Cars, Buses, Trucks, Plows — 
IVI Working Groups Meet Again to Review Government’s Plans and Priorities
IVsource.net
27 July 2000

The output of the 1998 meetings was considered pivotal, both in establishing industry support for the then-fledgling IVI program and in providing concrete recommendations for the program’s focus.  These recommendations guided USDOT’s selection of operational test and research projects that are now ongoing.

USDOT officials affirmed that the IVI effort will be $30M annually with the majority of funding going to passenger car activities.  The program has stabilized on the four platforms of passenger cars, heavy trucks, transit buses, and specialty vehicles, with “supporting infrastructure” as a cross-cutting function.  All four platforms will be funded to some extent.

ITS America served as the sponsor of the meetings; ITSA staff members provided support and recorded notes of all meetings.

Given that all four meetings were held simultaneously,  the IVsource.net reporting staff (i.e., Bishop) was challenged in covering all of the action!   However, from talking to attendees, the following highlights were gleaned.

Light Vehicle Group to USDOT: “Speed Up”

This invitation-only group, chaired by Dr. Mike Shulman of Ford, was attended by automotive manufacturers General Motors, Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, and Toyota, in addition to university representatives from California PATH, Virginia Tech, and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.  USDOT was represented by Dr. David Smith, IVI Light Vehicles Platform Director, and ITS America staffer Eric Traube provided support.

Issues raised in the meeting reflected those brought forth during the National IVI Meeting earlier in the week (see the IVsource.net Reading Room for more background on presentations held during the National Meeting).

In order for USDOT’s program to be a viable influence in this industry, the group made it clear that they want a more speedy response from the government in communicating research results, the pace of programs, and in negotiating contracts and research agreements.  (The Enabling Research proposal from the automakers remains in negotiation with NHTSA after almost a full year.)

The probability of success of IV technology was also discussed — what will the true market demand be?  Will the public want it?  Where is the market going?  Until answers to these questions emerge, the true impact of IV systems will be unknown. 

It was noted that overlap in system designs can be expected, which will also affect evaluation testing.  Sensors are expected to be increasingly synergistic; for instance, image processing can support lane departure warning (lateral control) and also augment sensing for Adaptive Cruise Control (longitudinal control). 

The lack of baseline data is a real concern to this group.  Data is needed on how drivers currently drive, and on how current systems are used ... data that requires significant resources to collect and interpret.  The working group discussed the possibility of  the automotive industry providing additional resources, as USDOT “can’t fund everything.”

While no conclusions were reached, USDOT Secretary Rodney Slater’s ambitious goals for crash and injury reductions were discussed, as was the newly-hot topic of driver distraction relating to telematics devices.

The hours passed quickly, and the group agreed to reconvene in the next few months to come to closure on several items.

“Stretch” Goals Set for Transit Vehicles 

A group of about 20 transit professionals gathered to discuss the direction of the transit IVI program, with Utah Transit Authority General Manager John Inglish as chair.  USDOT was represented by Walt Kulyk, Director of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Technology Innovation, and by Brian Cronin, IVI Transit Platform Director.  Other transit  agencies represented were MARTA (Atlanta) and WMATA (Washington, DC), as well as the American Public Transit Association (APTA).  Technical representatives were also present for IVI projects in Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania), Ann Arbor (Michigan), and San Mateo (California).  ITS America was represented by Harriet Smith and Larry Shulman.

FTA noted the synergies between transit IVI and its ongoing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) program, which in some locations will include electronically guided buses to implement new service.

To match other platforms goals, FTA wanted a set of “stretch” goals for 2010, and significant discussion centered around what these goals should be.  Statements heard at the meeting (not verbatim) included: 

•  “10% of new transit buses will be equipped with some form of effective IVI system by 2010” 
•  “By 2010, preventable crashes involving transit buses will be reduced by 20%” 

FTA also wants to plan a transit IVI field operational test for FY01, and they sought input as to what activities and approaches are best.  After discussion, one idea in particular resonated with the group: taking the three ongoing performance specification projects (San Mateo rear end collision warning, Ann Arbor rear impact warning, and Pittsburgh lane change warning) and integrate them on a set of buses to assess integration issues.  Some felt operational testing would be most naturally initiated after the performance spec programs are complete in 2001/02, although others felt that transit IVI would lose momentum by waiting this long.

The group re-affirmed Transit IVI recommendations from 1998, which set out transit IVI priorities as:

•  Rear end collision countermeasures
•  Rear impact collision countermeasures
•  Lane change / merge collision countermeasures
•  Precision maneuvering / docking

R&D towards the first three items is ongoing, with only precision maneuvering languishing.  FTA’s Cronin spoke of potentially using their Joint Partnership Program (JPP) to initiate work in this area.

For the longer term, approaches to pedestrian detection systems were discussed (Carnegie Mellon University has done preliminary work in this area).  Transit players reaffirmed that pedestrian collisions are a very hot issue even though the numbers are low.   It appears that some type of project will go forward in this area, although its not clear how high-tech or low-tech it should be — a high-tech solution will detect a hazardous pedestrian situation and warn the driver, whereas a low-tech solution will simply increase the driver’s visibility/awareness of pedestrians.

Transit is emerging as potentially the lead implementor for intersection collision countermeasures — a key priority for USDOT — as buses operate in urban environments and fleets serve as excellent testbeds.

Attendees at this meeting included Mack Trucks, Navistar, and Volvo Trucks North America.  The National Private Truck Council, the American Trucking Association, and the Truck Manufacturers Association were also represented, as well as fleets US Express and Landstar.  The group is chaired by Jack Gemender of Navistar, with Kate Hartman, IVI Commercial Vehicle Platform Director with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminstration (FMCSA), representing USDOT.  Fred Daly of ITS America provided staff support.

The status of ongoing commercial vehicle operational test projects was presented by Mack and Volvo and discussed in detail.  Kate Hartman provided a heads-up on two upcoming programs for  FY2001 — an electronic braking system (EBS) program (likely to be awarded to Volvo) and an open solicitation for drowsy driver countermeasures testing.

The group discussed what technologies should be “Generation 1” versus “Generation 2” phases.  (The current contracts are defined as “Generation 0.”)  It was pointed out that successive generations should be approached programatically as a series of waves, not simply sequentially.  Thus, advanced programs would be in the design phase while near-term programs are in the test phase.

While it was noted that the  benefits of technology need to be analyzed in an “unbundled” mode, it was nevertheless agreed that the technologies are likely to be offered on the market as a bundle (such as a disc brakes and EBS combination).  Case in point: Volvo said they have no intention of releasing EBS with the current-technology drum brakes.

Special Vehicles/Infrastructure Group Highlights System Integration

Attendees at this meeting included representatives from California, Minnnesota, and Virginia, with Marthand Nookala of MnDOT chairing the meeting.  Bob Ferlis and Shahed Rowshan of USDOT’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) represented the government, and Tim Garret of ITS America provided staff support. 

The Special Vehicles platform group within the IVI program encompasses highway maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles.  These are relatively small fleets with their own unique needs, yet many view these vehicle types as ideal testbeds for IVI technology.

Most of the work undertaken in the US so far has been in providing ehancements for snowplow maintenance vehicles in adverse weather conditions.  The program goals in this area have a much broader focus than do those for crash prevention — gains in operational efficiency, maintenance costs, and response times are of highest value. 

Since the committee hadn’t met for two years and had mostly new membership, some discussion focused on defining the group’s mission.  There was also agreement that more representation from the Public Safety community is essential.

Significant successes were noted in California and Minnesota in advancing the state of the art in snow removal.

A key movement for the group was to shift from a technology-based focus to an emphasis on system integration, both within the vehicle -- for the variety of driver assistance systems -- and between the vehicle and the infrastructure.

There was a clear desire to work more with the manufacturers of these vehicles, both automotive and trucks ... it was noted that the manufacturers were in working group meetings that day with no infrastructure representation, and the infrastructure people were in meetings with no manufacturer representation.  Future gatherings will seek to remedy this situation.

Human factors issues were called out as needing attention, particularly as related to the critical driver assistance needs for emergency medical response vehicles.  It was also decided to take a closer look at business models to support commercialization and public sector deployment of these systems.  Recommendations are also likely to include a charge for evaluation methodologies across all platforms to be more consistent, and for better performance measures.

The group decided to meet on a regular basis to continue discussions, roughly twice per year, with electronic correspondence in the interim.  A meeting is being planned for January 2001 in conjunction with the Transportation Research Board annual meeting. 

Although the time available was limited, players from each of the four meetings generally agreed that the sessions were worthwhile.  Eric Traube of ITS America, specialist in Advanced Vehicle Control and Safety Systems, serves as the overall coordinator of activity in this area.

[Top]

... contact Eric Traube of ITS America at Eric_Traube@itsa.org.

[Top]