Evaluation of Ekaterina Davydenko's proposal

Dynamic Traffic Control System

Total evaluation criteria score: 25 / 40

Actually, not bad compared to a lot of proposals. It only misses what many of the other ones also miss.

Part I

As far as I can understand it, the Dynamic Traffic Control System idea consists of building large overhanging and side-of-the-road electronic signs that can be either manually controlled or automatically adjust to road conditions. It wasn't clear in the proposal how much of the system would require continual updating from human personnel, and how much would be able to run on its own.

The system would also be connected to all the traffic lights in a city, have a centralized database (what for, I don't know), and be manipulable by law enforcement, emergency medical vehicles, DOT people, and firefighters.

Part II

One thing I don't get is why this system would be centralized. A decentralized, robust system seems to make a lot more sense to me. Rather than a centralized database, distributed servers that control their own portion of the roads and communicate with each other and whoever logs into them would make more sense.

Syntax score: 5/5

The structure of the proposal is professional, and the spelling and grammar are accurate and appropriate. The writing is, for the most part, clear and sufficiently detailed. It could cover more about how personnel will be trained to use the system and the interfaces they would have to learn and use. The story is consistent and well-structured.

Plausibility: 2/5

The project cannot be completed in 12 weeks. As it stands, full implementation, testing with agent-based models, and deployment (along with the training of relevant personnel) would take a long time. Furthermore, a centralized system for managing traffic conditions would be vulnerable to exploitation and reliability issues. Also, what happens when different bureaus decide to give opposing directions for the same chunk of road? Whose decision becomes final? Would a city really consent to such a project? It will need a lot more explanation and convincing data on other such systems.

If a decentralized system were chosen instead, how would it do better than other systems already in place, in terms of manageability, cost, and projected savings in time and money for consumers, and lives for medical personnel (and when it comes to traffic accidents, etc).

Support: 2/5

The arguments for the need for such a system are sound, but I find no convincing evidence that yet another costly city road project like this system would really benefit the city. For instance, traffic lights are very complicated to perfect, and the systems already in place have been tested and tweaked to be about as good as they can get. They also are remotely configurable and change with the level of traffic. The new system would likely not do anything to make them any better.

Novelty: 2/5

The idea of managing traffic conditions is not new. The approach offered really doesn't sound worthwhile. Just doing a quick search brought up, for instance, http://www.cttraffic.com/pages/CISV.html, which details the complex devices already employed in traffic control. They use fiber optics, video relays, remote monitors, exclusive relay lines and control software already. All this is very expensive and requires approval and control from various state authorities.

There is a book that covers many details of traffic control that is published by the Department of Transportation: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop06006/index.htm. It covers controllers, sensors, managing urban and suburban roads, freeways, and integrated systems. It covers communication and information systems, and design, implementation, and management of Traffic Control Systems.

For a history of traffic light management, see http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop06006/chapter_1.htm#1-5 and sections five and six. I also think it would be useful to review Figure 1-3 from that page and try to see how the proposed system would fit in it. Table 1-2 from that page really gives a sense of the broad scope of details that need to be covered within traffic control. It gives the sense that the proposal largely underestimates the scope and difficulty of managing traffic, and overestimates the impact that installing more traffic signs around a city or freeway will have. The ability to post warnings about delays, etc, also already exists in many big cities.

I found some interesting research on decentralized traffic control: http://www.physorg.com/news114355988.html. It actually doesn't seem that useful when you really look at it. Not without even more research and simulation.

Stakeholder Identification: 4/5

"Private companies" are mentioned, but it sounds like the whole idea is intended for the DOT. This is a project that is meant, it sounds like, to be funded by tax payers.

Scope: 5/5

It's pretty clear what was intended. I liked the use of a diagram to show how components were to interconnect.

Profit/Impact: 4/5

The amount to be made from the DOT or other groups was never stated, but the impact on drivers and law enforcement, etc, was made quite clear. If this was to be a privately funded company, selling their services to state and federal governments, there would be a greater need for projected profits. As it stands, the true costs of all the hardware and construction for implementing such a system were never really covered, either. This would, therefore, make a great government project =).

Security/Risk: 1/5

The project proposal didn't really define any risks beyond that a "major concern will be the dependability and ... integration ... requirements of the system".

Some of the major risks I could think of off-hand were as follows:

1) There is danger of traffic warnings being ignored / no mention of social engineering to get the job done. Thus, a lane may be attempted to be opened up through signs flashing to keep it free for emergency vehicles. During rush hour on a busy freeway, without physical barriers, how many people would disregard such a rule? Enough to slow down cops anyway? The same applies for medical personnel. In the event that no one sees any immediate reason to follow a mandate, many likely will break the mandate. It also encourages disaffection with the system, when it tells people to do something but doesn't offer immediate positive results.

2) The securing of the systems is never presented, nor the ability to deal with conflicting orders from different organizations. The way to handle events like server failure isn't mentioned, either.

3) Sensing systems and their management are not mentioned. "Database" doesn't say enough, if that was meant to incorporate data from video feeds, scanners, and human input.