By Peter Filice, Senior Consultant

During the last 10 years, cloud-based solutions have become the dominant trend in the IT world for applications, services, and platforms. End-point and edge devices have become smarter, high-speed networking is more available, affordable and easier to implement, and on-site data centers and software have moved to off-site cloud data centers from Amazon, Microsoft, Google and others. This trend, however, is just beginning to be seen in parking technology. It’s important for parking managers and operators to understand how cloud applications and services will impact them so they can make smart, informed choices and navigate potential challenges. This article will educate readers on basic cloud computing concepts, indicate how cloud can be applied to parking solutions, summarize parking technology solutions that are already cloud-based, and highlight key issues and potential pitfalls that organizations need to understand about this migration.

Cloud Computing and Software-as-a-Service Fundamentals

Let’s begin by briefly defining Cloud Computing and its close relative Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Wikipedia [1] offers the following overview definition:

“Cloud computing is the on-demand availability of computer system resources, especially data storage (cloud storage) and computing power, without direct active management by the user. The term is generally used to describe data centers available to many users over the Internet. Large clouds, predominant today, often have functions distributed over multiple locations from central servers. If the connection to the user is relatively close, it may be designated an edge server.

“Clouds may be limited to a single organization (enterprise clouds) or be available to many organizations (public cloud). Cloud computing relies on sharing of resources to achieve coherence and economies of scale. Advocates of public and hybrid clouds note that cloud computing allows companies to avoid or minimize up-front IT infrastructure costs. Proponents also claim that cloud computing allows enterprises to get their applications up and running faster, with improved manageability and less maintenance, and that it enables IT teams to more rapidly adjust resources to meet fluctuating and unpredictable demand, providing the burst computing capability: high computing power at certain periods of peak demand.

“The availability of high-capacity networks, low-cost computers and storage devices as well as the widespread adoption of hardware virtualization, service-oriented architecture and autonomic and utility computing has led to the growth in cloud computing.”

Here is a simplified diagram [2] depicting several types of cloud architectures that may be utilized singly or jointly.

Software-as-a-Service, or SaaS, is the typical offering and pricing model that technology vendors utilize to offer their cloud computing services or solutions to customers and partners. Sometimes, SaaS is referred to by the more generic acronym “XaaS,” where “X” can mean several things – Software, Hardware, Platform, Database, Middleware, Compute, etc. In all cases, these acronyms refer to a pricing and delivery model in which the end-customer does not own the software licenses and/or hardware platforms but purchases specific “services” as needed on a recurring expense basis, usually monthly or annually.

Product solution vendors have increasingly moved their architecture and delivery model to some form of cloud architecture over the last 10 years. In the general IT industry, cloud has become the predominant delivery model. In the parking technology area, migration to cloud has been slower, but it has been picking up steam over the last 2-3 years. There are now some parking technology vendors who offer only cloud-based solutions, others who offer a choice of cloud or on-premises based, and a few who still offer only on-premises systems or variants of on-premises systems that move the server off-site but which are not really cloud-based as defined above. Let’s take a closer look at parking technology cloud migration trends.

Parking Technology Cloud Migration Trends

Until 2-3 years ago, most parking technology vendors provided solutions solely in an “on-premises” model, meaning that all software and hardware resides on-site at the parking facility location or nearby in an IT room. As overall cloud adoption has increased across all technology sectors, parking technology has started to follow suit. On the one hand, on-premises systems present some advantages:

• They are easy to touch and see to verify if they are working.
• They are completely within the control of the customer or operator and can be kept secure with proper measures.
• They do not rely heavily on remote communications networks and are not generally subject to internet outages.
• Once purchased, they generally need only limited ongoing maintenance so recurring expenses are generally low to moderate.

On the other hand, parking managers and operators are well aware of the challenges that accompany on-site hardware and software:

• Room must be found to host the hardware in a suitably secure and climate-controlled space, with appropriately reliable electricity.
• Hardware must be maintained, repaired and occasionally upgraded.
• Underlying components of the system software, such as the Microsoft Windows operating system, must be kept current and in some cases replaced when no longer supported by the original software vendor.
• At some point, the system must be replaced leading to a new capital expenditure – sometimes higher than predicted or available in the budget

In response to these challenges, some parking technology vendors initially began to offer certain optional system software packages (such as reporting or business analytics) in the cloud with SaaS pricing, while the core software and hardware remained on-site. This is a so-called “hybrid cloud” solution. Over time, some vendors have gone further and have migrated fully to cloud by moving all central server and software components of Parking Access and Revenue Control Systems (PARCS) and Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS) into the cloud, again with SaaS-based pricing on a monthly or annual basis. Some of these vendors still offer either on-premises or cloud-based solutions, while others are offering only a cloud-based model.

Of course, in all cases, some components of PARCS and APGS systems must still physically reside on site, such as entry/exit stations, pay stations, parking occupancy sensors, digital signage, etc. Nonetheless, some vendors have recently even taken the XaaS model further by offering “Hardware-as-a-Service,” in which the vendor provides the on-site hardware and all associated maintenance under a monthly or annual service fee (essentially a version of an equipment lease).

All of these approaches offer new creative alternatives as well as posing new questions and challenges for parking customers and operators. Let’s now explore some actual vendor examples in both the PARCS and APGS spaces.

Examples of Cloud-Based PARCS and APGS Solutions

For illustrative purposes, here are several examples of vendor solution architectures which are either inherently cloud-based or offer a cloud-based option. As noted above, it isn’t actually possible for every component of a PARCS or APGS system to be “in the cloud” because some parts of the system are physical devices that must reside on the customer site.

With PARCS, the portion of the system that resides in the cloud is usually the main PARCS software and reporting and analytics functions. In a cloud-based PARCS, the on-premises components such as entry/exit stations, pay-on-foot machines, and so forth are connected directly to the cloud across secure internet sessions. All of the PARCS processing (e.g. payments, credential validations, etc.) is done in the cloud. Here are just two examples of PARCS solutions that are cloud-based; several other vendors are also offering similar approaches.

Similarly, in an APGS, the system still needs to have some on-premises components such as space or lot counting sensors, digital signage, etc. However, some APGS vendors have moved to architectures in which those “edge devices” are directly cloud-connected, often via a cellular data network. In this case, the aggregation of count data and control of digital signage all occurs from the cloud.

Cloud is not a Panacea – and not all Cloud Solutions are Created Equal

So, should parking customers and operators migrate immediately to cloud-based solutions? Are on-premises solutions a thing of the past? And are all cloud-based solutions created equal? As you would expect, there are no absolute right or wrong answers to these questions. Among other things, some cloud solutions are relatively new and not widely proven, and additionally some solutions claiming to be “cloud” actually are not. There are also financial considerations that need to be carefully understood. Let’s discuss some of these issues and then wrap-up with some high-value questions that customers and operators can ask vendors when considering moving to cloud.

• Some solutions claiming to be “cloud” actually are not. For example, a solution that simply moves a customer-owned server offsite to a co-location data center is not cloud – it’s simply off-site hosting. While the customer does not have to provide an IT facility to host the server, they still own the server. Another example is a vendor who claims to have created their own “cloud” when in fact they are just operating a hosted server farm with a series of servers, each of which is dedicated to one customer. While these approaches may be marketed as “cloud” and may appear as cloud in some ways to the customer, they do not take advantage of true cloud-based architectures and do not have the same scalability, support and cost benefits.
• Some solutions that are an actual cloud architecture may not use industry-leading cloud services providers like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, etc. as the foundation of their cloud, choosing to implement their own proprietary cloud services platform. This approach has risks associated with any proprietary solution, not to mention cannot offer the kind of broad support and wide technology choices of an industry-leading cloud platform. Even when an industry-leading cloud platform is used, that is not a guarantee that best practices are being followed. For example, there was a former parking software vendor using AWS solely as a raw computing platform, while the customer data was all co-mingled in a single open source database. Such an approach is extremely insecure and unstable. Also, some cloud-based approaches may not take full advantage of so-called “multi-tenant” architectures, instead starting a separate cloud instance for each customer. Such an approach may be acceptable, but it doesn’t take full advantage of cloud scalability. Unless you ask your vendor probing questions, you may not discover poor or sub-optimal practices and you will not understand if their experience with cloud-based solutions is strong or minimal.
• Some cloud solutions may introduce latency (delays) into PARCS transactions or APGS count displays, because these data exchanges have to make a round-trip network connection to the cloud instance, which may be located hundreds of miles away. Properly implemented cloud solutions that use high-bandwidth, low latency network connections can avoid these issues.
• Parking managers and operators need to “run the numbers” and understand the financial tradeoffs between a cloud approach with monthly or annual recurring SaaS charges (normally treated as recurring operating expense) vs. an up-front on-premises purchase (usually treated as a capital purchase). Depending on the sources of funding and the financial metrics for each customer or project, one approach may be more advantageous than the other. Note that some cloud vendors offer multi-year SaaS pricing models that can approximate a capital purchase model by allowing a significant discount up-front in exchange for a pre-paid multi-year SaaS agreement.
• Carefully consider issues of data ownership and security when moving to a cloud-based approach. As the parking customer, you should ensure that all ownership of your parking system data resides with you whether it is stored on-premises or in an off-premises cloud. It’s your data and moving it to the cloud doesn’t change that! In that same vein, it is important to ensure that your data is secure when it is passing from your site over the internet and into cloud-based applications and data stores. Cloud-based PARCS and APGS providers need to provide assurance that they are following industry best practices when it comes to security, data partitioning, data integrity and backup, and data ownership. Lastly, you should be allowed to remove or copy your data off the cloud platform without penalty should you switch vendors in the future.

Questions to Ask When Considering Cloud-based Parking Solutions

Here are some useful, high-value questions to ask when considering a cloud-based parking technology solution.

• What is the underlying architecture of your cloud solution? Does your solution use a shared (also known as “multi-tenant”) instance approach or do you start up a separate cloud instance for each customer? Is your solution truly cloud-based or just hosted? Ask for a detailed architecture diagram and verify you are getting an actual cloud-based solution, as discussed in the previous section.
• Do you also offer a “Hardware-as-a-Service” option for those PARCS/APGS components that must still physically reside on my site?
• Does the architecture diagram indicate the use of on-premises data processing? Such devices may be labeled “lane controllers”, “data appliances” or other similar euphemisms. Evaluate whether these devices may need maintenance such as UPS service, OS updates, system redundancy, or data backup and if so, how that affects the value of the proposed cloud solution.
• Is your solution built on top of a major cloud platform such as AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, or Oracle Cloud? If so, which one and what exact cloud services are you using from that platform for compute, database, security, etc.?
• How is my data stored and how is it partitioned from other customers’ data? Do I retain full and exclusive ownership of all my data?
• How do you implement and ensure security of my data? For PARCS vendors, is your cloud solution compliant with the latest PCI security standards including P2PE?
• How do you ensure that your cloud solution does not add excessive latency that will impact my parking customers’ experience?
• What sort of networking is needed between my site and your cloud center(s)? Who provides this network?
• What is your cloud-based SaaS pricing model? Do you offer discounts for multi-year SaaS agreements?
• What happens if and when I terminate my SaaS contract? How do I obtain my data, and will it be in a portable format?

Conclusion

Walker Consultants applies best practices when assisting clients in specifying, evaluating and testing parking technology solutions. We can provide specific expertise around cloud-based solutions. By applying the knowledge and best practices as outlined in this article, customers can make informed choices when considering cloud-based parking solutions such as PARCS and APGS.

About the Author

Based out of Walker’s San Francisco office and as a member of Walker’s Consulting Resources Group, Peter Filice covers Northern California and the Pacific Northwest with expertise in parking technology solutions across multiple vertical markets — municipal, university, commercial garages, hotel, event and stadium, on-street, mixed-use, and airport. In particular, Filice has deep expertise in Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS).

_______________________________________________________________________________________

[1] Source of quoted paragraphs and figures is Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

[2] Source: Wikipedia, CC-BY-SA 3.0, Sam Johnston: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing#/media/File:Cloud_computing_types.svg

Figures provided by PARCS/APGS vendors are used with permission and are for illustrative purposes only. Inclusion of these figures does not constitute an endorsement of these vendors.

by Peter Filice, Senior Consultant

Many of us will remember the old TV Public Service Announcement from the late 60’s: “It’s 10:00 pm – Do You Know Where Your Children Are?” Bringing this into the modern era and in the realm of parking technology, we can use some poetic license to rewrite it: “It’s 2020 – Do You Know How Accurate Your Parking Guidance System Is?”

One of the many areas of significant advancement in parking technology over the last five years is modern Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS) for parking structures. Many of these modern APGS are based on advanced sensor technology such as still or video camera images. Such systems, now available from many vendors, leverage the power of image processing and artificial intelligence (AI) to offer the dual advantages of very high accuracy plus value-added features like object type classification, license plate capture, and others.

The higher accuracy of these camera-based systems is a significant benefit compared to more traditional sensor technologies like loops or infrared/ultrasonic in-motion sensors. With any APGS, accuracy is absolutely paramount. It’s extremely unproductive and disappointing to invest in an APGS only to have parkers distrust it or require parking operations personnel to constantly reset the system count, or worst of all, to have parking managers turn the system completely off because the accuracy becomes so poor. The newer generation systems promise to improve on the state of the art relative to accuracy, but their accuracy still needs to be validated. What best practices should parking professionals use to measure and monitor the accuracy of the latest generation of APGS systems?

Let’s start by reviewing the two main classes of camera-based APGS systems. We will then examine best practices for assessing the accuracy of each and identify potential sources of inaccuracy.

In-motion Camera-Based APGS

These systems use a real-time video stream from a camera to track vehicles crossing designated “count points” such as entrance lanes, exit lanes, and ramps. The video stream is analyzed by image processing software which determines the direction of vehicle travel and the number of vehicles passing the count point. Certain in-motion counting systems also offer the ability to classify the type of vehicle such as truck vs. car vs. motorcycle. These systems essentially substitute a camera sensor for what was done traditionally with embedded magnetic loops or infrared/ultrasonic overhead in-motion sensors. However, it is important to understand that in-motion camera-based APGS still use the “count accrual” method of determining the occupancy of a facility or garage level, just like more traditional sensor systems. The in/out or up/down counts at each count point are accrued or aggregated to calculate the overall parking occupancy. As a result, high accuracy at each count point is very important to achieve because counting errors can accrue over time, eventually rendering the system count unreliable and useless.[1]

The accuracy of a properly installed and calibrated in-motion camera-based APGS at each individual count point should be >99% over a large sample size of counted vehicles during a typical day, including peak traffic periods. Because count points must be aggregated and errors may accrue, it is to be expected that the overall system accuracy will slowly degrade over time. For a system in which each individual count point is >99% accurate and assuming some error cancellation occurs, a reasonable expectation is that the system accuracy may decline to around 85% over a 30-day period without manual intervention such as a recount.

Camera-based Single Space APGS

These systems use a camera that senses the occupancy status of a given parking stall “at rest”; that is, when a vehicle has occupied the space and is now still, or a vehicle has recently left the stall, or the stall was never occupied. This type of APGS, while generally more expensive than an in-motion camera-based APGS, provides significantly more granular space occupancy information and can drive overhead space indicator lights guiding motorists visually to open stalls. From an accuracy perspective, single space systems generally offer higher accuracy than in-motion counting systems for two reasons:

• Accurately detecting vehicle presence is generally easier at rest than in motion.
• Errors are limited to specific stalls and do not accrue across the entire parking garage.

The second point is very critical in helping single space systems achieve high and stable accuracy. However, it is not an assurance that a camera-based APGS is always accurate. Everyone who has utilized a garage with such a system has undoubtedly run across some stalls that are tagged as empty when they are full or vice versa.

A properly installed and calibrated Single Space APGS should achieve accuracy >99.5% and should remain stable over an extended period with no accrual of errors.

So How Should APGS Accuracy Be Assessed?

The following are some best practices that are recommended for camera-based APGS systems of both types.

For Camera-Based Systems

An extremely powerful tool of camera-based systems is the ability to compare direct observation with stored or streamed camera images. Many systems from the leading camera-based APGS vendors allow this capability to be used during installation phase calibration and over time for system monitoring or troubleshooting. Vendors should be willing to make such camera images available to their customers or consultants. The images should show a clear view of the counting point or parking stalls as well as a super-imposed “system count”; that is, what the image processing software believes it is counting. Such images or videos captured over a long period of time can be examined remotely using tools that allow accelerated retrospective viewing. Using this method, it is relatively simple to create a tally of actual observed vehicle counts vs. system vehicle counts, compare the two, and even detect underlying scenarios that may be causing inaccuracies.

Contrast this approach with the accuracy checking methods that must be used with more traditional APGS systems like loops and infrared/ultrasonic sensors. These systems require manual tests, observations and data recording while present at the customer site, which can be very time-consuming, resource intensive and costly.

For In-Motion Systems

Start the accuracy assessment process by checking the accuracy of each individual “count point.” These points correlate to the locations of the in-motion counting cameras. Use the camera stream to record a large amount of count events (usually several hundred data points per count point) to ensure statistical validity. Record data at various times of day that offer varying traffic loads, lighting conditions, and presence of foreign objects such as pedestrians. Replay the recorded videos and observe and tabulate the system count vs. actual count as seen with your eyes. Continue and repeat this testing process until each count point achieves >99% accuracy.

Now, begin a system wide accuracy check. Over a period of days and weeks, monitor the accuracy of the entire parking facility and the parking levels or zones, if a level/zone counting system has been installed. Every few days, take a physical count of the facility and compare it to the count shown on the system’s signs and/or on-line administrative interface. It is most practical and easiest to conduct the physical count off-hours when there are few vehicles in the garage and little to no vehicle movement into, out of, or within the garage. Calculate the accuracy percentage and track it over time to see if it remains stable and within a reasonable goal such as 85% over a 30-day period. Ensure that the APGS vendor has not activated any “automatic count resets” during this test period, as those will invalidate the test results.

For Single Space Systems

The methodology for accuracy assessment in single-space systems is somewhat different from in-motion systems. It still relies on the ability to record and retrospectively review camera images. But in this case, they are still images of the parking stalls used to ascertain if they are correctly being detected as occupied or vacant. The leading single space APGS vendors have established procedures that they use both during calibration and accuracy testing which employ comparing the system-reported stall status vs. actual stall status seen in the camera image, initially for all stalls and over time for a statistically valid subset of the stalls. The accuracy should converge to >99.5% and then remain stable over time. Check with your vendor and ask for their detailed testing process. Audit the results by requesting the detailed test information and stall camera images.

In addition to that testing protocol, conduct spot checks of the parking garage looking for incorrect red/green indicator lights. Do this at both idle and very busy times in terms of garage occupancy. If you witness an error on a particular stall or set of stalls, take a picture of the stall(s) that have the error including a view of the sensor/indicator light, and also record the sensor number which is generally labeled on the bottom of the camera sensor. Report these details to the APGS vendor and ask for an analysis and correction of the issues.

What Can Cause Camera-Based APGS Inaccuracy?

Experience has shown that the following sorts of issues may cause inaccuracies in camera-based APGS systems. These are presented roughly in the frequency of occurrence, based on Walker Consultants’ experiences.

• Improper installation or calibration of the cameras or count zones.
• Unusual counting zone traffic patterns for in-motion systems.
• Unusual stall striping orientation for single-space systems.
• Impact of unusual or high-contrast lighting conditions.
• Network wiring issues causing camera image deterioration.
• Poor quality sensors or inferior image processing software.

The underlying causes can often be gleaned from a combination of direct observation and review of recorded camera images.

Conclusion

Walker Consultants applies best practices when assisting clients in specifying, assessing and testing the accuracy of APGS that were previously installed, are retrofitted into an existing garage, or are installed as part of a newly constructed parking facility. We also can assess the underlying causes of inaccuracy and recommend plans to improve it. By applying the knowledge and best practices as outlined in this article, customers, consultants and vendors can increase their confidence in answering the crucial question posed at the beginning of this article: “Do You Know How Accurate Your Parking Guidance System Is?”

About the Author

Based out of Walker’s San Francisco office and as a member of Walker’s Consulting Resources Group, Peter Filice covers Northern California and the Pacific Northwest with expertise in parking technology solutions across multiple vertical markets — municipal, university, commercial garages, hotel, event and stadium, on-street, mixed-use, and airport. In particular, Filice has deep expertise in Automated Parking Guidance Systems (APGS).

[1] In fairness, counting errors can cancel one another (e.g. an overcount of 1 vehicle cancels an undercount of 1 vehicle), but in real-life system experience this does not always occur. Usually no more than 50% of errors cancel.

---

Any photos provided by APGS vendors are used with permission and are for illustrative purposes only. Inclusion of these photos does not constitute an endorsement of these vendors.