Meeting Summary — August 27, 2010

Produced by:
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Research and Innovative Technology Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation

Presenters

Monique Evans
Director, FHWA Office of Safety RD&T
U.S. Department of Transportation

Greg Davis
FHWA Office of Safety RD&T
U.S. Department of Transportation

Ed Fok
Traffic Management / Systems Operation Engineer
FHWA Resource Center, FHWA
U.S. Department of Transportation

Suzanne Sloan
Industry Analyst
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Research and Innovative Technology Administration  
U.S. Department of Transportation

Executive Summary

Connected Vehicle Safety Workshop

The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO) hosted a three day connected vehicle workshop from July 20th – 22nd, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois. The objectives of the workshop were to provide an informational briefing on the status of connected vehicle Safety Programs, solicit stakeholder feedback on the program roadmaps, and discuss policy issues critical to supporting deployment. On the first day of the workshop, presentations were given on the technical roadmaps for each connected vehicle Safety research program. Stakeholders were encouraged to provide input on program roadmaps and ask questions. The second day of the workshop included a bidder’s conference for DSRC devices and an connected vehicle policy discussion. Finally, the last day of the workshop was dedicated to smaller breakout sessions focusing on specific topics that were of interest to stakeholders. Stakholders expressed an interest in discussing the technical roadmap for the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Safety and a separate breakout session was set aside for this topic.

V2I Safety Discussion

Connected vehicle research is a multimodal initiative that aims to enable networked wireless communications among vehicles, the infrastructure, and passengers' personal communications devices. Connected vehicle research is being sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and others to leverage the potentially transformative capabilities of wireless technology to achieve safety, mobility, and environmental benefits for surface transportation.

The topic of the breakout session on Thursday, July 22nd was the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) Safety Applications Roadmap. The V2I Safety Applications Roadmap outlines the different technical programs and research being conducted under the V2I Safety program. The roadmap is divided into five different tracks: a) Applications Analysis, b) Prototype Development, c) Infrastructure Communications and Interoperability, d) Benefits Assessments and e) Deployment Planning. The roadmap has not yet been finalized and is still subject to revision and review.  Stakeholders were asked to provide comment and feedback on the roadmap during the breakout session. Over 80 individuals attended the session, representing a diverse range of stakeholder groups. There were representatives from device manufacturers, state transportation agencies, vehicle manufacturers, telecommunications organizations, and industry associations in attendance. The presenters discussed in detail the V2I Safety Applications Roadmap and facilitated question and answer sessions. The key comments, questions and answers are provided below.  Presentation slides for this session can be found at:

• Connected Vehicle to Infrastructure Connectivity for Safety Applications [PDF 230KB]

Track 1: Application Analyses

Overview

Key objective

Determine high value safety applications for initial V2I safety deployment.

Major outputs

A set of applications that will be further developed in Track 2.

Items to be Covered

• Status of CICAS-SLTA
• Multimodal Applications Analyses
• Selection of Safety V2I Applications

Key Comments

• It is important to evaluate whether other technology solutions, besides DSRC, can be used to accomplish safety objectives.  Each solution should be evaluated individually to decide whether a cheaper, more effective solution is available.
• V2I offers significant potential for developing mobility and environmental applications. Attendees were interested in whether there was work being done in these areas and were concerned that there would not be enough activity in the non-safety application areas.
• There was interest in how applications would be vetted with the stakeholder community. The process should include a strong cost benefit assessment and public review period.

Questions & Answers

• This program only focuses on safety; however, it seems that V2I is stronger for mobility and environmental applications.  Will you be looking at this?
  • Yes, we agree that mobility and environmental applications are strong for V2I. Part of the issue is to ensure that we present information.
• Is the issue of signal preemption (for emergency vehicles) included in the roadmap?
  • It is in the Safety roadmap, we are not sure where, but we are looking at this.
• What is meant by the term ‘migration’ in the V2I context?
  • Migration activity refers to an effort where we look at ITS countermeasures that are only infrastructure based and how they might be migrated into a more cooperative solution. It looks at an infrastructure only solution to the V2I environment.
• What is your process for selecting applications?
  • We will identify safety countermeasures in the V2I environment, the “low hanging fruit” or early adopters. We hope to integrate this with the research that is already taking place, especially within the private sector. We may identify additional applications that come along, which may merit additional research. We will be conducting outreach to stakeholders throughout this process in order to gain input on developing the applications.
• What types of applications are you looking at?
  • We are performing a crash factor study, looking at different types of crash scenarios. We found that the number one crash scenario is single vehicle lane departure crashes. It is not yet clear whether these types of crashes could be addressed more effectively using V2V or V2I.  Regardless, we foresee that signal applications, enabling SPAT applications, will be able to address a high value crash scenario.
• Are you going to solicit research for evaluating these applications or will this be done internally?
  • We are going to issue statements of work (SOWs) and contracts for this work (research).
• How can we obtain a high quality digital roadmap, or better information? Is it possible to do this by leveraging states and counties? Could we digitize where road boundaries are, while state DOTs are striking the roads?
  • We understand that there is a need for better information. This is an interesting thought and is something we could look into.
• There are relevant activities occurring in Europe around ADAs, including general specifications. They released a recent version (version 2), will you look at this?

• Yes, we are looking at this and considering it. Regarding harmonization, we cannot speak to these activities yet.

Track 2: Prototype Development

Overview

Key Objective

Develop and validate prototypes of high value cooperative safety applications that will be field tested in Track 4.

Major Outputs

Prototype applications ready for integration with infrastructure components and the vehicle components.

Items to be Covered

• Multimodal Concepts of Operations
• Development of Prototype Applications

Key Comments

• Driver interface work should be included in the V2I roadmap. This work should be addressed sooner versus later. If devices will be communicating with drivers, then there must be an interface. In addition, driver distraction is a key issue that should be clearly addressed.
• Certain aspects of the timeline seemed too aggressive for some stakeholders. For example, the Systems Engineering (SE) timeline seemed to be quite aggressive. From the industry perspective, this process would take longer than what is outlined in the roadmap.
• It was suggested that stakeholder engagement occur on the ‘front’ end versus the ‘back’ end. Stakeholders could be involved in developing the concept of operations rather than simply reviewing or commenting on it once it has already been developed.

Questions and Answers

• What is your definition of multi-modal?
  • Transit, freight, and other vehicle types. This definition also includes all types of pedestrians (e.g. visually impaired) and bicycles.
• Track 1 is complete after the first quarter in 2011. The concept of operations is then scheduled soon after, which does not seem to provide a lot of time for completing the concept of operations. How will you address this?
  • We understand that the schedule is a bit aggressive here. There are preliminary activities that will occur while the Track 1 activities are being carried out.
• Is there a schedule for Systems Engineering work? From our experience, the concept of operations to specification is at least a 3-4 month effort. A full 6 months for the SE work seems to be more realistic than the 4 month effort you have listed here.
  • Yes, we have a Systems Engineering team working on V2I and we will go and try to align this work together.  We are conducting stakeholder engagement over the next several months to understand user needs. There will be an opportunity for stakeholder input here.
• Does the V2I program have driver interface work included? How will this align with Track 5 of the V2V program?
  • We are still reviewing this. How we communicate with the driver in the vehicle has been a major part of our discussion. We have a driver distraction policy.
• It is difficult to discuss driver interface if we are still unclear on what we are transmitting to the driver. What is the application and will this be detailed here (in the roadmap)?
  • We are looking into this.
• Does NHTSA have any influence over retrofit devices?
  • Yes, NHTSA has regulatory influence over retrofit devices, but not aftermarket equipment. Since retrofit equipment is considered vehicle equipment, is under the purview of NHTSA. Also, NHTSA has regulatory control over new vehicles.

Track 3: Infrastructure Communications and Interoperability

Overview

Key Objective

Provide the critical technology underpinnings that allow safety applications to be deployed nationally.

Major Outputs

Integrated V2I Infrastructure System needed for exchange of useful data and information.

Items to be Covered

• Definition of SPaT Interface and Policy Guidance
• Infrastructure Systems Interoperability and Communications
• Integrated V2I Infrastructure System (Reference Implementation)
• Applications Certification Requirements

Key Comments

No comments.

Questions & Answers

No questions.

Track 4: Benefits Assessment

Overview

Key Objective

Conduct field operational tests and simulations.

Major Outputs

Reports covering cost-benefit analyses and the associated potential risks for deployment of V2I safety applications.

Items to be Covered

• Prototype Application Evaluations
• Benefit & Risk Analyses

Key Comments

• There are many commonalities between the V2V and V2I Safety programs, for example issues around driver interfaces and mapping. There should be distinct effort dedicated to looking at the activities that align with each other across the programs for collaboration purposes.
• The schedule for certain activities seem too aggressive. For example, selecting test areas, hardening applications, and piloting field operational tests can take a significant amount of time. There must be a risk mitigation strategy or cushion for errors and delays.
• The roadmap should include a standard category of unintended consequences.
• Several stakeholders emphasized the need for demonstrating real safety benefits and then being able to communicate the value of these benefits to the broader community.

Questions & Answers

• The mapping prototype and positioning prototype activities are overlapping activities. How will you reconcile this?
  • Yes, these activities overlap. We are working on this.
• What kinds of functional requirements and certification requirements will there be and how will this be carried out?
  • The initial idea was to certify under each application. Requirements will be detailed in the original concept of operations and then refined under each application certification.
• Will you include bi-lane communications on the highway?
  • Yes, we will. We are not limiting ourselves to just signalized intersections. We are looking at non-signalized intersections as well.
• Have you looked into dual tracks for when a car already has embedded mapping capabilities? Could this vehicle use SPaT more quickly?
  • Yes, we have looked at this. We do not have enough detail yet, about how this will affect us. The mapping and positioning activities are correlated with each other. We do not want to develop good mapping, but poor positioning because then the car cannot position itself.
• Current standards are not performance based. Deployment needs a different level of standards to adhere to than the prototype.
  • Yes, we are aware of this. This work is progressing in a SAE subcommittee.
• Is there an infrastructure equipment certification requirement or process? For example, do technicians need to be certified? What are the back office requirements and what needs to be certified?
  • We do have a certification roadmap. We do expect to receive input from that roadmap to help us guide our process for infrastructure equipment.
• Can you elaborate on what is meant by simulation activities?
  • A field operational test can be very costly.  As we evaluate the applications, we may make a determination as to whether to do a field operational test (FOT) or a simulation. We envision a simulation as a computer model to assess driver responses and traffic patterns, etc.
• How are you evaluating international collaboration in your activities?
  • We have a formal agreement with Europeans for safety applications and field testing. Under this international collaboration activity, we have work on two safety applications. We are looking to share field data and leverage common data. We are also looking at a possible partnership with Japan.

Track 5: Deployment Planning

Overview

Key Objective

Develop tools and guidelines that will aid practitioners in making sound decisions on how to plan, deploy, operate, and maintain V2I systems.

Major Outputs

Public Agency Guidelines and Specifications (“Toolbox”)

Items to be Covered

• Infrastructure Study / Footprint Analysis
• Definition of Public Agency Requirements
• Development of Public Agency Guidelines and Specifications – Toolbox

Key Comments

• Deployment of traffic signals are not necessarily operated by states but are operated by cities and counties. The local transportation agencies may not know anything about connected vehicle applications and so it is important to be aware of this.
• AASHTO represents an organization that could be leveraged for performing outreach to counties.  Other organizations that could be useful for local outreach include: the state chapters of ITE, ITSA, and the transit industry. It is crucial to reach out to the local traffic engineers and people who will actually be operating the system.
• There needs to be a clear sense of the safety benefits and what the business model is for the program.  Instead of just a cost analysis, there should be tangible benefits associated with this program in order for other stakeholder groups, such as local transportation agencies and elected officials to see value.
• There must be continuity of what comes out of this workshop, such as a decision or summary.  For example, a document that outlines the decisions made, decisions still needed, and what decisions are coming out of the workshop as a way to move the program forward.

Questions & Answers

• Is there a commitment to deploy and is there a path for a funding model that leads to deployment commitment?
  • This is part of the research roadmap. There is cooperative work currently being performed with AASHTO around deployment scenarios. Also, the issue of funding is a policy area and is being evaluated by the policy team.
• Connected vehicle applications are not open to other forms of communications media. Are you going to see how this could work with 5.9GHz DSRC?
  • Yes, we are going to look at this. It is being talked about and it part of our discussion.
• A critical track is the deployment of mobility apps for DSRC based mobility. What is the USDOT doing to advance that? For example, it could be used to grab probe data.
  • With the SPaT work, we have kept an open mind, but the mission critical has been around DSRC.
• The tests you are currently proposing seem appropriate for first steps, but are you planning on using real world (many vehicles) scenarios for testing?
  • Yes, we will do testing of high-volume applications in a real world scenario.