This is actually the first part! I hope it isn't too harsh, and that it's constructive.
Dynamic Traffic Control System
Total evaluation criteria score: 25 / 40
Actually, not bad compared to a lot of proposals. It only misses what many of the other ones also miss.
Part I
As far as I can understand it, the Dynamic Traffic Control System idea consists of building large overhanging and side-of-the-road electronic signs that can be either manually controlled or automatically adjust to road conditions. It wasn't clear in the proposal how much of the system would require continual updating from human personnel, and how much would be able to run on its own.
The system would also be connected to all the traffic lights in a city, have a centralized database (what for, I don't know), and be manipulable by law enforcement, emergency medical vehicles, DOT people, and firefighters.
Part II
One thing I don't get is why this system would be centralized. A decentralized, robust system seems to make a lot more sense to me. Rather than a centralized database, distributed servers that control their own portion of the roads and communicate with each other and whoever logs into them would make more sense.
Syntax score: 5/5
The structure of the proposal is professional, and the spelling and grammar are accurate and appropriate. The writing is, for the most part, clear and sufficiently detailed. It could cover more about how personnel will be trained to use the system and the interfaces they would have to learn and use. The story is consistent and well-structured.
Plausibility: 2/5
The project cannot be completed in 12 weeks. As it stands, full implementation, testing with agent-based models, and deployment (along with the training of relevant personnel) would take a long time. Furthermore, a centralized system for managing traffic conditions would be vulnerable to exploitation and reliability issues. Also, what happens when different bureaus decide to give opposing directions for the same chunk of road? Whose decision becomes final? Would a city really consent to such a project? It will need a lot more explanation and convincing data on other such systems.
If a decentralized system were chosen instead, how would it do better than other systems already in place, in terms of manageability, cost, and projected savings in time and money for consumers, and lives for medical personnel (and when it comes to traffic accidents, etc).
Support: 2/5
The arguments for the need for such a system are sound, but I find no convincing evidence that yet another costly city road project like this system would really benefit the city. For instance, traffic lights are very complicated to perfect, and the systems already in place have been tested and tweaked to be about as good as they can get. They also are remotely configurable and change with the level of traffic. The new system would likely not do anything to make them any better.
Okay, apparently I can only have one comment. There is not enough space to post my entire response, so you can see it at http://cs460-thaumkid.blogspot.com/2011/03/evaluation-of-ekaterina-davydenkos.html
I hope I wasn't too harsh, and that it's constructive. Thanks!
This is actually the first part! I hope it isn't too harsh, and that it's constructive.
ReplyDeleteDynamic Traffic Control System
Total evaluation criteria score: 25 / 40
Actually, not bad compared to a lot of proposals. It only misses what many of the other ones also miss.
Part I
As far as I can understand it, the Dynamic Traffic Control System idea consists of building large overhanging and side-of-the-road electronic signs that can be either manually controlled or automatically adjust to road conditions. It wasn't clear in the proposal how much of the system would require continual updating from human personnel, and how much would be able to run on its own.
The system would also be connected to all the traffic lights in a city, have a centralized database (what for, I don't know), and be manipulable by law enforcement, emergency medical vehicles, DOT people, and firefighters.
Part II
One thing I don't get is why this system would be centralized. A decentralized, robust system seems to make a lot more sense to me. Rather than a centralized database, distributed servers that control their own portion of the roads and communicate with each other and whoever logs into them would make more sense.
Syntax score: 5/5
The structure of the proposal is professional, and the spelling and grammar are accurate and appropriate. The writing is, for the most part, clear and sufficiently detailed. It could cover more about how personnel will be trained to use the system and the interfaces they would have to learn and use. The story is consistent and well-structured.
Plausibility: 2/5
The project cannot be completed in 12 weeks. As it stands, full implementation, testing with agent-based models, and deployment (along with the training of relevant personnel) would take a long time. Furthermore, a centralized system for managing traffic conditions would be vulnerable to exploitation and reliability issues. Also, what happens when different bureaus decide to give opposing directions for the same chunk of road? Whose decision becomes final? Would a city really consent to such a project? It will need a lot more explanation and convincing data on other such systems.
If a decentralized system were chosen instead, how would it do better than other systems already in place, in terms of manageability, cost, and projected savings in time and money for consumers, and lives for medical personnel (and when it comes to traffic accidents, etc).
Support: 2/5
The arguments for the need for such a system are sound, but I find no convincing evidence that yet another costly city road project like this system would really benefit the city. For instance, traffic lights are very complicated to perfect, and the systems already in place have been tested and tweaked to be about as good as they can get. They also are remotely configurable and change with the level of traffic. The new system would likely not do anything to make them any better.
Okay, apparently I can only have one comment. There is not enough space to post my entire response, so you can see it at http://cs460-thaumkid.blogspot.com/2011/03/evaluation-of-ekaterina-davydenkos.html
ReplyDeleteI hope I wasn't too harsh, and that it's constructive. Thanks!