G. Satheesh Reddy, a scientist with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) of India, has been appointed as the scientific advisor to the defense minister of India, a secretary-level appointment with the government of India. The DRDO is an agency of the Republic of India responsible for the development of technology for use by the military, headquartered in New Delhi.
Reddy is an expert in navigation technologies. He joined DRDO in 1986 and led the conceptualization, design, development and production of inertial sensors, navigation schemes, algorithms and systems, calibration methodologies, sensor models and simulation, along with development of satellite navigation receivers and hybrid navigation systems. Under his leadership, advanced products and varieties of avionics systems have been produced and successfully flight tested in strategic programs of India.
As project director, Reddy led the design and development of ring laser gyro-based INS System, MEMS-based INS systems, the sea-guard reference system and the ship navigation system, strengthening the country’s self reliance in high-accuracy and long-range navigation. He also helped develop a 1000-kg class guided bomb.
Reddy graduated in electronics and communication engineering from JNTU, Anantapur, and received his master of science and doctorate from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad. He is a Fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering (FNAE), the Royal Institute of Navigation London (FRIN), and the Royal Aeronautical Society London (FRAeS). He has been awarded Full Member Diploma and inducted as a Foreign Member of the Academy of Navigation & Motion Control, Russia, and is an Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AFAIAA) of the United States.
The Kenya Department of Surveys has acquired eight Spectra Precision Focus 30 total stations and an additional eight Epoch 50 GNSS receivers as part of an ongoing major effort to adjudicate land and prepare deeds, according to Spectra Precision.
Until recently, 67 percent of Kenya had yet to be adjudicated even as the work was supposed to be completed within 20 years after it was commissioned in 1957 by the British colonial government, according to the Lands Cabinet Ministry of Kenya. To rectify the problem, the government of President Uhuru Kenyatta two years ago began a major new push to produce three million titles by 2017. So far, the Land Surveys Department reports that 800,000 title deeds had been prepared and are being distributed.
Oakar Services Ltd., an East Africa geospatial firm, provided the consulting services that led to the Department of Land Survey’s purchase of the Spectra Precision total stations and GNSS receivers.
Precise, Accurate and Multipath-Resistant Distance and Speed Measurements
In this month’s column, we take a look at a short-distance two-way ranging system using a 5.8-GHz carrier to supply not only precise and accurate distance measurements but also complementary measurements of speed.
By Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor
INNOVATION INSIGHTS by Richard Langley
THERE IS A LONG HISTORY of determining distances using radio waves with a large number of techniques being developed over the years for positioning, navigation, situational awareness and other purposes.
Of course, we are all familiar with the latest and greatest distance-measuring technology: GPS and its GNSS brethren. The distance to each observable satellite is determined by measuring the time it takes for the radio signal to travel from the transmitting antenna of the satellite to the receiver’s antenna and then, using the speed of light in a vacuum (which is also the speed of radio waves), converting the signal travel time into a distance. Distances can be determined from either the signal’s modulation (the pseudorandom noise codes) or the carrier phase. Both approaches require modeling and estimation to account for various errors or biases.
GPS is an example of one-way ranging. Other systems, notably radar, are two-way systems relying on reflections (passive ranging) or transponders (active ranging) to return a signal to the point of transmission.
Radar was developed during Word War II although radio-ranging technologies and techniques existed before the war started (to measure the height of the ionosphere, for example) and allowed radar’s rapid development and use during the war.
Besides ranging to terrestrial objects, radar has been used extraterrestrially. Independent experiments in the United States and Hungary in 1946 resulted in the first detections of radar reflections from the moon. Radar has been used subsequently to range to other solar system bodies as well.
Also developed during World War II were several radio-based systems for aircraft navigation. An outgrowth of these were the Loran-C and Omega hyperbolic positioning systems. They operated with networks of coordinated transmitters using frequencies at the low end of the radio spectrum. With widespread GPS availability, Omega was shut down in September 1997 followed by the North American Loran-C chains in 2010. Other chains are threatened with closure. However, there is an ongoing debate about bringing Loran-C back to North America in the form of Enhanced Loran (eLoran) as an autonomous backup for GPS. The United Kingdom has already implemented an eLoran network. Among other improvements, eLoran uses range measurements from multiple transmitters to determine position fixes.
The first terrestrial electromagnetic-distance-measurement or EDM device using microwave signals was the Tellurometer. Developed for surveying in 1954, it initially used a 3-GHz carrier modulated by frequencies near 10 MHz and was capable of accurately measuring distances up to at least 50 kilometers (line of sight).
Ranging can be performed with virtually any radio signal, and viable positioning techniques have been developed to use so-called signals of opportunity such as AM, FM and TV signals. And purpose-designed systems have been developed using ultra-wideband and other short-distance radio technologies.
An issue with any radio-based ranging system is multipath where, in addition to a direct line-of-sight signal, interfering signals are received after being reflected off nearby structures. Multipath degrades the system’s achievable precision and accuracy. Better performance can be obtained by using measurements on the signal’s carrier rather than on its modulation, and the higher the carrier frequency, generally the smaller will be the multipath error in the distance measurement. In this month’s column, we take a look at a short-distance two-way ranging system using a 5.8-GHz carrier to supply not only precise and accurate distance measurements but also complementary measurements of speed.
“Innovation” is a regular feature that discusses advances in GPS technology and its applications as well as the fundamentals of GPS positioning. The column is coordinated by Richard Langley of the Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick. He welcomes comments and topic ideas. Email him at lang @ unb.ca.
Reliable measurements of distance and speed are a critical aid to integrated positioning and navigation systems. Several different sensor technologies can provide such measurements including a variety of radio frequency (RF) ranging techniques. Previous work by the authors based on round-trip time-of-flight RF ranging using the baseband code phase of direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS)-modulated signals achieves centimeter-level distance estimation performance. This DSSS ranging implementation approaches the Cramér-Rao lower bound in a benign RF channel (the theoretical lower bound on the variance or corresponding standard deviation of any unbiased estimator of a deterministic parameter — the best we can ever expect to achieve). A distance measuring radio (DMR) produced by our company is shown in FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1. Distance measuring radio. The dimensions of the radio are 160 × 69 × 13.3 millimeters with a mass of 180 grams. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
Our baseband ranging capability has been demonstrated on a direct conversion radio operating in the unlicensed 5.8-GHz industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) band with approximately 20 MHz RF signal bandwidth, and has been previously implemented in the 2.4 GHz and 915 MHz ISM bands. The system uses an 11-megachip-per-second chipping rate and a symbol rate of about 687 kHz per channel (16 chips per symbol). This method has been implemented with both binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) and quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK) modulation. The same signal that is used for ranging is also used for data communications. A decentralized asynchronous carrier-sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) networking layer supports networked operation.
The DMR performs real-time digital signal processing on a Kintex-7 field-programmable gate array (FPGA) baseband processor to compute ranging observables on the received baseband packet structure. A round-trip measurement duration under three milliseconds allows for approximately 350 measurements per second for a single pair of DMRs. Measurements do not require a priori synchronization of the remote radios nor high-performance reference oscillators, as remote oscillator behavior is observed in the ranging operation. The measurement is highly compatible with frequency agility techniques. A system of ranging radios provides networked operation for measurements between multiple platforms.
The primary limitation of DSSS code-phase ranging is degraded accuracy and reliability in challenging multipath environments. This is somewhat mitigated by a “quality factor” observation on the characteristics of the received DSSS baseband signal, which can be used to de-weight or exclude corrupted baseband ranging measurements from an integrated navigation or positioning filter. However, it is desirable to provide a ranging measurement that has improved robustness against multipath corruption in all environments.
Multipath Effects on Carrier Phase
The carrier phase of the DSSS ranging signal in space can be used as an additional ranging measurement. Each 5.8-GHz RF carrier-wave cycle has a length of about 52 millimeters. Phase measurements on the received carrier phase in a round-trip ranging exchange are proportional to the propagation distance of the RF signal over the air. These measurements of the carrier phase can be made precisely, and they are inherently more tolerant to multipath than baseband phase measurements.
Consider a simplified two-ray RF channel model, where there is a direct RF line-of-sight (LOS) path and a multipath (MP) reflection. The two signals will have a phase difference between MP and LOS of θm and an amplitude ratio of MP to LOS of α, which lumps together the attenuation due to the additional path length of the MP signal, the reflection coefficient of the reflecting surface, the difference in antenna gain at the incidence angles and other factors. The received signal will be a superposition of the two signals with a phase difference between this composite and the original LOS of θc. This phase difference is the multipath-induced error on the received carrier phase. The worst-case error will occur when there is a small difference in total path length. In this case, the LOS and MP are inseparable by the DSSS receiver, and the error is bounded by Equation 1. The error is reduced for MP with much longer path length due to both a reduced amplitude coefficient α of the MP signal, as well as separation by the DSSS receiver due to the baseband spreading codes.
(1)
The multipath carrier-phase error bounds are ±90 degrees for α ≤ 1, which is satisfied when there is an RF LOS signal present. In practice, α is typically much less than 1. For a more practical case of α = 0.1, the maximum carrier-phase error is less than ±6 degrees. At 5.8 GHz RF, ±6 degrees corresponds to about 0.1 millimeters. A plot of this response for various values of α is shown in FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2. Carrier-phase error due to multipath interference for various values of relative multipath amplitude. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
As a physical interpretation, the carrier-phase error goes to zero when there is zero phase difference between LOS and MP signals as the signals happen to be in phase already, and at ±180 degrees where the MP signal is in phase with the LOS signal but with inverted polarity, and serves to reduce the magnitude of the received signal, which is the case in a deep multipath fade. MP signals arrive at a dynamic receiver with an unpredictable distribution of relative phase to the LOS signal due to platform motion. This resistance to multipath is highly desirable for use in an RF ranging system. The following sections will present a ranging method that leverages this useful behavior.
Carrier-Phase Ranging Measurement
Each DMR round-trip ranging exchange consists of transmission and reception of a packet between two cooperating DMR devices, typically termed “originator” and “transponder” with roles determined by software configuration. For baseband ranging, the code phase is computed on the oversampled shape of the DSSS correlator output and exchanged in the round-trip measurement. The number of elapsed baseband clock periods between receive and transmit on the transponder and between transmit and receive on the originator are also observed to compute a round-trip coarse time. These measurements, plus a calibration offset due to cabling and other systematic delays, are used to perform baseband ranging.
Two additional observations are required for carrier-phase ranging: the carrier phase of the received DSSS signal in space and the carrier-frequency offset of the received carrier with respect to the local oscillator on the receiving radio. These observables are exchanged in a round-trip transaction, generating carrier-phase range (CPR), the magnitude of carrier-phase velocity (CPV) and clock-offset measurements. This section will describe the background of the CPR and CPV measurements.
Assuming the communicating DMRs operate with identical carrier frequencies, the round-trip carrier-phase ranging measurement is a function of the RF carrier wavelength λC = c/fC and the received phase on each DMR (φO and φT) in units of radians. The measurement is ambiguous by Namb half-wavelengths, as shown in Equation 2.
(2)
The frequency offsets measured at each receiver (SO and ST) in units of hertz will reflect the Doppler-based velocity offset between the two receivers, as shown in Equation 3.
(3)
While the velocity measurement is absolute, the carrier-phase ranging measurement is ambiguous within a half-wavelength in a round-trip measurement. There are several ways to overcome this limitation including using the velocity measurement to “unwrap” sequential carrier-phase observations, using baseband phase measurements to establish absolute offsets, by aiding the measurement with a strapdown inertial measurement unit (IMU) and by other means. The primary error source for carrier-phase ranging in practice is the solution of integer ambiguity, not the actual phase measurements. The quality of the phase measurements becomes the limiting factor when the integer ambiguity is resolved perfectly. An analysis of the Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) for carrier-phase ranging and carrier-frequency velocity measurements along with measured performance is presented in the following section.
Measurement Performance Bounds
The CRLB for estimation of phase and frequency of a sinusoid based on a number of data samples in additive white Gaussian noise has been previously treated in the literature and can be interpreted to provide a best case, lower bound on how well the measurements could perform. The CRLBs for carrier-frequency and phase estimation are computed in terms of the sinusoid’s signal-to-noise ratio, SNR, the number of observed samples of the phase of the signal NS and the sample rate of the measurement system fS.
The CRLB for the standard deviation of carrier-phase ranging measurements is presented in Equation 4 in units of radians. In general, the standard deviation of carrier-phase measurements improves with the square root of NS and the square root of SNR.
(4)
The CRLB for carrier-phase estimation can be used to compute the CRLB for carrier-phase ranging by scaling each measurement by λC
(5)
This CRLB can be interpreted for the carrier-phase ranging observable generation process used in this DMR system. NS can be expanded to Equation 6, with NC = 12 chips out of a 16-chip pseudorandom noise code, α = 400 symbols typically tracked (assuming 100 symbrols are consumed in automatic gain control out of a 512-symbol preamble), and fSample/fChip = 44 MHz/11 MHz = 4. [Note different use of the character α here than in the section on multipath.] This gives NS = 400 · 12 · 4 = 19,200 in a typical usable DMR preamble as currently implemented.
(6) FIGURE 3 shows the CRLB for carrier-phase ranging measurement evaluated over a range of SNR and with a varying number of symbols used in the ranging preamble, with typical α = 400 in the current implementation. Evaluating the phase CRLB at a conservatively low SNR = 10 dB and typical NS = 19,200 on a 5.8-GHz RF carrier yields a lower bound of about 27 micrometers standard deviation for a round-trip carrier-phase ranging measurement.
FIGURE 3. Cramér-Rao lower bound for carrier-phase ranging with different numbers of symbols used in the ranging preamble. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
The CRLB for the standard deviation of carrier-frequency-offset measurements is presented in Equation 7 in units of hertz. In general, the standard deviation of carrier-frequency observation improves with NS3/2 and the square root of SNR.
(7)
The CRLB for carrier-frequency estimation can be used to compute the CRLB for carrier-phase velocity by scaling each measurement by λC to convert to meters per second, and reducing the standard deviation by the square root of 2 due to the two independent phase measurements being conducted in the round-trip experiment as shown in Equation 8.
(8)
Evaluating the round-trip carrier-phase velocity CRLB at a conservatively low SNR = 10 dB and typical NS = 19,200 on a 5.8-GHz RF carrier yields a lower bound of about 10 centimeters per second velocity standard deviation. FIGURE 4 shows the CRLB for velocity measurement evaluated over a range of SNR and with varying number of symbols used in the ranging preamble.
FIGURE 4. Cramér-Rao lower bound for carrier-phase velocity with different numbers of symbols used in the ranging preamble. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
These CRLB levels predict that excellent CPR with precision much better than millimeter level and CPV precision much better than a meter per second should be achievable with the designed system assuming a perfect carrier-frequency generation circuit operating in additive white Gaussian noise. The practical limiting factor for these measurements at high SNR is typically the phase-noise performance of the reference oscillators themselves.
Measurement Results
CPR measurements have been implemented in our DMRs and tested in a variety of environments. In a static data collection, CPR demonstrates a stationary precision of approximately 0.1 millimeters at one sigma as shown in the histogram in FIGURE 5. The red line indicates the best-fit to a Gaussian curve of the measurement data, showing very well behaved data.
FIGURE 5. Histogram showing carrier-phase range precision. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
A static collection of CPV measurements demonstrates a precision of approximately 15 centimeters per second at one sigma as shown in the histogram of CPV data in FIGURE 6, which also has the best fit Gaussian distribution overlaid. The performance of these measurements approaches the CRLB.
FIGURE 6. Histogram showing carrier-phase velocity precision. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
To further quantify the accuracy of CPR, a test was conducted comparing CPR to the distance measured by a survey-grade total station laser rangefinder. The transponding radio was mounted on a tripod and moved to varying distances away from the originating radio, which was located near the total station. FIGURE 7 shows the distance-measurement results. The blue dots are the baseband distance measurements and the red dots are the unwrapped carrier-phase range distance measurements. The mean distance and scatter within each stationary period were used to evaluate the precision and accuracy of CPR versus the total station rangefinder values.
FIGURE 7. Distance determined from baseband ranging (blue) and carrier-phase ranging (red) data collected during a test with varying distances between originating and transponding radios and using a total station to provide ground-truth. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
FIGURE 8 shows the outcome of the laser-based total station ground-truth validation of the carrier-phase distance measuring performance in an outdoor LOS environment. The red lines indicate the ±8 millimeter experimental accuracy of the laser ground-truth test setup. The error from each surveyed point is within the uncertainty of the test, with an experimental precision of 0.6 millimeters at one sigma indicated by the vertical error bars on each data point.
FIGURE 8. Range comparison between CPR and a total station. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
System Integration
CPR and CPV measurements have been successfully integrated into a pedestrian tracking dual boot-mounted inertial system. In this configuration, one industrial-grade microelectromechanical systems IMU operating at 400 Hz (three-axis accelerometer, three-axis gyro and three-axis magnetic compass) is mounted on the heel of each boot, and a DMR with CPR/CPV capability is attached to the medial side of each boot. The DMRs perform inter-boot ranging and velocity measurements at 360 Hz throughout system operation. The walking motion generates a very high-dynamic, high-multipath environment that is challenging for RF systems.
FIGURE 9 shows four strides of walking data collected in this configuration. Periodic walking motion is clearly visible on CPR and CPV as the range between boots increases up to 0.6 meters at the extents of strides and passes near zero during foot crossings. CPV measurements are internally consistent with CPR. The first difference of CPR is equivalent to the independent Doppler-based CPV measurement. A significant benefit of the CPV measurement as opposed to the first difference of CPR is that CPV is an absolute measurement with no integer ambiguity.
FIGURE 9. CPR and CPV data for four strides from boot-mounted distance measuring radios. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
For this system, IMU data is integrated using both interpreted zero-velocity updates (ZUPTs) and ranging measurements to determine dead-reckoning motion of each individual boot. The high-precision, multipath-tolerant CPR and CPV measurements are used to constrain inter-boot position and velocity in a centralized extended Kalman filter (CEKF). CPR and CPV residuals from the CEKF are shown in FIGURE 10 and FIGURE 11, representing measurement accuracy in a challenging, high-dynamic environment. All system errors including antenna phase response, integrated IMU errors, and others are included in these histograms, so the true CPR and CPV measurement errors are likely significantly lower, even for this high-multipath environment. This is why we believe our results are a good estimate of the system’s accuracy capability.
FIGURE 10. Histogram showing carrier-phase range accuracy. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)FIGURE 11. Histogram showing carrier-phase velocity accuracy. (Image: Bradley D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreinar and David W.A. Taylor)
While the overall CPR measurement accuracy of about 11 millimeters is two orders of magnitude worse than the stationary measurement precision of 0.1 millimeters, it should be noted that this includes all measurement biases in the system and various error sources.
CPV achieves an in-system measurement accuracy of 0.31 meters per second, which is approximately a factor of two degraded from the stationary, LOS collection (0.15 meters per second). In this sense, CPV is shown to be an extremely robust measurement in the presence of multipath and non-ideal antenna patterns throughout actual walking motion.
Conclusions
This article presents a new method to perform highly precise, accurate and multipath-resistant measurements of distance and velocity using a small portable radio. Measurements that are as accurate as a laser require only milliseconds to complete and are insensitive to multipath interference. This opens up a wide range of applicability as an aiding sensor to integrated navigation systems. Performance has been demonstrated in the high-dynamic and high-multipath environment between the boots of a walking pedestrian, and similar performance is expected in industrial and military applications. By employing a conventional communications link, measurements of CPR and CPV should be scalable to longer distances with the availability of the measurements roughly comparable to the availability of the communications link.
CPR and CPV achieve stand-alone measurement precision of much better than 1 millimeter standard deviation, and about 15 centimeters per second velocity respectively at a rate of hundreds of measurements per second. In-system performance of CPR and CPV measurement residuals demonstrates 1-centimeter CPR accuracy and 30 centimeters per second CPV accuracy. The measurements presented in this article are typically 100 times more precise than typical baseband round-trip RF measurements in a similarly challenging RF environment.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this article was sponsored by ENSCO Inc.
Manufacturers
The distance measuring radio is manufactured by ENSCO Inc. The inertial measurement unit used in the boot test was a Memsense LLC model H3, while the total station used for calibration was a Leica Geosystems AG model TS30.
BRADLEY D. FARNSWORTH is the chief engineer for positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) at ENSCO Inc., Springfield, Va. He holds several U.S. patents and has expertise in real-time signal processing, autonomous systems and mixed-signal design. He received his B.S. summa cum laude and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
E.J. KREINAR is with ENSCO Inc. and holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from Case Western Reserve University. He has expertise in optimal estimation using Kalman filters, real-time signal processing and autonomous systems.
DAVID W.A. TAYLOR is the director of technology development and business area lead for PNT at ENSCO Inc., where he leads R&D programs developing sensors and systems for national security applications. He holds several U.S. patents and is an expert in GPS-denied navigation technologies. Taylor holds a B.S. in physics from Rhodes College, Memphis, Tenn. and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, Va.
FURTHER READING
Authors’ Conference Paper on which the Article is Based
“Precise, Accurate, and Multipath-Resistant Networked Round-Trip Carrier Phase RF Ranging” by B.D. Farnsworth, E.J. Kreiner and D.W.A. Taylor in Proceedings of ITM 2015, the 2015 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Dana Point, Calif. January 26–28, 2015, pp. 651–656.
RF Ranging for Location Awareness by S.M. Lanzisera and K. Pister, Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2009-69, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, Calif., May 19, 2009.
Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum Radio Frequency Ranging
“High-Precision 2.4 GHz DSSS RF Ranging” by B.D. Farnsworth and D.W.A. Taylor in Proceedings of ITM 2011, the 2011 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, San Diego, Calif., January 24–26, 2011, pp. 178–183.
“High Precision Narrow-Band RF Ranging” by B.D. Farnsworth and D.W.A. Taylor in Proceedings of ITM 2010, the 2010 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, San Diego, Calif., January 25–27, 2010, pp. 161–166.
BMW driver interface concept for how INRIX On-Street Parking might be integrated into navigation systems in BMW Connected Drive vehicles. Color coded bars indicate probability of open street parking ranging from green (lots of spaces) to red (not likely to have an open space).
Everyone who has ever been frustrated circling the block in search of parking has wished for a solution that could quickly lead them to that elusive spot. INRIX is launching a new service aimed at addressing this problem by helping drivers quickly find on-street parking. BMW will be the first automaker to include the service for its cars, in its ConnectedDrive autos.
INRIX On-Street Parking answers key questions for drivers including:
Where can I park?With availability updated hourly, quickly identify streets with the best chances of finding a parking spot.
How much will parking cost? Information on pricing, parking/permit restrictions, policy rules (free vs. paid times/days).
Is there a garage or lot nearby? When on-street parking is unavailable, drivers can be directed to one of more than 80,000 off-street parking locations in Europe and North America. The service provides pricing and availability information, ability to compare locations by distance and price as well as locate the nearest entrance.
“As we continue to connect cars to smarter cities, INRIX On-Street Parking fills a critical gap that addresses the growing challenge of traffic and parking in our cities worldwide,” said Bryan Mistele, President and CEO, INRIX. “And looking ahead to a time when autonomous cars are a reality, this service enables vehicles that drive themselves to park themselves now as well.”
Visualization showing INRIX On-Street parking occupancy by block for key neighborhoods in downtown San Francisco. Color coded bars indicate probability of open street parking ranging from green (lots of spaces) to red (not likely to have an open space).
Initially available in Seattle; Vancouver, B.C.; San Francisco; Amsterdam; Cologne and Copenhagen, the service will expand to cover 23 cities by the end of the year.
Experts estimate up to 30 percent of traffic in congested urban areas where street parking is in high demand results from drivers looking for parking. A global survey of commuters in 20 international cities found that nearly 6 out of 10 drivers have abandoned their search for a parking space at least once, and drivers often spend an average of nearly 20 minutes in pursuit of a coveted spot. Further, an analysis by Frost & Sullivan found that drivers waste an average of 55 hours per year searching for parking, costing consumers and local economies nearly $600 million in wasted time and fuel.
Smarter Parking Information
With more than half of the world’s population living in our largest cities, transportation agencies are increasingly turning to intelligent parking solutions to better manage parking inventory and improve urban mobility. INRIX On-Street Parking provides cities with a scalable, cost-effective and immediate way to manage parking inventory as well as improve traffic in urban areas, INRIX said.
On-Street Parking to cities includes:
Real-time Information. Goes beyond one-time snapshots of parking availability, allowing cities to see how parking inventory changes based on time of day, day of week, price and during special events or holidays.
Less reliance on road-side counters and costly sensors. Offers a faster, more cost-effective way for cities to manage parking. The service goes beyond current smart parking technologies because it also works on roads without smart meters or sensors and outside of hours requiring payment.
Better insight for urban planning. With a comprehensive understanding of parking inventory usage citywide, urban planners can gain insights that help them improve parking conditions and locations, and better locate special purpose lanes for bicycles and public transit on city streets.
Calibrate demand pricing models. Provides insight into how pricing fluctuations impact demand in real-time. Cities can optimize pricing to maximize use of available inventory citywide.
Automakers, mobile app providers and public sector agencies interested in learning more can register for a Webinar scheduled for June 17 at 8 a.m. EDT where INRIX will outline use cases, technical specifications and benefits in greater detail.
The worldwide wearable device market recorded its eighth consecutive quarter of steady growth in the first quarter of 2015. According to the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, vendors shipped a total of 11.4 million wearables in the first quarter, a 200 percent increase from the 3.8 million wearables shipped in the first quarter of 2014.
“Bucking the post-holiday decline normally associated with the first quarter is a strong sign for the wearables market,” said Ramon Llamas, research manager, Wearables. “It demonstrates growing end-user interest and the vendors’ ability to deliver a diversity of devices and experiences. In addition, demand from emerging markets is on the rise and vendors are eager to meet these new opportunities.
“What remains to be seen is how Apple’s arrival will change the landscape,” added Llamas. “The Apple Watch will likely become the device that other wearables will be measured against, fairly or not. This will force the competition to up their game in order to stay on the leading edge of the market.” The Apple Watch began shipping April 24.
“As with any young market, price erosion has been quite drastic,” said Jitesh Ubrani, senior research analyst, Worldwide Mobile Device Trackers. “We now see over 40% of the devices priced under $100, and that’s one reason why the top 5 vendors have been able to grow their dominance from two thirds of the market in the first quarter of last year to three quarters this quarter. Despite this price erosion, Apple’s entrance with a product priced at the high end of the spectrum will test consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for a brand or product that is the center of attention.”
Wearable Vendor Highlights
Fitbit started 2015 the same way it ended 2014: as the clear market leader in the worldwide wearable device market. Fitbit’s first quarter shipments were driven by the release of three new devices (the Charge, Charge HR, and the Surge) along with continued demand for its older Flex wristband and One and Zip clip-on models. Separately, these address multiple segments of the market, from casual exerciser to committed athlete, and collectively leverage Fitbit’s behavior change engine to encourage activity.
Xiaomi started off the year by blasting through the one million unit mark with its Mi Band for the first time, a significant feat made all the more impressive considering the device just started shipping during the second half of 2014. Similar to its smartphones, Xiaomi’s Mi Band was delivered primarily within its home country of China, but recent announcements point to more global aspirations for the company.
Garmin’s wearable device portfolio spans multiple areas of health and fitness, including activity tracking, running, hiking, golfing, triathlons, and multi-sport. The majority of Garmin’s devices are GPS-enabled to track location and distance, and some leverage the company’s ConnectIQ third-party applications to record activity, show notifications, and news.
Samsung’s fourth place finish came from worldwide demand for its Gear smartwatches. Since its debut in 2013, the Gear portfolio has diversified to include the Tizen-powered Gear, Gear 2, Gear Fit, Gear 2 Neo, Gear S, and the Android-Wear powered Gear Live. What has limited Samsung, however, is the ability for Gear devices to connect only with select high-end Samsung smartphones.
Jawbone beat Pebble and Sony for fifth place, a result driven by the release of its UP MOVE and continued demand for its nearly year-old UP24. The company will release two new devices in the second quarter of 2015, with the similarly-functioning UP2 and the mobile payments-enabled UP3. The company maintained its design strategy of no displays, but again touted its predictive data engine to encourage healthier lifestyles.
Top Five Wearables Vendors, Shipments, Market Share and Year-Over-Year Growth, Q1 2015 Data (Units in Millions)
Vendor
1Q15 Shipment Volumes
1Q15 Market Share
1Q14 Shipment Volumes
1Q14 Market Share
Year-over-year Change
1. Fitbit
3.9
34.2%
1.7
44.7%
129.4%
2. Xiaomi
2.8
24.6%
0
0.0%
N/A
3. Garmin
0.7
6.1%
0.3
7.9%
133.3%
4. Samsung
0.6
5.3%
0.3
7.9%
100.0%
5. Jawbone
0.5
4.4%
0.2
5.3%
150.0%
Others
2.9
25.4%
1.3
34.2%
123.1%
Total
11.4
100.0%
3.8
100.0%
200.0%
Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Tracker, June 2, 2015
Table Notes:
Data is subject to change.
Vendor shipments are branded device shipments and exclude OEM sales for all vendors.
The “Vendor” represents the current parent company (or holding company) for all brands owned and operated as subsidiary.
TomTom is making available Highly Automated Driving (HAD) map content in the metro Detroit area, where U.S. automakers are headquartered. Car makers and HAD-related companies can now use TomTom’s high-definition maps for precise vehicle positioning, enabling future self-driving cars to see beyond their sensors.
The HAD map, covering the stretch of road network between Farmington Hills and Ann Arbor, including I-696, 96, and 275, US-23 and M-14, will be available in June. TomTom discussed the HAD map in a session at TU-Automotive Detroit trade show, held June 3-4.
“By making high-definition map content readily available, we can make HAD a reality faster, enabling further innovation in Detroit, the heart of the North American automotive industry,” said Alain De Taeye, member of the TomTom Management Board. “Intense demand for high-definition maps is fueled by automated driving as a new growth driver. As an independent supplier with one of the world’s most sophisticated mapping platform, we are in a unique position to provide highly precise map content for all members of the HAD ecosystem.”
For the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2015 in January, the Audi A7 piloted driving concept car dubbed Jack used TomTom HAD prototype maps to complete a long-distance test drive, over 560 miles from San Francisco to Las Vegas.
Magellan has launched an Off Road Vehicle (ORV) Navigation platform for automotive OEMs and power sport vehicle OEMs. The new platform was showcased at the TU-Automotive Detroit trade show, held June 3-4.
Designed specifically for the off-roading enthusiast, the Magellan ORV Navigation platform allows off-road enthusiasts to plan, track and save trail rides and dirt miles, and add pictures and comments to trails.
The Magellan ORV platform includes an online user community, where riders can plan and save their trails, share trails with other riders, add pictures and comments to trails, and search for new trails. In addition, the Magellan ORV platform includes the most comprehensive outdoor trail maps available for off-road enthusiasts, covering all 50 states and Canada.
Trail Maps
The Magellan ORV platform’s trail maps are cloud based, dynamic and will continue to grow and be improved by both Magellan and the user community. Magellan’s detailed ORV maps include:
3D Terrain & contour elevation lines
National, State & Provincial service roads and trails
National, State & Provincial Parks and Recreational Vehicle Areas
Scenic Byways
Crowd-sourced trails
Food, Gas, Lodging, and General Service POI
3rd Party Trail Guides
Online User Community
Off-road enthusiasts have exciting stories to save and share. The Magellan ORV navigation platform gives off-roaders, campers, and anyone enjoying the outdoors on a vehicle the tools to plan, experience, and capture their activities in a story format, that they can keep or share with friends, family, or the larger off-road and outdoor communities.
Users can add comments and pictures to their trail rides, and share with other members of the Magellan ORV community. Magellan ORV community users can also share posts and pictures to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram directly from the Magellan ORV app.
As users share their trail rides, they garner community ranking and earn achievement badges.
iOS and Android Companion Smartphone Apps
To be a resource for the entire off-road community, Magellan’s standard iOS and Android ORV apps will be available in the iTunes and Google Play stores. This will enable any off-road enthusiast to find trails and record, save and share their own adventures.
“The Magellan ORV navigation software is designed and targeted specifically to reach off-road and outdoor enthusiasts,” said Stig Pedersen, associate vice president of product management for Magellan. “It allows customers to use their technology to participate in and share their trail and outdoor experiences. It reflects the interests of technology savvy off-road enthusiasts, and makes off-roading achievable for aspiring off-road enthusiasts.”
Designed for Auto OEMs
Magellan’s smartphone driven ORV navigation platform is compatible with all major infotainment platforms, including Weblink, CarPlay and Android Auto. The ORV platform can be branded by automotive OEMs so their customers have a consistent brand experience while planning a trail ride, and in the vehicle.
“Given the tremendous popularity of 4×4 SUVs in the US, and other major regions, Magellan’s ORV solution is a tremendous opportunity for auto OEMs to provide their customers with an integrated off-road solution that takes advantage of today’s in-dash and smartphone technology,” said Peggy Fong, president of MiTAC Digital Corporation, parent company of the Magellan brand. “With the new Magellan ORV navigation platform, auto OEMs can add to the fun and excitement enjoyed by both off-road enthusiasts and other outdoorsmen, such as hunters, fishermen, and campers.”
Forsberg Germany has begun a strategic partnership with Septentrio Satellite Navigation. Forsberg Germany is an OEM component supplier and system integrator, and Septentrio is a designer and manufacturer of GPS/GNSS receivers.
Under the partnership, Forsberg Germany will become a distributor of Septentrio’s OEM boards. Forsberg Germany will sell and support Septentrio OEM receivers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. This partnership combines Septentrio’s cm-accurate GNSS positioning technology and products with Forsberg Germany’s extensive market experience and engineering expertise, the companies said in a statement.
“We are excited about this new partnership with Forsberg Germany,” said Koen Gutscoven, vice president of sales at Septentrio. “Forsberg Germany is a pioneer in European professional navigation systems and has in-depth knowledge of our technology and markets. They are an excellent partner in guiding and supporting our customers towards winning implementations in which reliability and accuracy matter.”
“We believe that our partnership with Septentrio to supply their products and services will bring enormous benefits to our customers and Forsberg Germany,” said Charles Forsberg, managing director of Forsberg Services Limited. “Septentrio are renowned throughout the industry for first-class positioning technology and customer support. We highly value the opportunity to work with Septentrio.”
The 1-million-mile milestone was for modified Lexus RX 450h SUVs equipped with the self-driving technology, but the car pictured here — built entirely by google — is more fun to look at. (Image: Google)
Google’s self-driving car has driven itself one million miles. Google announced the milestone June 4 on Google Plus. “Our software has now self-driven the equivalent of 75 years of typical U.S. adult driving! Along the way, we’ve navigated more than 200,000 stop signs, 600,000 traffic lights, and seen 180 million vehicles — with several thousand traffic cones, some fluttering plastic shopping bags, and a rogue duck thrown in for good measure.”
In May, Google announced that the car had driven 1.7 million miles, but that number was for both autonomous and manual driving, The one-million-mile milestone the car just reached is for autonomous driving only.
“We’ve come a long way since +Larry Page [Google president and CEO] first challenged us to demonstrate that self-driving technology had long-term potential. Back in 2009, he gave us two audacious goals. The first was to drive 100,000 miles on public roads; in 2009, this was about 10x more miles than had ever been completed by any autonomous driving team. The second was to drive 10 sets of 100 interesting miles — well-known California routes that included crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, navigating the curves of Lombard Street in San Francisco, and traversing the 200+ traffic lights of major boulevard El Camino Real.
“We met those early goals, but it was hard to imagine we’d ever cruise the boulevards of Mountain View, Calif., as smoothly as we do today. We’re taking this million mile milestone as further proof that fully self-driving vehicles will become a reality, and we’re looking forward to finding out where the next million miles will take us.”
Hurricane Fran at peak intensity on Sept.4, 1996. (Image: NOAA)
More than 6.6 million homes on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are at risk of hurricane storm surge inundation with a total reconstruction cost of nearly $1.5 trillion, according to a new storm surge analysis released today by CoreLogic.
The CoreLogic analysis examines risk from hurricane-driven storm surge for homes along the Atlantic and Gulf coastlines of 19 states and the District of Columbia, as well as for 84 metro areas. Homes are categorized among five risk levels, including Low, Moderate, High, Very High and Extreme.
In addition to the number of homes at risk, the analysis provides reconstruction cost values (RCVs), which indicate how much is required to rebuild the property, including labor and materials, and assuming worst-case scenario at 100-percent destruction (see Table 1).
Table 1: Residential Exposure by Storm Category for the Entire U.S.
Storm Surge Risk Level (Storm Category)
Total Homes Potentially Affected
Total Estimated RCV(U.S. dollars)
Extreme (Affected by a Category 1-5 storm)
1,651,978
$393,494,752,074
Very High (Category 2-5)
1,438,526
$324,225,419,007
High (Category 3-5)
1,654,925
$371,135,087,394
Moderate (Category 4-5)
1,178,196
$267,395,972,220
Low (Category 5)
685,391
$132,090,242,053
Total
6,609,016
$1,488,341,472,748
At the regional level, the Atlantic Coast has more than 3.8 million homes at risk of storm surge in 2015 with an RCV of $939 billion, and the Gulf Coast has just under 2.8 million homes at risk and nearly $549 billion in potential exposure to total destruction damage (Table 2).
Table 2: Residential Exposure by Coastal Region
Region
Atlantic Coast Homes
Atlantic Coast RCV (U.S. Dollars)
Gulf Coast Homes
Gulf Coast RCV (U.S. Dollars)
Extreme
1,018,371
$264,963,399,509
633,607
$128,531,352,565
Very High
911,091
$223,821,396,433
527,435
$100,404,022,574
High
860,657
$212,741,476,684
794,268
$158,393,610,710
Moderate
686,061
$172,277,118,076
492,135
$95,118,854,144
Low
332,984
$65,334,507,800
352,407
$66,755,734,253
Total
3,809,164
$939,137,898,502
2,799,852
$549,203,574,246
“The number of hurricanes each year is less important than the location of where the next hurricane will come ashore,” said Tom Jeffery, senior hazard risk scientist for CoreLogic. “It only takes one hurricane that pushes storm surge into a major metropolitan area for the damage to tally in the billions of dollars. With new home construction, and any amount of sea-level rise, the number of homes at risk of storm surge damage will continue to increase.”
Table 3 shows that six states account for more than three-quarters of all at-risk homes nationally. Florida has the highest total number of properties at various risk levels (2,509,812), followed by Louisiana (760,272), New York (464,534), New Jersey (446,148), Texas (441,304) and Virginia (420,052). Even though Louisiana has the second most homes at risk of storm surge, only one-quarter of these homes are in the extreme or very high storm surge category due, in large part, to the upgrade and expansion of levees in Louisiana.
Table 3: State Table (Ranked by Number of Homes at Risk)
Rank
State
Extreme
Very High
High
Moderate
Low*
Total
1
Florida
793,204
461,632
524,923
352,102
377,951
2,509,812
2
Louisiana
97,760
104,059
337,495
138,762
82,196
760,272
3
New York
127,325
114,876
131,039
91,294
N/A
464,534
4
New Jersey
116,581
178,668
73,303
77,596
N/A
446,148
5
Texas
45,800
70,894
112,189
116,168
96,253
441,304
6
Virginia
94,260
115,770
98,463
84,015
27,544
420,052
7
South Carolina
107,443
57,327
65,885
46,799
30,961
308,415
8
North Carolina
73,463
51,927
48,595
40,155
37,347
251,487
9
Massachusetts
31,420
65,279
74,413
49,325
N/A
220,437
10
Maryland
47,990
39,966
27,591
28,975
N/A
144,522
11
Georgia
41,970
52,281
28,852
19,190
8,465
150,758
12
Pennsylvania
1,467
45,776
37,983
32,426
N/A
117,652
13
Mississippi
14,809
20,643
29,387
27,507
10,588
102,934
14
Connecticut
25,292
23,656
22,230
26,529
N/A
97,707
15
Alabama
7,403
12,707
10,182
13,749
14,086
58,127
16
Delaware
11,523
10,854
13,528
13,811
N/A
49,716
17
Rhode Island
6,595
5,988
6,720
7,187
N/A
26,490
18
Maine
5,159
2,753
7,368
7,211
N/A
22,491
19
New Hampshire
2,514
3,470
4,234
2,272
N/A
12,490
20
District of Columbia
N/A**
N/A**
545
3,123
N/A
3,668
Total
1,651,978
1,438,526
1,654,925
1,178,196
685,391
6,609,016
* The “Low” risk category is based on Category 5 hurricanes, which are not likely along the northeastern Atlantic coast. States in that area have N/A designated for the Low category due to the extremely low probability of a Category 5 storm affecting that area.
** Washington, D.C. has no Atlantic coastal properties, but can be affected by larger hurricanes that push storm surge into the Potomac River. Category 1 and 2 storms will likely not generate sufficient storm surge to affect properties in Washington, D.C.
“The levee system in and around New Orleans is one of the most extensive in the world,” said Jeffery. “After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, upgrades were planned for the network of levees and pumping stations to reduce the potential devastation from future storms. Upgrades were completed in 2013, and CoreLogic analysis shows a significant number of homes are now protected from all but the higher category hurricanes as a result.”
At the local level, five Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) rank the highest in both number of homes at risk and total RCV. They include New York-Newark, NY-NJ-PA; Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL; Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC; and New Orleans-Metairie, LA (Table 5).
Table 5: Storm Surge Risk for Top 5 Metro Areas
Rank
Metropolitan Area
Total Properties Potentially Affected By All Categories of Hurricane
Total RCV (U.S. Dollars)
1
New York, NY
685,152
$244,312,501,442
2
Miami, FL
564,913
$105,134,042,455
3
Tampa, FL
447,990
$78,191,384,320
4
Virginia Beach, VA-NC
395,341
$86,393,517,790
5
New Orleans, LA
380,120
$84,242,355,537
Additional findings in the CoreLogic storm surge analysis:
The five states with the highest RCV for homes at risk include: Florida ($491,119,183,016), New York ($177,398,620,779), Louisiana ($162,096,659,527) New Jersey ($126,829,146,685) and Virginia ($91,049,049,641).
The five states (including the District of Columbia) with the lowest RCV for homes at risk include: District of Columbia ($351,443,177), New Hampshire ($3,215,714,570) Maine ($5,807,400,656), Rhode Island ($7,476,741,658) and Alabama ($9,954,390,796).
The five states (including the District of Columbia) with the lowest total number of properties at risk include: the District of Columbia (3,668), New Hampshire (12,409), Maine (22,491), Rhode Island (26,490) and Delaware (49,716).
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC has the highest percentage of homes (87 percent) at risk of storm surge, but not designated in a FEMA flood zone. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD and Jacksonville, Fla. also top the list at 85 percent and 77 percent, respectively.
The CoreLogic storm surge analysis also complements Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone information to provide a snapshot of potential damage exposure at the property level, as many properties located outside designated FEMA flood zones are still at risk for storm surge damage. Standard FEMA flood zones are designed to identify areas at risk for both freshwater flooding, as well as storm surge, based on the likelihood of either a 100-year or 500-year flood event. They do not differentiate risk based on storm severity, and as a result, do not accurately define the total extent of potential risk along coastal areas.
Homeowners who live outside the FEMA flood zones frequently do not carry flood insurance, given that there is no mandate to do so, and therefore may not be aware of the potential risk storm surge poses to their properties.
To illustrate varying degrees of flood risk exposure, the analysis compares homes that are not located within FEMA 100-year floodplains against the number of homes located in surge inundation zones, as well as those located in both surge and FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). This data can be found in the full report.
Table 4: Reconstruction Value of Properties at Risk by State (U.S. Dollars)
Rank
State
Extreme
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Total
1
Florida
$166,127,920,621
$87,593,956,407
$100,948,271,678
$66,046,901,592
$70,402,132,718
$491,119,183,016
2
New York
$50,677,202,371
$43,738,512,048
$47,941,521,073
$35,041,385,287
N/A
$177,398,620,779
3
Louisiana
$19,219,426,239
$20,723,521,330
$73,585,253,144
$30,455,626,839
$18,112,831,975
$162,096,659,527
4
New Jersey
$32,539,401,471
$49,279,239,412
$21,290,996,129
$23,719,509,673
N/A
$126,829,146,685
5
Virginia
$21,749,493,964
$24,472,282,097
$20,790,731,449
$17,769,718,808
$6,266,823,323
$91,049,049,641
6
Texas
$7,378,747,508
$10,949,102,801
$19,458,405,318
$21,932,930,066
$18,483,135,047
$78,202,320,740
7
South Carolina
$27,968,086,462
$12,767,874,946
$13,882,875,874
$9,539,308,384
$6,213,580,227
$70,371,725,893
8
Massachusetts
$10,293,155,124
$17,512,619,612
$21,563,396,990
$15,311,723,734
N/A
$64,680,895,460
9
North Carolina
$13,933,404,480
$10,330,860,954
$9,906,870,506
$7,751,458,704
$7,201,904,492
$49,124,499,136
10
Maryland
$11,764,631,642
$9,641,288,327
$6,381,209,263
$6,920,924,916
N/A
$34,708,054,148
11
Connecticut
$9,162,361,469
$8,157,864,151
$7,292,127,632
$8,774,300,132
N/A
$33,386,653,384
12
Georgia
$11,052,557,614
$10,521,985,895
$5,291,887,200
$3,457,728,530
$1,389,552,868
$31,713,712,107
13
Mississippi
$2,828,758,155
$3,858,574,230
$5,351,501,617
$4,850,283,320
$1,766,898,284
$18,656,015,606
14
Pennsylvania
$314,850,616
$5,812,076,371
$6,283,697,262
$4,819,045,458
N/A
$17,229,669,707
15
Delaware
$3,604,927,907
$3,338,893,060
$4,202,564,034
$3,823,191,061
N/A
$14,969,576,062
16
Alabama
$1,266,591,391
$2,252,764,464
$1,761,389,904
$2,420,261,918
$2,253,383,119
$9,954,390,796
17
Rhode Island
$1,819,637,687
$1,759,354,804
$1,917,701,002
$1,980,048,165
N/A
$7,476,741,658
18
Maine
$1,247,207,669
$728,679,536
$1,966,851,214
$1,864,662,237
N/A
$5,807,400,656
19
New Hampshire
$546,389,684
$785,968,562
$1,255,120,636
$628,235,688
N/A
$3,215,714,570
20
District of Columbia
N/A
N/A
$62,715,469
$288,727,708
N/A
$351,443,177
Total
393,494,752,074
324,225,419,007
371,135,087,394
267,395,972,220
132,090,242,053
1,488,341,472,748
Additional CBSA data, market rankings, regional, state and local-level maps are available upon request.
Methodology
The 2015 CoreLogic storm surge analysis encompasses single-family residential structures including mobile homes, duplexes, manufactured homes and cabins, among other non-traditional home types. Year-over-year changes in the number of homes at risk and RCV can be the result of several variables, including new home construction, improved public records, enhanced modeling techniques, fluctuation in labor, equipment and material costs, and even potential rise in sea level.
As a result, direct year-over-year comparisons should be avoided. To estimate the value property exposure of the single-family residences CoreLogic utilized it’s proprietary Marshall & Swift/Boeckh reconstruction cost valuation methodology.
This methodology estimates the cost to rebuild the property in the event of a total loss and is not to be confused with property market values or new construction cost estimation. Reconstruction cost estimates more accurately reflect the actual cost of damage or destruction of residential buildings that would occur from hurricane-driven storm surge since they include the cost of materials, equipment and labor needed to rebuild, and also factor in geographical pricing differences.
Actual land values are not included in the estimates. The values are based on 100-percent or total destruction of the residential structure. Depending upon the amount of surge water from a given storm, there may be less than 100 percent damage to the residence, which would result in a lower realized reconstruction cost value.
Storm surge is triggered primarily by the high winds and low pressure associated with hurricanes, which cause water to amass inside a storm as it moves across the ocean before releasing as a powerful rush overland when the hurricane moves onshore. In addition to the property damage and potential lives lost to flooding, the speed and force associated with storm surge waves can significantly increase geographic and economic impact in hurricane disaster areas.
Two weeks ago I helped a colleague with a trade show in Miami called eMerge Americas. This was a general-interest trade show focused on U.S. and Latin American trade and economic development. It wasn’t GEOINT or an ESRI users conference, so I didn’t expect any significant geospatial exhibitors, but I was wrong.
In fact, there were so many geospatial-related displays, I decided to build my column around it — not because there were new developments, but to give you a feel for how business in general is being exposed to and shaped by our geospatial technology.
I found so much visual content that under the “picture is worth a thousand words” philosophy, I shot video clips of exhibitors so that you could quickly hear and see their stories. I discovered a number of true start-up businesses, as well as a large area devoted to showing robotics from local school programs. You may not have the time to view each clip, so the following are brief descriptions of each exhibitor that caught my attention:
Introduction to eMerge Americas
Esri. Because Latin America is a large and growing market, Jack Dangermond had his team there.
Indra. A large Spanish firm demonstrating their end to end solutions including building 3D models overlaid on Google.
Cisco. Cisco had a very large display showing city management of transportation/utilities/ planning using geospatial tools and management systems.
Fish. A company that tracks people and assets using RFID tags and indoor location technology.
Florida International University. FIU had numerous technology displays but their autonomous catamaran doing bathymetry data collection and mapping was impressive.
CartoData. This was a Mexican firm doing some very impressive end-to-end solutions including the use of Pix4D to build 3D models from UAV data.
ImPlaces. A small start-up that builds Smartphone GPS location enabled applications for self guided tours such as museums, parks, real estate, etc.
Baptist Health. Baptist Health demonstrated its 3D remote surgery system that was dimensionally scalable. These systems permit a surgeon to work at a macro level while the surgical tools operate a at microscopic level.
ICONICS. A company that can zoom from a country or regional map down to the detail of an individual valve in a specific plant using CAD/BIM data.
RangeVideo. A UAV company with a very flexible platform and 3D operator viewing goggles.
ALTA Systems. An alternative to powered UAVs.
SnowLizard Products. A small start up building durable waterproof Smartphone cases with Bad Elf GPS and solar panel recharging.
Catbird. A data system security oversight system.
VSN 360. There was a lot of interest in this product. VSN was showing a new 4K HD quality 360-degree video camera a little bigger than a coffee mug with many features. My video of a video didn’t do it justice, so here is a link to the demo video.
For fun, view these non-geospatial exhibitors:
Holography Box USA. A portable, rear projection, point-of-sale video display that looks like a 3D hologram.
TeamSandTastic. A company that provides sand sculptors for trade shows or other events. Doesn’t sound exciting, but just like a Zamboni clearing the ice, you can’t stop watching as an artist turns a pile of sand into a sculpture.
Robotics. Local students show off their robotic construction efforts and operational talents.
Because eMerge has been so well received, I’m happy to see plans are in place to make this an annual event. Latin America is a large and growing market with many talented individuals, some of whom I met at this conference. As a country, we seem to take Latin America for granted, but this a region that shares our values. We need to nurture our relationships and work to prevent the kind of attitudes found in areas hostile to American values.
The 746th Test Squadron will perform a Global Positioning System unreliable event, scheduled at Holloman Air Force Base, June 5, 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. A GPS unreliable event is an interruption to all GPS signals. The interruption will affect any and all electronic devices in the area that use GPS, such as cell phones, running devices, laptops, computers, tablets, cars with navigation and a number of other electric devices.
This information is from an announcement posted on the White Sands Missile Range Public Affairs Facebook page. It is unknown whether this test is related to the U.S. Air Force’s new “gold standard” Truth Reference System, based on Locata technology, which is reportedly now operational at the White Sands Missile Range, although no official announcement has been made.
Two weeks ago I helped a colleague with a trade show in Miami called