TRB Committee on Vehicle-Highway Automation Ramps Up, Founds New Subcommittee
IVsource.net
30 August 2001

The focus of the Vehicle Highway Automation Committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) is exploring the potential of Cooperative Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (CIVHS) to improve traffic safety and efficiency.  Here’s an update from their most recent meeting.

The focus of the Vehicle Highway Automation Committee of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) is exploring the potential of Cooperative Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems (CIVHS) to improve both vehicle safety and efficiency of traffic flow.

This group is unique within TRB in that it is the only committee examining CIVHS.  This is significant because TRB is one of the most looked-to organizations for study and discussion of  mainstream highway issues, with broad participation from academia, government, and industry ... and the support of the highway industry in particular must be gained for CIVHS to move forward.

Approximately 50 people attended the meeting, including representatives from the US Federal Highway Administration (Gary Larson, Research Office Director, Bob Ferlis, IVI Research, and Mike Halladay, Safety Core Business Unit); NHTSA (Dr. David Smith), California and Illinois state DOTs; vehicle industry (General Motors and Mercedes Benz); universities (California at Berkeley, Minnesota, Virginia Tech); and research groups such as Japan’s AHSRA.

The meeting included a broad discussion around the following questions:

• Why have infrastructure-vehicle cooperative systems (e.g., intersection collision avoidance systems) not been deployed?

• How should the potential value of cooperative systems be quantified and demonstrated?

• Are the benefits of applications of infrastructure-vehicle cooperative systems sufficiently well understood?

• What technical questions must be answered, or problems solved, to encourage the deployment of cooperative systems for appropriate applications?

• Who must be convinced in order to deploy these systems?

• How can we reach customers who can potentially deploy these systems?

In response to these questions, comments included the following:

• States have the problem that budgets are too low to do much in this technical area

• Floating car data – this capability needs to be implemented in order to gather data for cooperative systems, because in the US, state DOTs will not be deploying extensive infrastructure-based sensing (although spot deployment is expected)

• Lane markings   -- it was noted that product introductions (desired by the IVI program) are being delayed due to poor lane markings.

• States must be shown the “payback” to get some movement in this area

• Vehicle-vehicle cooperation is key (vehicle-vehicle communications were strongly supported by both GM and Mercedes Benz)

• How to quantify benefits?  Demonstrations and simulation were suggested

• Differential GPS is seen by the University of Minnesota as an important element of infrastructure

• Dr. Smith of NHTSA questioned whether there is a valid business model for CIVHS; Boyse of GM said, yes, there is a way to get there.

• How do public finance models play out?

• Must harmonize business plans on both sides:  infrastructure and vehicle

• Define small steps which are low risk

• Key is to get vehicle-infrastructure dialogue started

• Caltrans – government has to lead the way, and USDOT has not done it

Some committee members are doing white papers to identify key issues and begin to define realistic business plans.

GM’s View of Cooperative Systems

Dr. Fruecthe of General Motors had been invited to speak on his company’s view of cooperative systems (he has always strongly supported CIVHS in principle).  He could not attend, but Mr. Boyse (GM's IVI liaison) presented information.  Highlights of that talk included:

• Standard infrastructure across states is key

• Systems have to work in all states

• Standards are key

• Their current focus is on CIVHS for:
  - Getting GPS/Map-matching updates
  - Getting information on vehicle-road friction characteristics

Mr. Spreitzer of GM promoted the idea of a "Presidential Commission on ITS," which would examine research priorities and energize a strong national program and funding.  The commission would build upon the ITS 10 Year Plan, have an ongoing staff and dedicated funding to conduct their work.  A key emphasis, in his proposal, would be on CIVHS, including vehicle-highway automation.  The Commission would also re-organize the IVI program more along the lines of advanced CIVHS.  He envisions reviving AHS work in the US as a part of this effort.

New Subcommittee on Infrastructure-Vehicle Cooperation to Improve Safety and Mobility

Bob Ferlis of FHWA proposed the idea of a new subcommittee, called  “Infrastructure-Vehicle Cooperation to Improve Safety and Mobility.”  According to his description, infrastructure-vehicle cooperation involves the sharing of information between the roadside systems (infrastructure) and vehicles, so that the operation of vehicle automation services can be enhanced.  The purpose of the subcommittee has initially been defined to “encourage and report upon promising concepts for improving the safety and efficiency of highway systems through the use of infrastructure-vehicle communication.” 

Areas of interest were listed as:

• Safety Systems

• Efficiency

• Applications for selected vehicles

• Enabling technologies

• Vehicle technology

• Architecture and standards

• Deployment paths

... and potential activities proposed included:

• Reports to the full Committee

• Technical papers

• Organization of sessions for the Annual Meeting

• Organization of special events

• Coordination with other committees

This subcommittee was accepted by the full committee at the meeting, and will begin operations immediately.  In the discussion, Mr. Ferlis asked for comments from the full committee about what topics were of the highest priority for the subcommittee and called for a vote.  Voting results were as follows:

• Topics:  highest number of votes were for deployment paths and safety

• Activities of subcommittee:  highest number of votes were for organizing technical sessions for the annual TRB meeting and coordinating with other TRB committees (that is, in-reach to educate broader highway community as to opportunities provided by CIVHS and vehicle-highway automation)

[Top]

For More Information ...

... contact Rodney Lay, TRB Committee Chair, at rlay@mitretek.org.

[Top]