discussion Format 1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Concurrent Breakouts( (Discuss Application Scenarios for SPD-HARM, Q- WARN and CACC) 3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. BREAK 3:15 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. Concurrent Breakouts (Discuss User Needs for SPD-HARM, Q-WARN and CACC) 4:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. Full Group Debriefs of each Application Breakout 4:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Recap of Meeting, Next Steps and Conclusion
105	Project Tasks and Stakeholder Involvement
106	Next Steps Task 2: Final Assessment Report: 2/10/12 Draft Stakeholder Input Report 2/16/12 Draft Concept of Operations 3/28/12 ConOps Walkthrough 5/11/12 Final Concept of Operations 5/14/12 Task 3 Draft INFLO Requirements 6/22/12 Requirements Walkthrough 8/7/12 Final INFLO Requirements 8/21/12 Task 4 Draft Test Readiness Assessment: 9/18/12
107	Points of Contact Mohammed Yousuf mohammed.yousuf@dot.gov (202) 493-3199