Slashdot Mirror
Intelligent Transportation Systems
An anonymous reader sends us a link to this story about the U.S. Department of Transportation working on Intelligent Transportation Systems, a long-range plan to build various sorts of intelligence into the national road system. Likely this will result in better traffic monitoring, lots of traffic planning data to analyze to help prevent traffic jams, and less privacy for everyone. The article has a paranoid bent; although they're not wrong that the system will likely facilitate privacy abuses, I wish the author had been a bit more hopeful about possible system designs that would still help alleviate traffic problems without enabling snooping, because obviously such a system could be built if the political will was present to do so.
Right now, "smart cars" that can drive themselves are confined to specially-designed test tracks because they're basically stuck operating in a vacuum of information... if cars and roads were able to communicate with each other, we'd be halfway there to having the car take over the highway driving of itself.
Imagine stopping your car at the stop line on the way to the major highway, and simply inputing into the car that you'd like to be dropped off at exit 32A, and then relaxing as the car waits for a suitable break in the traffic flow to bring the car into the stream, and then at a rapid speed taking you to the exit while you're free to read a newspaper.
Of course, the Minority Report scene where once your car is told to take you to the police, that's exactly what it'll do would become possible. However, if the police ever do have a warrant to arrest somebody wouldn't we want technology to tell the police where to find the person whenever possible? Afteral, warrants aren't random things, some judge has already seen enough proof of something illegal happening to warrant bringing the person in.
The White House?
Remember, your right to total privacy ends the moment you step out of the house. Your car already bears a linkable-to-its-owner token in teh form of a license plate. Many of us has willingly added another intentifying device in the form of an electronic toll payer such as EZ-Pass.
see also: Slashdot
In the ideal traffic network, everybody would drive at approximately the same speed with a fair cushion of space between each car and faster traffic in the left lane. That careful balance is destroyed with the first SUV driver that's constantly swerving from lane to lane trying to get an extra five or six seconds cut off the trip (not to mention that these large vehicles generally clog the road even when driven normally.)
To improve traffic, we need to continue putting the emphasis on low-fuel consumption and on quality mass-transit. At least until we get robotic cars that operate according to some sort of centralized traffic planner.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Anyone who lives in the Seattle area and doesn't check the traffic conditions before they hit the freeways is missing out.
It's a nice system, and they're constantly (although slowly) expanding it.
You probably shouldn't click this.
How do they enforce this among drivers of older cars? What if I drive a 67 Mustang, or a 89 Grand Am? My car was made in 1995, and I love it... I'll drive it until it's undrivable. What do they do with me?
Do they force me to buy a new car? What if I can't afford it? Do they force me to install this equipment on my car? Perhaps it might communicate with the onboard computer, but this doesn't solve the problems of older cars without one.
I'm not really worried about people tracking my every move, to be honest. I'm mostly worried about the government tracking how fast I'm going. Most people don't really care about privacy issues, but people aren't going to buy new cars if they tattle on you every time you do 75 on the Interstate.
Personally I'd be happy with traffic lights that were just a little bit smarter. Like:
1. Not turning yellow when there is ONE more car remaining to make a left turn.
2. Trying to prevent cars from waiting multiple cycles in general.
3. Doing very short green lights when there are only a few cars waiting.
4. Adjusting timing based on time-of-day and traffic patterns.
There have been attempts to "smarten up" lights here in Austin, but half the time they just end up misreading the situation and doing something wacky like giving a special left turn green for 30 seconds when there's no one waiting to turn left. Couple that with some of the nation's longest red lights, and you get one of the nation's highest rates of red lights being run.
Even a good web-based feedback mechanism where the public can point out poorly timed lights would be a huge benefit.
Imagine a world in which employers could only hire people within walking distance of the company. The quality of the workforce would go down and many people would be stuck in jobs that suck. Imagine a world in which the only goods you could buy were those found at tiny neghborhood shops within walking distance. The selection and pricing would suck.
The farther people can comfortably commute to work, the better the match between employer and employee. The farther people can comfortable travel to find goods and services, the better the selection and economies of scale. Current transportation systems (cars, buses, etc.) let people travel greater distances, but introduce stresses and uncertainties (traffic jams). If Intelligent Transportation System can increase the average speed of travel or reduce the uncertainties in travel times, people will enjoy less stress in life, find better jobs and find better goods and services.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Sometimes I feel like the Right to Privacy groups infringe on my right to enjoy and take advantage of some truly incredible technology. If we can put together an intellingent roadway system that saves most of the 42,000 deaths a year, I am all for it. I am not trying to flame the discussion and I truly do understand the issues at hand. However, some of this technology is pretty good and we should consider, thoughtfully, the advantages before stomping the life out of it.
http://www.busyweather.com/
U.S. Department of Transportation working on Intelligent Transportation Systems, a long-range plan to build various sorts of intelligence into the national road system.
Translation for the car industry lobby-unaware:
Many roads are filled to capacity. Most people don't have the physical ability to react quickly enough if they were asked to drive closer to each other, to cram more cars per mile and more car passages per hour. As a result, we auto-makers have lobbied the powers that be to start a program to develop a system to take away control of their vehicles from their human owners/drivers and into the hands of the car computers, or the USDOT's central computer.
Of course, this will be ruinously expensive both to the government, to equip thousands of miles of thoroughfare with computer trackers (or whatever it'll be) and to the consumer, to equip their new "auto-autos" with the right tech wizardry, not to mention new raised roadtaxes etc... BUT BUT... we get to manufacture more cars, which means keeping jobs in the US and keeping the economy going (yeah, right...) and, more importantly, keeping the cash flow in our auto industry CEOs going.
Hint: cars that drive very very close to each other, and follow a road to a tee, and consume very little compared to today's automobiles, and don't need a parking spot, and bring you right into most major cities, already exist: they're called a train, and they've been around forever.
Europe, and most of the world proves that moving people by train is convenient, ubiquitous, and quite livable. The United States proves that lobbying from powerful industries can kill viable, more sustainable transportation solutions very effectively.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
One thing that worries me, as a motorcycle rider, is where do we figure in? Are we lost in a world where a few seem hell bent on control at any cost?
Granted riding on the slab isn't my ideal way of point A to point B but I have to question, just how many roads will I lose access to if "controlled" becomes the norm? (slab = interstate)
I can deal with items like EZ-PASS and the like. I already have access to HOV lanes, regardless of the logic of it. I am just curious where bikes fit in.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
At least, about how the DOT does ITS research in some sort of vaccuum.
The research that has been going into ITS has been happening for years, and it's been going on in the same building as the rest of the DOT agencies research projects.
I know, because I worked there.
There are a LOT of things that the US government does with respect to transportation safety and efficiency, and no one pays attention to it. The fact is, the USDOT has been doing excellent research on a lot of topics that takes the (at least US) auto manufacturers *YEARS* to adopt or evaluate. Because it's like this:
NHSTA and Federal Highway come up with very smart ideas and research. State budgets and car manufacturers fight these good ideas, tooth and nail, because they cost money.
Lee Iacocca and Chrysler didn't come up with airbags, the USDOT did, years before.
That's got to be one of the most paranoid articles I have read in a while. I work for my state Department of Transportation in the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) division. And yes, there is a national architecture. Virtually every state has a state or regional architecture based on the national architecture. And while there may be those who have thought of the "snooping" potential, that certainly isn't the goal. You claim there is no public pressure for it. Well, there is a constant stream of complaints about the traffic conditions and weaknesses in the transportation system. ITS is an attemt to improve that and respond to the growing demand to improve our nation's roadways. The use of ITS technologies has a significant impact on increasing the capacity of existing roads, and reducing accidents. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, and dozens of lives are saved annually through the use of technology on the roadways in my city alone. Not to mention the reduction in polution and saving travelers like yourself time by keeping the traffic flowing. This isn't some clandestine attempt by the government to find out whether you've had your windshield repaired lately. Extreme care is taken to ensure that these systems are not used to identify and monitor individuals. Let's face it: technology is becoming an increasingly central part of our lives. It isn't going away. Let's not fight it. But let's work together to ensure that it is used responsibly and effectively.
Could be put in place today. Basically it's information theory applied to mass transit systems. It's the only public transport system which promises to ammeliorate traffic congestion on the roads at a remotely reasonable cost, though it isn't going to completely replace the car. The traditional mass transit systems are massively expensive, inefficient and inconvenient in comparison.
t .org/P RT/
Read up on it:
http://www.gettherefast.org/
http://www.cpr
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/
http://www.acprt.org/
American PRT system:
http://www.skywebexpress.com/
UK PRT system:
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/
Deleted
The problem with a train is that you need high population desnity along that route. This isn't all that common in the US, which is sparsely populated compared to much of the world.
ITS applies to rural areas too. I work for the ITS Institute at the University of Minnesota. It's not like ITS is a new thing. It's been around for more than a decade. There is a too.
An example of rural ITS work is driver assistance technologies (like heads-up-display) for snowplows and emergency vehicles (police, ambulance). Driving across a rural farm road in a blizzard can be quite difficult. We developed a HUD system that projected an image of the road, based on DGPS location information.
I'd like to add that I'm not against trains or mass transit. Certain areas of the US can utilize trains effectively, many already do. Personally, I think trains are great for urban areas. In Minnesota, we've finally opened our first urban rail line since the street cars disappeared 50+ years ago. It has surpassed all expectations for passenger levels. Now the people who claimed it would never have been used now claim that the expectations were artifically low. It isn't just the "car lobby". There are people out there who actually fear mass transit as if it's a plot to take away their cars.
See my list of good traffic map sites:
Traffic.tann.net/.
Sigalert.com.
Metrocommute.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).