Instrumented Interconnecteds Intelligent

The cost of congestion across the U.S. transportation system nears $200 billion each year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. What if those dollars could be spent on building a smarter, more efficient system? The results might resemble those in Stockholm, which reduced traffic by 25% and greenhouse gases by 40% working with IBM.

Laura Wynter from IBM Research, discusses how IBM is working to build smarter railways in some of the most complex transit systems in the world, partnering with Netherlands Railways, the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation,and Guanzhou Metro in China to improve the commute of millions of travelers every day.
To learn more, tune in to the Congestion Remedies podcast.

Bookmark and Share

Previous post

Next post

19 Comments
 
August 27, 2014
5:11 pm

I’m a bit of a workaholic, a good engineer,
curious, well read, a good travel companion, a fearless rider, and a decent mechanic.
Just keep your eyes and ears open because you never know when the right transport company will show up.

Using a yacht delivery service is a simple decision for sea-crossings, but
what about moving a motor yacht interstate from say Sydney to Brisbane or San Francisco to Los Angeles.


Posted by: long distance moving companies
 
August 17, 2014
2:44 am

You can go to their websites and look for a listing for the doctors you are considering.
Just like other facilities, medical facilities at Salt
Lake City are quite advance and it has been serving different needs of the patients for the past many years.
It is normal to have slight bruising and swelling for about
ten days.


Posted by: Felicia
 
July 25, 2012
4:25 pm

To make a smart transportation I believe it must need a huge efforts !


Posted by: Paintless Dent Removal
 
November 27, 2011
3:07 am

There is noticeably a bundle to learn about this. I assume you made certain good factors in options also.


Posted by: Maragret Piraino
 
November 27, 2011
12:21 am

Its like you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is excellent blog. A great read. I’ll definitely be back.


Posted by: Romana Astor
 
November 10, 2011
7:19 pm

An impressive share, I simply given this onto a colleague who was doing a little similar evaluation on this. He actually purchased me breakfast because I discovered it for him.. smile.


Posted by: data recovery boston
 
November 10, 2011
7:18 pm

I want to use some of the content material on my weblog. Naturally I’ll offer you a hyperlink in my web blog. Thanks for sharing.


Posted by: paving reading pa
 
November 10, 2011
7:18 pm

This really answered the problem, thanks!


Posted by: lancaster auto body
 
September 6, 2011
3:30 am

Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I have really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!


Posted by: Alex
 
July 2, 2009
1:06 pm

@cw

I’m not sure where to start… So I’ll go point by point

- Why is congestion pricing a rip off? Doesn’t that depend where the money goes? What if it went to making the infrastructure better, wouldn’t that be acceptable?
- If you live in the US, you pay less tax on gasoline than most other places. This list is a year old but I’d be willing to bet it’s not that far off. http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/01/news/international/usgas_price/?postversion=2008050109 . The question isn’t whether you pay enough tax but whether the money that IS collected goes to the right place, and is collected from the right people (ie people who use the road).
- I’m all for a better way to divert people to the least congested roads. But this system has to avoid the trap of redicting everyone to the same alternate road, which is what happens now. You just create another bottleneck.
- A smart meter is a way to avoid rationing, not a way to create it. It keeps prices lower by making sure people who use electricity when it is most expensive have a reason to shift their consumption at another time. At the moment you do not pay what electricity costs, because you pay a fixed rate. If you paid the REAL cost of electricity, the way your utility does, you night rate would be cheap and your peak rates would be high. If your prices move in line with theirs, everybody’s costs will go down. The meter does not tell you what to consume, it just tells you when you are better off consuming. What you do is up to you.
- Having the utility shut down your AC is VOLUNTARY. YOU decide if you want to keep your AC running when it’s expensive to do it. If you don’t care about the costs, no one is forcing you to shut it down. Other people might choose to lower their bills.

@Roy

your scenario is doable but I don’t think it will solve the problem as effectively. Synchronised traffic lights or speed indicators can be very effective but they don’t work in all places. An accident on a highway messes everything up. Plus you can’t force people to drive a certain speed so you end up with the accordeon effect. I’d challenge you to convince New Yorkers that this system would work on the Cross-Bronx Expressway, for example.

- Are you saying that US drivers will not be swayed by congestion pricing because it snows there (although presumably that is rare in Mesa, Arizona), because there are no shelters at bus stops, or because the drivers are rude? Seems to be all those things are “fixable”. If your point is that it is not culturally acceptable for Americans to use public transit, well…. I think that is debatable. And the day gas hits $6 a gallon (like it has in many other places around the world) a lot of people will change their culture in a hurry.

I don’t think anyone can argue against your last point, about keeping the engine running as little as possible. But even better would be for it not to have to run at all.


Posted by: Jean Barsoum
 
June 29, 2009
3:12 pm

What a joke! Volume Pricing in Stockholm lowers the environmental numbers.
I don’t know about Stockholm, but I can assure you, that if you attempt volume pricing in major American cities, all you do is enrich the politicians, lower highly localized environmental numbers, and reroute thousands of commuters on a longer journey, using more fossil fuels, to get to their destination (since they can’t afford the volume price penalties).
I am to believe that IBM cannot develop a system of sensors leading to critical intersections? I am also to believe that no one at IBM has the skill to take such incoming and rapidly changing data and process it so the traffic controlling lights can be instantly changed to respond to changes in traffic flow. And am I to believe that IBM is incapable of providing feedback responses to the drivers (via in-car receivers or illuminated signs) which will enable the drivers to “time” their approaches to intersections so as not to be delayed?
Mesa, Arizona has a long stretch of heavily used commercial road which signs advise users traffic control timed for a given speed. Guess what?!! Drivers adhere to those speeds, zip through intersections without stopping, and don’t sit in long lines with air conditioners humming, wasting gas.
Unlike Stockholm, volume pricing is not going to cause American drivers to rush to the nearest bus stop, wait un-sheltered in the snow storm, and finally get a delayed bus with a consummately rude driver.
Instead, let’s work together to cut down the time an automobile engine must be running by getting the vehicle from point A to point B in as short a time as possible.


Posted by: Roy Poole
 
June 9, 2009
7:21 pm

5:46 pm

I detest those dumb IBM “smarter planet” commercials, because the ones I have heard on the radio so far, do nothing for the common working people, and transfer more power to Big Brother government to spy on us and/or manipulate us.
What’s with this “congestion pricing” rip-off scheme? We are stuck in traffic, only because we want to be, and we want to waste gasoline? I don’t think so. Aren’t we already paying enough tax for gasoline, including the gasoline road-build/maintain tax which is soaring while we sit in traffic, have to go to work on a low-paying job, because of all the other morons clogging the road?
A “smart” system would work for me, not for the government, telling me a better alternative route to drive on, to divert traffic around bottlenecks, not double-punishing the drivers for bad/inadequate government road designs.
I don’t want to pay toll road fees “more efficiently,” nor do I want a “smart meter” on my house enforcing government/enviro-extremism rationing and moving towards green nazi environmentalists setting my thermostats,

HOORAY!!!

I stopped in TO SAY THE SAME THING!!!!!!
FREAKING NUTS I SAY!

My Pal works a Slumberjay designing meters. He went to a seminar where the speaker was talking about the great technologies that will allow the utilities to shut down power absorbing devices like AC….
He raised his hand and asked who stand to benefit from that kind of communist crap? As the room started murmuring the speaker changed the subject.
It is coming.
IBM will help.

cw


Posted by: cw
 
March 30, 2009
8:07 pm

Thank you for authoring this blog.
We have long-term transportation and other infrastructure problems and we are seeking long-term solutions to these problems.
We also have some serious short-term problems and they are being obscured by the focus on long-term problems and their solutions. Some short-term problems need both urgent focus and urgent solutions.
We need a common sense perspective on long-term problem versus short-term problems.
Common sense indicates we should not misallocate precious resources on uncertain long-term problems to the detriment of urgent and more-certain short-term problems.
This is not to say we ignore the long-term problems. We are the stewards of all the precious resources we are provided on this planet including human resources, air, natural resources, and the need for a safe-for-life planet.
The short-term problems I suggest we consider urgently focusing upon are two-fold:
Problem One, we face the risk of a severe solar storm that is projected to peak in 2012. We do not need another bungled Y2K effort until a strong and capable hand finally oversaw a successful transition in the last 18 months before Dec. 31, 1999.
We need to examine the possible ramifications of a severe solar or geomagnetic storm, for we have had past examples of possible consequences. The Great Solar Storm of 1859 is an example where the HEMP (High-altitude ElectroMagnetic Pulse) E3 effect was evident as nascent telegraph offices exploded in flames from the resultant power surges.
In 2003 there were also consequences from a solar storm to the power grid. This is discussed at: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/06may_carringtonflare.htm
and http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_031027.html
Problem Two, and related to a severe solar storm, is the risk of a High-altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) attack. this risk grows stronger every day as rogue states and terror groups rapidly acquire the necessary WMD component technologies.
For the past 60 years or so we have transitioned from a very-robust-to-HEMP-effects vacuum tube technology to a very-vulnerable-to-HEMP-effects solid-state technology. While providing us with great benefits, the technology transition has ignored the risks of EMP/IEMI (intentional electromagnetic interference) severely damaging or destroying our entire power grid, upon which our transportation systems rely, and all unprotected electrical and electronic devices connected to the grid or to an antenna.
We certainly need a smart power grid and smart transportation systems but more importantly we need a protected and fully reliable power grid and protected and fully-reliable transportation systems.
Without a protected and reliable power grid, protected transportation systems and protected electrical/electronic devices we face chaos and potentially great loss of life according to the EMP Commission testimony and unclassified reports at: http://www.empcommission.org/


Posted by: johnaw
 
March 30, 2009
1:12 pm

The new logo looks like a Swastika. Good job, IBM.


Posted by: Fred
 
March 27, 2009
5:46 pm

I detest those dumb IBM “smarter planet” commercials, because the ones I have heard on the radio so far, do nothing for the common working people, and transfer more power to Big Brother government to spy on us and/or manipulate us.
What’s with this “congestion pricing” rip-off scheme? We are stuck in traffic, only because we want to be, and we want to waste gasoline? I don’t think so. Aren’t we already paying enough tax for gasoline, including the gasoline road-build/maintain tax which is soaring while we sit in traffic, have to go to work on a low-paying job, because of all the other morons clogging the road?
A “smart” system would work for me, not for the government, telling me a better alternative route to drive on, to divert traffic around bottlenecks, not double-punishing the drivers for bad/inadequate government road designs.
I don’t want to pay toll road fees “more efficiently,” nor do I want a “smart meter” on my house enforcing government/enviro-extremism rationing and moving towards green nazi environmentalists setting my thermostats, but rather, I want true smart ideas that help me save money, say like super-efficient and cheap 25-year LED incandescent bulb replacements, as bright as my 100-watt equivalent compact florescents, filled with toxic mercury but of course. My LED lights I bought, are only 40-watt equivalent, too dim to use in most fixtures.
Also, I was very disappointed to find LED lights are mostly incompatible with my glowing lighted light switches. So super-efficient that they glow dimmer when the light switch is turned off. Just the current leakage from the light in the switch, lights the LED bulb up still. (Must have something to do with the package claim of using only 1 1/2 watts. So around 1 watt for the light in the switch, that would explain why the LED light refuses to turn off.) Have to use regular bulbs or compact florescents, at least in 1 of the2 or 3 bulb sockets to absorb the current leakage. I can still use the LEDs, but only in a few suitably dim fixtures that are actually turned on enough to save any money on electricity. I have to keep with the compact florescents, because I can get those in 100-watt equivalents, really cool, because they can be used in 60-watt maximum fixtures, as a compact florescent that bright, only uses around 30 watts, so it’s not baking the light fixture with dangerous heat build-up.
I am quite sure there could be a fix for this in the future, either a super-efficient LED glow light-switch, or an LED bulb that could sense diminished voltage and just decide somehow to shut itself down and shunt only a low amount of current, then “waking up” when the voltage surges to normal again. (Lighted light switches do not require a common connection, that’s why they “leak current” through the existing light circuit, in order to light only when turned off, running off the voltage across the switch, which drops to zero when the switch is turned on. This is very important for normal compatibility to replace ordinary switches, as many switch boxes have no common, but only a switch loop.) BTW, I wonder how well LED bulbs work on light dimmer switches then? I decided not to do any light dimmers at all in my home, since most compact florescents do not tolerate light dimmers.


Posted by: Pronatalist
 
March 27, 2009
11:49 am

If IBM will partner with my company and manufacture the “FireStorm” Ignitron Plasma Plug then we will save 70% + fuel and eliminate ALL the Greenhouse gasses from ALL Internal Combustion Engines that provide transportation and power generation.Talk about working “SMARTER”, IBM would be seen as the Champion!!!!!!!


Posted by: Robert Krupa
 
March 26, 2009
6:58 pm

Here is a small step toward smarter planet and smarter transportation. We all hate commuting. In fact we rank commuting as our least favorite activity (scientific survey). Commute takes time away from the family, lowers our well-being and increases carbon footprint. Yet, most of us spend more than an hour a day in traffic. We drive to work, schools, gyms, supermarkets, libraries, after school activities. How can this web of commuting be minimized?
Our new free online Optimal Home Location tool allows to do this. It takes into account a specific commute pattern of every family. Then is uses sophisticated math to suggest an optimal home location that will minimize this family commute. Reducing one’s commute by just 10 miles per day may mean 100 more hours with your family $500 savings per year and a healthier planet. This is smart!
http://www.OptimalHomeLocation.com


Posted by: Maria
 
March 26, 2009
7:56 am

hello,
sorry i write only french
j’ai des idées concernant la gestion de ressources. vous avez en vous un fort potentiel. j’ai imaginé que vous pourriez a vous seul supprimer le monde de la bourse ! avec certaines applications qui n’ont rien a voir avec ce a quoi vous les destinez; vous seriez a meme de comprendre l’offre et la demande des ressources . je suis bien décu que mon gouvernement ne soit pas capable de comprendre la nouvelle société que l’on puisse créer demain. l’humain et son environnement sont les seules valeurs que economico sociale feront contribueront a faire de grandes nations !


Posted by: Jean-Marc
 
March 25, 2009
10:20 am


Posted by: Jack de Roach
 
3 Trackbacks
 
September 11, 2009
10:30 am

[...] I just got done reading Building a Smarter Transportation System http://asmarterplanet.com/blog/2009/03/building-a-smarter-transportation-system.html [...]


Posted by: Smarter Planet | CanvasWork
 
June 24, 2009
10:03 am

[...] zoernert (42723) Blog Posts related to panel:- Malta- Stockholm- Rotterdam [press]- [...]


Posted by: Smarter Cities - Live Coverage [English] | A Smarter Planet
 
June 24, 2009
8:10 am

[...] 8:07 AM zoernert – Blog Posts related to panel:- Malta- Stockholm [...]


Posted by: Smarter Cities | A Smarter Planet
 
Post a Comment