Use of connected vehiclesto enhance traffic safety could vastly reduce traffic fatalities. Many important safety applications require wireless devices to exist both in vehicles and in infrastructure deployed along the roads. While in-vehicledevices maysoonbe mandated in new cars, state and local transportation authorities need to fund the costly deployment of the infrastructure that enables safetyapplications such as red light and speed warnings.This cost burden may be an impediment to deployment. However, safety is not the only benefit of connected vehicles; they could be used as a cost-effective alternative for bringing Internet access to millions of mobile users in a way that does not interfere with their primary safety mission. Use of connected vehicles as networks for Internet access would require a somewhat different kind of roadside infrastructure. This project will examine different forms and levels of infrastructure sharing between safety applications and Internet access to determine whetherand wheresharing would allow state and local governments to deploy safety-enhancing infrastructure at much lower costs, thereby facilitating the roll-out of potentially life-saving applications. The project will also examine whether Internet capabilitiescould be expanded or Internet costs could be decreased as a result of this infrastructure sharing.
We propose a project in which Traffic 21 funds two years starting at or after Aug. 1 2016, and this is partially matched by a grant which fundsthisresearch from Aug. 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016.
In phase1, which will be funded from matching funds rather Traffic 21 funds, we will work on the packet-level simulation and the cost and revenue models associated with the use of connected vehicles to provide Internet access.Phase 1 has begun, and will complete on roughly July 31, 2016.In phase2, which will be funded from Traffic 21 funds, we will begin consideration of the costs associated with infrastructure deployed only to enhance safety, and the costs associated with different types of shared infrastructure that support both safety and Internet access. We will assume that there is only one ISP using connected vehicles, and will quantify thepotential cost savingswhen government shares infrastructure with that ISP.Phase 2 will be roughly from August 1, 2016to May 31, 2017.In phase3, which will also be funded from Traffic 21 funds, we will expand the models to consider the possibility of multiple competing ISPs, and will determine how this affects potential benefits, and how government agencies should adjust sharing strategies.Phase 3 will be roughlyJune1 to Dec. 1, 2017.
Not applicable
The primary results are estimates ofcost savings from infrastructure sharing for the government authority responsible for safety deployment. Moreover, as secondary results we will show the benefits toInternet access enabled by sharing.For example, those results mightbe reported through graphs showing the following metrics:1.Cost saving for the government authority responsible for safety deployment as function of population density, because we expect greater savings in large cities(Fig. 1);2.Cost saving as function of time, because we expect benefits of sharing to increase over time3.Sensitivity analysisof cost savingwith respect to various input parameters4.Cost saving as function of number competing ISPsand their relative market share5.Cost saving as function of thepricing strategy adopted by government agencies6.Net benefit to Internet users(i.e. difference between benefit and cost) as function of the revenue per RSU charged by the government (Fig. 2);7.Population that gains the benefit ofInternet access through connected vehicles as a result of infrastructure sharing as function of the fees charged by government agencies(Fig. 3).
Name | Affiliation | Role | Position | |
---|---|---|---|---|
aligo@cmu.edu | Ligo, Alexandre | EPP | Co-PI | Student - PhD |
peha@cmu.edu | Peha, Jon | ECE/EPP | PI | Faculty - Research/Systems |
Type | Name | Uploaded |
---|---|---|
Progress Report | Peha_-_Traffic21_T-SET_Progress_Reports_10_1_15_-_9_30_2016.pdf | May 14, 2018, 5:18 a.m. |
Final Report | 45_-_Final_research_report_v2.pdf | July 9, 2018, 11:32 a.m. |
No match sources!
No partners!