Traffic Management Center --> Enforcement Center:
current lane restrictions

Definitions

current lane restrictions (Information Flow): Information provided to an enforcement agency that defines the current enforceable lane restrictions. It defines the location, duration, and restrictions for lanes that are reserved for the exclusive use of certain types of vehicles (e.g., transit vehicles) or vehicles that meet other qualifications (e.g., number of occupants, low emissions criteria). It identifies the lane(s), the start and stop locations, start and end times, vehicle restrictions, and speed limits.

Traffic Management Center (Source Physical Object): The 'Traffic Management Center' monitors and controls traffic and the road network. It represents centers that manage a broad range of transportation facilities including freeway systems, rural and suburban highway systems, and urban and suburban traffic control systems. It communicates with ITS Roadway Equipment and Connected Vehicle Roadside Equipment (RSE) to monitor and manage traffic flow and monitor the condition of the roadway, surrounding environmental conditions, and field equipment status. It manages traffic and transportation resources to support allied agencies in responding to, and recovering from, incidents ranging from minor traffic incidents through major disasters.

Enforcement Center (Destination Physical Object): The 'Enforcement Center' represents the systems that receive reports of violations detected by various ITS facilities including individual vehicle emissions, lane violations, toll violations, CVO violations, etc.

Included In

This Triple is in the following Service Packages:

This triple is associated with the following Functional Objects:

This Triple is described by the following Functional View Data Flows:

This Triple has the following triple relationships:

Communication Solutions

Solutions are sorted in ascending Gap Severity order. The Gap Severity is the parenthetical number at the end of the solution.

Selected Solution

(None-Data) - OMG DDS

Solution Description

This solution is used within Canada and the U.S.. It combines standards associated with (None-Data) with those for OMG DDS. The (None-Data) standards include an unspecified set of standards at the upper layers. The OMG DDS standards include lower-layer standards that support secure data sharing and command operations between remote devices.

ITS Application Entity
Mind the gapMind the gap

Development needed
Click gap icons for more info.

Mgmt

OMG DDS
Facilities
Mind the gapMind the gapMind the gap

Development needed
OMG DDS
OMG DDS-RPC
OMG DDSI-RTPS
Security

OMG DDS-Security
TransNet

IETF RFC 768
IP Alternatives
Access

Internet Subnet Alternatives
TransNet TransNet

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Access Access

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

ITS Application ITS Application

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Mgmt Mgmt

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Facility Facility

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Security Security

TempBCL2 TempSTDL2

TempBCL3 TempSTDL3

TempBCL4 TempSTDL4

TempBCL5 TempSTDL5

Note that some layers might have alternatives, in which case all of the gap icons associated with every alternative may be shown on the diagram, but the solution severity calculations (and resulting ordering of solutions) includes only the issues associated with the default (i.e., best, least severe) alternative.

Characteristics

Characteristic Value
Time Context Recent
Spatial Context Regional
Acknowledgement True
Cardinality Unicast
Initiator Destination
Authenticable True
Encrypt False


Interoperability Description
Regional Interoperability throughout the geopolitical region is highly desirable, but if implemented differently in different transportation management jurisdictions, significant benefits will still accrue in each jurisdiction. Regardless, this Information Flow Triple should be implemented consistently within a transportation jurisdiction (i.e., the scope of a regional architecture).

Security

Information Flow Security
  Confidentiality Integrity Availability
Rating Low High Moderate
Basis Public policies about enforcement conditions are by definition public and should not be hidden. Given that punishments may result from applying the information contained within to individual violations, the data must be correct or incorrect accusations may be made. More or less important depending on the context. Given that decision making is taken based on this information, probably should not drop below MODERATE however.


Security Characteristics Value
Authenticable True
Encrypt False