Industry Sends IVI Advice to Secretary Mineta at USDOT
IVsource.net
31 July 2001

Two years after their last published set of recommendations to USDOT, the Intelligent Transportation Society of America's Intelligent Vehicle "platform steering groups" have crafted a new set of guidance to help the Feds steer the program.

After a long hiatus, the intelligent vehicle advisory groups marshaled by ITS America have again pulled together a set of recommendations for the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) related to the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) program.

The first set of advice was provided in August 1998, after an intensive process in which ITS America involved over a hundred industry players in developing separate sets of recommendations for various vehicle 'platforms' -- light vehicles, heavy trucks, transit buses, and specialty vehicles.  A combined set of highest-level priorities was then developed by a 'cross-platform' group.  This advice was generally viewed as effective and important in helping USDOT steer the IVI program in ways that were relevant to industry concerns.

The four “platform steering groups” have met since then -- notably, during the IVI National Meeting in July 2000 -- but no formal advice was transmitted out of the groups.  The recent advice letter (sent on June 11) pulls together comments made during those meetings and since.

DOT Nailed for a “Broken” Process

Many of the recommendations were to be expected, such as calls for increased information sharing.  However, the light vehicle group, under the leadership of Mike Shulman of Ford, minced no words in telling USDOT that the current procurement process is “broken, with exceedingly long negotiations becoming common.”  They noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) contracts offices are perpetually under-staffed.  “Since this issue affects the pace and quality of the program to the point where important and timely technical issues go unresolved, this issue requires priority attention,” their letter continued.

The light vehicle group also noted that the IVI business plan does not adequately address the use of telematics devices in vehicles.  They stressed that both the benefits of these devices and their potential detrimental effects on safety must be understood, and called for a comprehensive, long-term plan to be developed, with nearer-term deliverables to match the expected deployment pace.

Cooperative Systems Supported

While some in the vehicle industry have been slow to “warm up” to the potential of cooperative vehicle-highway systems, the light vehicle group appears to be on-board with this concept.  They noted that if the Departument’s goal for significant deployment of intersection collision avoidance systems is to be achieved, a complete system solution must be developed by bringing vehicle, infrastructure and communications organizations together.  “This could also be the basis for future cooperative systems, beyond intersection systems,” they said.

Heavy Vehicle Group Defines Research Goals and Product Opportunities

The heavy vehicle working group sees the need for substantial research to understand driver-vehicle interactions, specifically calling for analysis of human behavior impacts from application of products and technology in the cab.  In addition, they believe the industry would benefit from a cost model, which could be used to demonstrate value and cost savings of IV systems.  This model could make use of and be supported by tax relief, insurance reductions, and product pricing incentives to drive volume and the learning curve.  Another priority is to address concerns over data ownership and use, as part of the overall liability and legal barriers.

For future technology development and operational testing within the IVI program, the heavy vehicle group noted several near-term “Generation 1” opportunities:

·        Electronically controlled Braking System (ECBS)

·        Robust, commercial vehicle oriented map database.

·        GIS environment, which accepts dynamic condition along routes.

·        Expansion of "blind spot" obstacle detection with consideration of a variety of sensing technologies.

·        Enhanced "signaling" of Heavy Vehicle/Operator intentions and maneuvers to other nearby vehicles.

Specialty Vehicles

The Specialty Vehicle group (which focuses on highway maintenance, emergency vehicles, and similar public-sector specialty vehicle fleets) generated an extensive set of observations and recommendations.  Seeking greater legitimacy within IVI, the urged USDOT to expand the list of IVI program goals to include those needs that are relevant to the Specialty Vehicle Platform.  These would include operational efficiency goals.

Transit Near Term Needed Re-affirmed

The Transit Vehicle group has been quite active throughout the lifetime of IVI, and from early on the following near term priorities have been defined:

•         Lane change collision avoidance

•         Rear-end/forward collision avoidance

•         Rear impact mitigation and recording

•         Precision docking and tight maneuvering

The groups generally expressed support for more frequent meetings to keep dialogue open between program participants and stakeholders.  The purpose of future meetings would include assessing ongoing activities, providing direction for future projects, and planning guidelines for performance specifications, operational tests, deployment planning, and system integration.

The full text of the IVI advice letter is posted separately on IVsource.

Top]