In addition to solutions for after the motor is seized, Is DoT interested in technologies to prevent it from happening as well?

Finding payment propensity via AI/ML could help disincentivize speeding while preventing lower-income motorists from spiraling into a debt trap. Motorists from all over the US travel our roadways and creating a system to target the appropriate fine levels based on sociodemographic and larger economic factors or trends could help the department meet its goals of safety and protect our motorists from excessive fines and fees. Local governments have struggled with fines and fees and a large scale speed camera program needs to have fiscal equity, sustainability, and fairness.

The current videos from cameras do not depict an area for analysis (some type of marker) to identify the "Conflict Zone" under AI inspection. Is it implied that a method will be included in the implementation design to provide this information, or will that be provided in some manner by the local DOT?

On the topic of identifying and predicting trajectory conflicts, should we restrict our focus to only conflicts resulting from vehicles caught in the dilemma zone, or are we to consider all conflicts occurring within 75 ft of the intersection stop bars? e.g. are conflicts arising from left turns within the scope of the SBIR?

The SBIR is specific for signal controlled intersections, as that is where the dilemma zone occurs. But how much, if any, consideration should be given to methods adapting signal timing based upon the results? For example, if the system predicts which vehicles will be in the dilemma zone, should it also suggest signal timing to minimize the number of vehicles that will be in the dilemma zone?

Radar, Lidar and Video imaging have made huge strides in the past few years - I think this topic should be open to other technologies or fusion of other technologies. The pre-selection of video, or video only appears too narrow and not in tune with recent advances in the field. I suggest keeping the theme, but broadening the allowable approach.

Are there any transit cost guidelines for connecting individuals and families to non-desert areas? Can we prose multiple methods of transit (not just public transit) to examine solutions?

Would a non-embedded sensor be acceptable for this solicitation? If the concrete has cured enough that it can be driven over, a non-contact sensor could be placed on the back of or under a vehicle and data collected, likely when the vehicle is traveling at normal driving speeds.

The solicitation specifically instructs solutions to use public transportation. Can we also seek solutions using private transportation providers, such as food delivery services?

The topic mentioned “A system should be developed to collect the truck weight data and truck identification information, translate the data to a usable format for non-professionals, and be able to transmit the information offsite”. Does the "usable format" mean pounds, ton, etc.? Should the system determine the truck is overweight or not, or it should give how much pounds the truck is overweight? Is the data transmission using cellular system acceptable?

There are two main points of study in the pre-solicitation: identifying trajectory conflicts, and identifying when a vehicle is in the dilemma zone.

In the pre-solicitation notice, it mentions a success metric of less than 20 percent false-positive rate for trajectory conflicts. Is there a similar metric of success when determining whether a car is in the dilemma zone? If not, should we provide a metric based upon our particular approach, and include reasoning about the application of the metric?

Can you describe what qualifies as progress during phase 2 of the pilot. Is it a level 1 success when X amount of people reach the non-desert (Healthy Food Available) area from a population of Y? Once in the non-desert what level of healthy food purchase indicates progress, or is that a relative level to the person we should be measuring?

Is it possible for more than one project to be funded on the same topic?

If so, what would it be?

Is commuter identity verification during user onboarding meant to be part of the system or integrated from an existing system?

Are we expected to conduct a formal collaboration with candidate testing sites prior to the publication of the Phase 1 report?

Should we expect the system to be subsidized for the purpose of incentivisation, or should it remain closed to external funding and self-sustaining? Are both approaches up for consideration?

Hello, What kind of information would you like to see in the proposal?

Do we need to design and architect how the application should work?

Do we need to Include wireframes, etc.?

Can you please provide us with a sample of how the proposal should look?

Thank you