Meeting Summary - August 27, 2010

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

Executive Summary

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 current efforts around conducting a Cost Benefit Analysis for connected vehicle applications and a separate breakout session was set aside for this topic.

Cost Benefit Analysis Discussion

Cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) is an essential step in deriving the societal benefits of connected vehicle for the Nation. CBA is comprised of different types of analysis that, overall, provide stakeholders with an understanding of how connected vehicle benefits their organizations.  The purpose of this breakout session was to present on the different approaches proposed for an connected vehicle CBA and to stimulate discussion with stakeholders on their perspective on the opportunities and direct financial impacts of connected vehicle applications.  The session explored specific cases; for example, the case wherein connected vehicle technology could enhance or substitute for older technologies such as loop detectors.  The objective of this session discussion was to validate the CBA and seek input as to the most efficient methods of seeking data from stakeholders. Presentation slides for the CBA discussion can be found here:

• Benefit-Cost Analysis [PDF 246KB]

Moderator

The moderator for this discussion was Sean Peirce from the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

Discussion Summary

The Cost Benefit Analysis discussion primarily focused on the following topics:  

• Benefit Calculations
• Affected Vehicle Populations and Retrofit Scenarios
• Stakeholder Perspective
• Cost Calculations
• Method

Benefit Calculations

• Accuracy of life-saving numbers is critical.  If significant numbers of lives can be saved then cost discussion almost becomes a moot point.
• Prior analyses have used the GES database and restricted accidents by collision type to identify a maximum possible benefit.  This technique appears to be less appropriate for connected vehicle technology due to the difficulty in restricting by collision type.
• Some participants suggested analyzing benefits from technologies already in production (forward collision warning, lane departure, IBVSS, etc) since the volume of information is much higher than what would be available from even large scale pilots.
• The approach should adopt agnostic characteristics—i.e. forward collision warning benefits could come from either on-board sensors or V2V communication, but the benefits would be identical if the systems were equally effective.  Existing forward collision warning data could be analyzed with this perspective in mind.
• There are a number of updates necessary for the CBA. For example, the statistical value of life has been increased to 6 million. Travel time cost has changed, the benefit of CO2 reduction has become important.
• Specific technical implementation is crucial.  Inherent balance between services offered and privacy guaranteed.  Chosen technical path will result in a balance of relative costs and benefits.

Questions

• What sort of effectiveness is realistic to assume for V2V?  How many drivers will heed a warning given to them?  Is there the potential for a countervailing negative effect from information overload?  Data from FAA/pilots could be used for comparison (but is training level an issue?)
• Can environmental benefits from up-to-date maintenance, tire pressure, etc. be quantified and included in CBA?  Will this issue become a political debate around right-to-repair?

Affected Vehicle Populations and Retrofit Scenarios

• How important is a “Day 1” benefit?  At what point does it make sense to retrofit vehicles? Very little data is available on retrofit scenarios.
• Cash for clunkers or digital TV conversion models could both be used to project retrofit rate with incentives.  Recall process could be used to inform consumers although completion rate is still not 100% for recalls.  The political cost of incentives is unclear.
• Incentives could be implemented through insurance discounts—does not necessarily need to be a voucher-type mechanism.
• Fleet model accuracy does not appear to be as critical, as small errors of 1-2M vehicles per year will not have a great impact in overall fleet numbers.

Questions

• Is over-representation of older vehicles in crashes and fatalities being considered?  True cause unclear: typically younger drivers, poorly maintained and safety systems not as advanced.  What are the implications for CBA?
• In a retrofit case, price will have a large impact on adoption.  How does the price of a retrofit DSRC unit compare to the cost of other maintenance being done (or not being done!) on the car?

Stakeholder Perspective

• A macro-scale CBA is not entirely sufficient.  There should be a Detailed CBA for individual stakeholders (i.e. state DOTs, transit operators).
• One example of lower-level CBA is the examination of use of connected vehicle technology to replace other services, i.e. sensors, surveys, ramp metering or roadside displays.  However, connected vehicle technology might not completely replace these services, or V2I DSRC could be integrated into roadside displays or other devices.   Would these be represented as reduced cost (eliminating other infrastructure) or a benefit (improved service quality above existing infrastructure)?
• It is not clear whether connected vehicle technology would increase or decrease litigation costs for stakeholders.  On one hand, reduced crashes would mean fewer litigation expenses, but it may also encourage increased investigation by legal personnel.
• Road mileage nationwide is primarily county or locally owned.  Insufficient representation in this forum from these groups.
• Benefits among travelers would not be evenly distributed either.  For instance, tolling affects a relatively small portion of travelers.  These consumers have no incentive to bear the cost or privacy sacrifices necessary to implement tolling with DSRC.  However, new infrastructure will likely incorporate tolling and congestion pricing is still on the horizon.

Questions

• Is it worth discussing the customer relations management benefit to the OEM?
• Can employment be viewed as a cost or benefit component?  Generally these have been avoided because they require vast economic assumptions.
• Should trucking groups be involved in discussions?  Truck accidents less frequent but horrific (emotional) and expensive.  Driver attrition regarding safety is also a problem.
• From a transit perspective, what sensors could connected vehicle technology replace (AVL? APC?) What improved services could be offered?
• How are legal risks distributed?  Driver is no longer solely responsible but is acting on information from others.  Similarly, vehicle OEMs will also need to rely on information provided by others.

Cost Calculations

• An accurate estimate of the cost of the onboard unit is important—unit cost will be multiplied by 230 Million vehicles.  An error of $50 results in an enormous cost difference.
• It’s difficult to get accurate cost numbers.   Either query at a confidential level with OEs or use the Alliance, others, so that members are anonymized, behavior doesn’t appear collusive.  The cost numbers are enormous.
• It is uncertain as to whether user fees will eventually exist. Transaction costs associated with long-term vehicle communications add up and will need to be addressed.
• Difficult to assign a cost to the potential loss of privacy.  For many consumers this is an emotional issue.  Public perception has a big impact.  Crashes are a relatively rare event, making it difficult to compare the potential loss of privacy with a reduction in the likelihood of an accident.

Method

• Perform preliminary analysis and distribute a document in advance of a conference—then solicit comments and incorporate into a new analysis.
• A Monte Carlo analysis is appropriate for dealing with uncertainties.
• V2V should be used as a base case, with marginal benefits from select, targeted V2I implementations added later.  Participants commented that this can be difficult because areas with high accident rates (i.e. dangerous intersections) are usually addressed with infrastructure or signaling changes.

Questions

• Should V2V & V2I cost-benefit assessments be merged into one system assessment?