Brent Jennings Highway Safety Manager, Idaho TD. June 24, 2013 SCOHTS/SCOTE Joint Meeting

Transcription

1 Jim McDonnell Director of Engineering, AASHTO Brent Jennings Highway Safety Manager, Idaho TD Neil Pedersen Deputy Director, SHRP2, TRB June 24, 2013 SCOHTS/SCOTE Joint Meeting

2 SHRP2 Overview Jim McDonnell Program Director for Engineering AASHTO 2

3 What Is SHRP 2? $220+ million 9-year research and development program designed to address biggest issues facing the highway industry Needs identified by State DOT and industry leaders driven by customer-oriented goals: Make highways safer: revolutionary change Fix highways: address epidemic of aging infrastructure Reduce congestion: increase physical and operational capacity Implementation phase underway by FHWA and AASHTO 3

4 Four Focus Areas Safety: fielding the largest-ever naturalistic driving study to reduce crashes and save lives through understanding driver behavior Renewal: making rapid, innovative construction possible for ordinary projects Reliability: Providing management and technical tools to reduce congestion through operations Capacity: Systematizing collaborative decision making to achieve better, faster project decisions 4

5 Turning Research into Every Day Practice For past two years, SHRP2 research has been wrapping up and implementation gearing up Products include: Guides Software tools New processes Technologies and Tools Testing procedures Collaborative-decision making protocols In the case of safety, analysis of new, insightful driver-behavior understanding 8/20/2013 5

6 Moving into implementation As products moved from research to readiness, so did the leadership of the program TRB remains in lead research role AASHTO and FHWA partnership key in implementation AASHTO and FHWA internal implementation activities Staff changes to position SHRP2 implementation more effectively Dedicated personnel for SHRP2 Bringing on technical specialists in each focus area

7 Prioritizing States Needs AASHTO s role is focused on identifying which products meet the states practical needs We are relying on members and committees to define how implementation can be successful 8/20/2013 7

8 AASHTO s Implementation Task Force 20+ surveys conducted, outreach throughout all AASHTO committees and subcommittees 11 meetings of Focus Area teams Engagement of FHWA and TRB Comprehensive draft straw recommendation for ITF consideration ITF Meeting, March 28-29, State DOTs Implementation recommendations coordinated with FHWA Total implementation budget: $169 million

9 FHWA s Implementation Assistance Program Opportunities for implementation assistance Proof of Concept Pilots Lead Adopter Incentives User Incentives Timeline Application process through FHWA First round awards announced May 3, 2013 Tentative schedule for second round: Product announcements in June Product webinars in July Solicitation in early August, final applications due early September; announcement October 9

10 What s Your Role? Apply for the next round of implementation assistance Become a champion for the products that fit your program Identify key technical stakeholders and advocates within your states Carry the message back to your colleagues and peers Become a lead state Provide panel members for upcoming Implementation Planning Workshops Participate in technical transfer and implement products 10

11 Safety Focus Area Research Neil Pedersen SHRP2 Deputy Director Transportation Research Board 8/20/

12 SHRP2 Safety Program Goal Study goal: Improve traffic safety by obtaining objective information on driver behavior and driver interaction with the vehicle and the roadway Build the Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) and Roadway (RID) databases: 3,900 vehicle-years and 12,500 roadway centerline miles Make the data accessible: full data to qualified researchers, deidentified data to general public Use the data: study key safety issues that can t be studied with other databases; use results to develop new countermeasures and improve existing countermeasures Vision: to make a revolutionary improvement in highway safety saving thousands of lives per year 12

13 Naturalistic Driving Studies Method: continuous observation of volunteer drivers in ordinary driving for months or years What do drivers really do? Speeding, tailgating, cell phone, alcohol How do these actions affect crash risk? What were they doing just before they crashed? Usual crash studies can only guess. How do drivers react to cues and countermeasures from the vehicle and the roadway environment? Several previous small naturalistic driving studies 100-car: Northern Virginia, one year, 100 vehicle-years, 10 years old SHRP 2 NDS: 40 times larger, national scale SHRP 2 data will be used for up to 30 years 13

14 Camera Image Samples Forward View - color 15 Hz continuous video Driver Face Rotated for max pixel efficiency Right-Rear View Center stack Pedal Interactions Periodic still cabin image, permanently blurred for passenger anonymity 14

15 NDS Study Design Largest Naturalistic Driving Study Ever Undertaken 3,000 primary drivers, all age/gender groups. 3,900 data years; 5 M trip files; 32 M vehicle miles 2 years of data collection Most participants 1 to 2 years Vehicle Types: All light vehicles including Passenger Cars Minivans SUVs Pickup Trucks Six data collection sites Integration w/ detailed roadway information 450 vehicles Data useful for next generation of researchers 300 vehicles 150 vehicles 15

16 NDS Data Overview Multiple Videos Machine Vision Eyes Forward Monitor Lane Tracker Accelerometer Data (3 axis) Rate Sensors (3 axis) GPS Latitude, Longitude, Elevation, Time, Velocity Forward Radar X and Y positions X and Y Velocities Cell Phone Records Beginning and end of all cell phone conversations on major carriers Passive Alcohol Sensor Illuminance sensor Infrared illumination Incident push button Audio (only on incident push button) Turn signals Vehicle network data Accelerator Brake pedal activation ABS Gear position Steering wheel angle Speed Horn Seat Belt Information Airbag deployment Many more variables 16

17 Roadway Data Overview New data: collected at highway speed, about 12,500 centerline miles (both directions) focus on data needed for lane departure and intersections curvature location, length, radius; grade; cross-slope; lane number, width, type; shoulder type (width if paved); MUTCD signs; VMSs; medians; rumble strips; lighting; intersection location, number of approaches, and control type; videolog Existing data from state inventory: any available roadway information varies by site - for over 200,000 miles of roadway Supplemental data: traffic, weather; work zones; crashes; roadway improvements; laws; safety campaigns 17

18 Status and Schedule for Data Data as of June 13, ,934 participants on the road, 1,151 completed 3,354 vehicle-years in database, 86% of 3,900 goal 31.4 M vehicle-miles; projected total 36 M 386 known crashes (more in database not yet identified) 10,560 centerline miles of roadway data collected, 85% of goal Schedule Complete NDS and RID data collection by November 2013 Complete data files by March

19 Side Benefits of Roadway Information Database Project Automated collection of data that was previously manually collected Data collection technology evaluation Procedures of integrating data from different sources Quality assurance processes Minimum accuracy requirements Linking roadway data to non-nds crash data 8/20/

20 Overview of NDS Data Size: the file is huge 4 petabytes = 4 million 1 gig flash drives 5 M trips; 32 M miles of driving Complexity: different data types Categorical data constant over a trip: driver age, vehicle type Sampled data: collected at different rates (once a trip up to 640 Hz during a crash): speed, acceleration, GPS position, radar, Video data from 4 cameras; must be interpreted and reduced Automated reduction: lane tracker, head tracker Manual reduction: all other items for specific analyses Roadway data linked to trip data via GPS Privacy considerations: personally-identifying data 20

21 Getting Manageable Datasets for Use Trip summary files Categorical data on each trip to help users identify trips of interest Trip, roadway, vehicle, and driver variables Reduced data Trips or trip segments for specific research areas: trips with drivers who don t wear seatbelts; trips on rural 2-lane curves Retain only NDS and RID variables needed for research area Event files: crashes, near-crashes, baseline Brief (30 sec.) data segments at events of interest Near-crashes defined by sudden braking, steering Baseline events defined in various ways: random; match same driver, time, and road Public data De-identified data in various formats 21

22 Status, Schedule for Data Trip summary files Initial files: summer 2013 Enhanced files, updates: spring 2014, as resources permit Reduced data files For 3 SHRP 2 analysis contractors & FHWA researcher: spring 2013 For other users: fall 2013, as resources permit Event files: crashes, near-crashes, baseline Crash and some near-crash files: spring 2013; updated thereafter Expanded near-crash and exposure files: fall 2013, as resources permit Public data files Initial files: summer 2013 Complete quality-controlled data files available spring

23 Three Pilot Projects Run-off-road crashes on rural 2-lane curves Effects of signs, markers, chevrons CTRE, Iowa State University Offset left-turn lanes Effect on safety, design guidance MRIGlobal Driver glance behavior What glance patterns are safer SAFER Status Phase 1 proof of concept completed Phase 2 contract awards spring 2013 Final reports July

24 Interest in Use of the Data Serious inquiries from: Federal: FHWA, NHTSA, NIH Transportation associations: AASHTO, GHSA Automobile manufacturers: Ford, GM, Honda, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota Universities: Iowa State, Massachusetts, Michigan, Virginia, Wayne State, Washington Insurance: Travelers Other: AAAFTS, BAS Consultants, Boeing, CUBRC, Honeywell Labs, Lextant, MEA Forensic, Mentor edata, NEC Labs, PIRE, Interests include: Rural intersections, alcohol, cell phones, safety laws and campaigns, driver assessments, pedestrians, 8/20/

25 NRC Long-term Stewardship Committee Charge: advise USDOT, NAS, and USDOT Topics include database ownership and management, resources, oversight, security, legal issues, user access and support Consider a broad range of potential data users: State DOTs and highway safety offices, FHWA, NHTSA, auto manufacturers, universities, insurance companies, other businesses and organizations Consider a broad range of user interests: rural intersections, alcohol, cell phones, pedestrian signage and markings, safety campaigns, Initial meeting in February, first letter report in May 25

26 Safety Implementation Strategy Brent Jennings Highway Safety Manager, Idaho Transportation Department Safety Research Technical Coordinating Committee Safety Focus Area Team 8/20/

27 Safety Implementation year Plan: $10M as a placeholder for safety 2013 Survey on Safety data Speed-related data sets Driver distraction data sets Aggressive driving data sets Driver behavior data sets Lane departure data sets Intersection-related data sets Safety Focus Area Team developed and engaged Strategy designed to complement TRB s work 8/20/

28 Unique Attributes of Safety Focus Area Data not process, technologies or strategies Decisions needed to make NDS data most useful to the field practitioner What to study - safety topic/question Funding for a sub-set of data - reduced data set Funding analysis - research to answer key questions Distribution of data to decision makers to act on the findings, possibly including: Countermeasures Manual updates New standards New strategies 8/20/

29 Survey Process Survey should contribute to, but not solely determine safety research topics Survey open for two weeks 108 responses received Committees surveyed were Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety (SCOHTS) SCOHTS Subcommittee on Safety Management Standing Committee on Highways (SCOH) SCOH - Subcommittee on Traffic Engineering SCOH - Subcommittee on Design Technical Committee on Geometric Design SCOH Subcommittee on Systems Operation and Management Standing Committee on Research (SCOR) SCOR - Research Advisory Council Governors Highway Safety Association 29

30 Survey Results Ranking by Data Sets Lane Departure 2.95 Speed-Related 2.97 Driver Distraction 3.10 Driver Behavior 3.48 Intersection-Related 3.83 Aggressive Driving = most preferred 8/20/

31 Near Term Implementation Strategy Begin to capitalize on the available data to pursue safety research that represents State DOT priorities. Focus Area Team Members: Tom Cole, Idaho Dept Trans and ITF member Brent Jennings, Idaho Dept Trans John Milton, Washington State DOT Leanna Depue, Missouri DOT Brad Estochen, Minnesota DOT Dean Kanitz, Michigan DOT Hadi Shirazi, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Robert Hull, Utah Department of Transportation Tim Barnett, Alabama DOT Also FHWA, AASHTO and TRB partner support 8/20/

32 Near Term Activity cont. Intent is to: Create an accelerated path to implementation that helps drives down crash numbers Ingrain the NDS research into AASHTO committee activities, considerations Patterned after S08 projects Demonstrate full spectrum of implementation process - concept to countermeasure Utilize $ 5.8M of implementation funds This activity will not delay the overall completion of the NDS database Vetted and recommended by the AASHTO ITF 8/20/

33 AASHTO Auto Industry. UTCs NHTSA FHWA The Safety strategy teams multiple partners to scope research that could serve multiple ends and uses Standards, policies, updates etc. Research leads to the creation of new countermeasures

34 The Path Forward Team AASHTO, TRB and FHWA form concept to countermeasure teams including a variety of industry stakeholders to help guide each study process through to implementation Scope Data The teams scope and identify the desired research with the clear intent to seek implementable results The teams with the help of NDS database experts, scope the construct of the reduced data sets to ensure they are as useful as possible for the current and future research. 8/20/

35 The Path Forward cont. Research Researchers (and/or states partnered with UTC s) are selected and conduct the research. Possible FHWA Implementation Assistance opportunity, utilizing a portion of the available funding. Share Research findings are reported to the planning teams, AASHTO committees, FHWA, the Governor's Highway Safety Administration, NHTSA, automobile manufacturers and others Apply The planning teams scope additional tasks for the appropriate engineering firms or research organizations to convert the research findings into actionable changes Act AASHTO committees and others can consider whether to adopt the recommended changes to standards, manuals, policies or practices 8/20/

36 Best estimate on costs Based on average S08 pilot costs, the costs to implement would be approximately as shown Presently $5.8 M available for Safety in SHRP implementation plan Could potentially fund 3 to 4 research projects, depending on scale/scope Implementation Estimate Produce data set $350,000 Analyze data set $650,000 Produce new standard, strategy $400,000 Manage total process $300,000 Total estimate $1,700,000 8/20/

37 Recommendation Endorse Safety implementation strategy Focus on highest risk factors to get the biggest reduction in crashes Focus on crash types that we can influence Form teams to evaluate topics, begin discussions, include: AASHTO committee members to champion actions/countermeasures FHWA and TRB NHTSA, GHSA, auto industry, law enforcement Researchers who understand the NDS database 8/20/2013 Crash-Related Factors in Highway Fatalities from AASHTO Highway Safety Plan* Run off road % No seat belt % Impaired % Speed % Suspended licenses % Older % Intersections % Distraction ** % Heavy Truck % Pedestrian % Reckless % Work Zones % Young Drivers % Bicyclists 622 1% Train 324 1% * Factors exceed 100% because of multiple factors in many crashes **Distraction from 2009 NHTSA 37

38 Questions? For more SHRP2 information: 38

39 Lane Departure 8/20/

40 Driver distraction 8/20/

41 Driver behavior 8/20/

42 Intersection related 8/20/

43 Aggressive Driving 8/20/