3 Transit and Autonomous Vehicle Technology Impact of Self-Driving Cars on TransitOpportunities for Autonomous Driving Technology in TransitOur proposal to FTA
4 How Autonomous Cars Will Affect The Market for Transit Transit riders generally fall into two categories, captive and choiceCaptive riders – cannot drive or do not have access to a carChoice riders - generally do own cars, but choose transit when it can offer a faster, cheaper or more convenient trip. Choice riders can avoid congestion, use time on transit to read, work or sleep, and can avoid parking costs and hassles at their destinations.
5 Automation Coming in Stages NHTSA Preliminary Policy on Automated VehiclesLevel 2 (Combined function automation)Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations.Level 3 (Limited self-driving)Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions.Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google carLevel 4 (Full self-driving automation)Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip.Vehicle may operate while unoccupied.
6 Functional Capabilities of Currently Available Commercial Collision Avoidance and Driver Assist Packages for AutosAdaptive cruise controlAdaptive headlightsAutonomous emergency brakingBlind spot detectionCross traffic alert/avoidanceDriver fatigue/inattention alertForward collision avoidanceLane departure warningLane keeping assistParking assistPedestrian detection/avoidanceRear collision warning/mitigationSelf-parkingSide impact detection
14 These Systems are Reducing Claims Vehicles rated “Superior” in front crash avoidance by the Insurance Institute for Highway SafetyCadillac ATS sedan and SRX crossover-utility vehicleMercedes-Benz C-Class sedanSubaru Legacy sedan and Outback wagonVolvo S60 sedan and XC60 crossover
15 Impact of Level 2 Technology - Cars Key FeaturesJam assistAdaptive Cruise ControlLane-keepingLikely ImpactsFewer crashesLower StressSome increase in auto commuting trips
16 Google Self-Driving Car (Level 3 Automation) and Someone Who Really Needs One!
17 Impact of Level 3 Technology - Cars Key FeaturesAutomatic Valet ParkingLimited Self-driving – freeways, pre-mapped or programmed routes, good weatherLikely ImpactsSignificant reduction in center city parking time and costDrivers safely can do some non-driving activitiesIncreases in longer auto commuting trips
18 Impact of Level 4 Technology - Cars Key FeaturesUnrestricted self-drivingEmpty vehicle movements permittedLikely ImpactsGrowth in shared automated taxi servicesNon-drivers can make low-cost individual tripsTime spent in motion no longer wasted – in-vehicle experience is transformedVehicle trips may exceed person trips
22 Impact of Self-Driving Cars on Transit Self-driving cars will offer mobility to those transit captives who cannot drive, and, in conjunction with car-sharing, can offer mobility to those who do not have ready access to a car.For choice riders, self-driving cars can offer amenities similar to those of transit in terms of how one can use time while traveling, to read, sleep or work.According to studies, automated cars could double highway capacity. Couple that with the ability to self-park, and the transit advantage could melt away.So the impact on many transit systems could be huge.
23 Potential Applications of Autonomous Driving Technology to Bus Transit How can transit benefit?
24 Use Autonomous Collision Avoidance Technology to Address a BIG CURRENT Problem
27 Terrible News! Claims are going through the roof!
28 NTD 2011 Bus Casualty and Liability Expense for All Transit Agencies NTD 2011 Bus Casualty and Liability Expense for All Transit AgenciesCasualty and Liability AmountGeneral Administration$432,228,288Vehicle Maintenance$50,847,722Sub-Total Casualty and Liability$483,076,010Maximum Available Buses59,871Sub-Total Casualty and Liability Amount Per Bus$8,069
29 Casualty and Liability Claims are a Huge Drain on the Industry For the 10 year period , more than $4.1 Billion was spent on casualty and liability claimsFor many self-insured transit agencies these expenses are direct “out-of-pocket”Large reserves for claims must be budgetedClaims experience is reflected in insurance premiumsThere are gaps in data reporting
30 Costs of Bus Crashes – Industry Wide Tangible – reported as casualty and liability expensePhysical damage insurance premiumsRecovery of physical damage losses for public liability and property damage insurance premiumsInsured and uninsured public liability and property damage settlement pay outs and recoveriesOther corporate insurance premiums (e.g., fidelity bonds, business records insurance)
31 Costs of Bus Crashes – Industry Wide Tangible -likely not reported as casualty and liability expenseAccident investigationD & A testingEmergency services responseHearings and disciplineIn-house legal servicesIn-house vehicle repairLost fare revenueOvertimePassenger and service delaysSick timeSpare vehicles and replacementsVehicle recovery
32 Costs of Bus Crashes – Industry Wide IntangibleHuman loss and sufferingMedia attentionGood will
33 Level 2 Automation - Potential Impact for Transit – Claims Reduction Adaptive Cruise ControlAutonomous emergency brakingBlind spot monitoring (for vehicles and pedestrians)Driver fatigue and attentiveness monitoringLane keeping assistanceObstacle detection and avoidanceRear collision warning and mitigation
34 The Cost of Installing an Autonomous Collision Avoidance System on a Bus Could be Recovered in as Little as One Year Through Reductions in Casualty and Liability Claims
35 Potential for Cost Savings in Annual Claims Paid by Installing a Collision Avoidance System on NJ TRANSIT BusesEstimatedAverage Annual Claims Reduction per BusCollision Avoidance System Installation CostsBased on Mercedes Intelligent Drive System$2,800 per Bus – 2014 Base Price$5,600 per Bus – 2x Base Price$8,400 per Bus – 3x Base Price$11,200 per Bus – 4x Base Price$14,000 per Bus – 5x Base Price(%)($)Estimated Years to Recoup Installation Cost10484.605.811.617.323.128.8209126.96.36.1994.4301,453.801.93.97.79.6401,938.401.44.37.2502,423.001.12.33.54.6602,907.601.04.8703,3188.8.131.52.53.34.1803,876.800.72.23.6904,361.400.61.32.63.2
36 Potential Impact for Transit – Level 3 Automation Key FeaturesCo-operative Adaptive Cruise ControlLane keepingPrecision dockingPotential ImpactsIncreased capacity in high volume bus corridors
37 A Capacity Bonus for NJ TRANSIT Exclusive Bus Lane (XBL) to New York City Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
38 Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) New York City Source: Google Maps 2013
39 Potential Increased Capacity of Exclusive Bus Lane (XBL) Using Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) (Assumes 45 toot (13.7 m) with 57 seats)Average Interval Between Buses (seconds)Average Spacing Between Buses (ft)Average Spacing Between Buses (m)Buses Per HourAdditional Buses per HourSeated Passengers Per HourIncrease in Seated Passengers per Hour1623,6002,880205,200164,16047141,8001,080102,60061,5603109331,20048068,40027,36041504690018051,30010,2605 (Base)21264720-41,040
42 Potential Impact for Transit – Level 4 Automation Key FeaturesBus capable of fully automated operationPotential ImpactsUnstaffed non-revenue operationPaired or bus “train” operation possibleBRT systems can emulate rail in capacity at less cost
43 Connected Vehicle and Autonomous Driving Technology for Bus Platooning – Leader/Close-Follower ConceptSchematic – Wireless Short-Range Connections Between Busses Interface with Automated Driving and Passenger Systems Functions
45 Opportunities for Autonomous Driving Technology in Transit - Recommendations Institutional ResponseTechnological Response
46 Recommendation - Transit Institutional Response Promote shared-use autonomous cars as a replacement for transit on many bus routes and for service to persons with disabilitiesExit markets where transit load factors are too low to justify operating a transit vehicleConcentrate transit resources in corridors where more traffic and parking will be too costly and too congested, and where transit can increase the people carrying capacity of a lane beyond that of a general traffic lane
47 Recommendation - Transit Institutional Response- Continued Focus attention on land use – work with partners to create Transit-Oriented Development that limits the need for driving and where trip-end density will provide enough ridersCreate compact activity centersAllow higher densityPromote mixed use developmentMake streets pedestrian and bike friendlyManage parking ratios and configuration
48 Recommendations- Transit Technological Response What we need to do
49 Prepare for Technological Evolution and Obsolescence Buses last from 12 to 18 years or moreComputer technology becomes obsolete in 18 months to two yearsExpect to replace components and systems several times during the life of a busDo not expect replacement parts to still be availableSometimes stuff does not work as expected
50 Need Open Architectures and Standards Avoid problems of legacy systems and sole source procurementsModular systems and componentsStandard interfaces between systems and componentsMultiple sources and innovation from vendors“Plug and play”
51 Federal Transit Administration Notice of Funding Availability Federal Register October 1, 2013Seeking Research Development Demonstration & Deployment Projects – 3 CategoriesOperational SafetyResiliencyAll Hazards Emergency Response & Recovery$29 million availableGrants from $500k to $5 millionOpen to anyoneDeadline December 2, 2013
52 Proposal Title: Application of Autonomous Collision Avoidance Technology to Transit Buses to Reduce Claims, Injuries and FatalitiesSubmitted by Princeton University In association with: American Public Transportation Association Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Washington State Transit Insurance Pool Jerome M. Lutin, PhD, LLC
53 ENDORSING/SUPPORTING ENTITIES Washington State Transit Insurance Pool On Behalf of 25 Member Agencies:Asotin County Public Transportation Benefit AreaKitsap TransitLink TransitBen Franklin TransitMason County TransitClallam TransitPacific TransitColumbia County Public TransportationPierce TransitCommunity TransitPullman TransitC-TranRiver Cities TransitEverett TransitSkagit TransitGrant TransitSpokane TransitGrays Harbor TransitTwin TransitIntercity TransitValley TransitIsland TransitWhatcom TransitJefferson TransitYakima Transit
54 ENDORSING/SUPPORTING ENTITIES California Transit Indemnity Pool On Behalf of 33 Member AgenciesOhio Transit Risk Pool On Behalf of 10 Member AgenciesVirginia Transit Liability Pool On Behalf of 7 Member Agencies
55 1. Create a broad, inclusive stakeholder group of transit agencies and other members of the transit industry, and achieve a comprehensive view of the problem and potential solutions from all sidesrepresentatives of transit agenciesrisk management and insurance providersconsultantsvehicle manufacturerssystems developersstandards organizationsvendorsmotor vehicle regulatorsUSDOT officials
56 Expert Technical Working Groups (ETWG’s) Claims analysis and data collectionHuman factors/operations/safetyBus interfaces/systems/maintainabilityAutonomous systems and controlsTesting and certification
57 2. Conduct a research assessment of why casualty and liability claims are increasing and determine the potential for automated collision avoidance systems to reduce fatalities, injuries and claimshistorical trendsreasons that the costs of collisions are increasingrelationship between costs and types of accidentslink individual claims and other expenses with individual incidentsassemble an accurate record of the total agency cost of each collisionidentify cost-effective autonomous collision avoidance technologies
58 3. ETWG’s develop functional requirements and standards to allow installation of autonomous collision avoidance technology (ACAT) and driver assist technology on new transit buses and retrofit of existing busesdefine the capabilities and performance requirements for autonomous collision avoidance technology for busesallow autonomous collision avoidance technologies to be retrofitted to buses, using competitive procurements and “plug and play” interfacesballoted set of standards for autonomous collision avoidance technology and for the electromechanical and data on-board interfaces needed to host the technology
59 4. Develop a prototype test bed that would allow developers of innovative collision avoidance and driver assist technologies to work with transit agencies and researchers to expedite development and deploymenton-board test-bed network using electromechanical and data interface standards developed in Phase 3, to accommodate the installation and testing of prototype autonomous collision avoidance technologiescollision avoidance system simulator that can be installed on a new or retrofitted bus to test the bus’s ability to host, and autonomously respond to inputs from, a collision avoidance systemdata logger and analyzer that will monitor multiple performance parameters of both the bus and the autonomous collision avoidance technology and produce reports that can be used to certify compliance with the performance requirements and standardsextensive field operational test of all three elements
60 Contribution from Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) Four technical staff members, one to participate in each of four Expert Technical Working Groups for the duration of the project, representing approximately 10% time for each staff memberStaff time for data collection on collisions and claims, representing 10% time for two staff members for six monthsTwo buses to be used as test beds for installation and testing of autonomous collision avoidance technology for a period of approximately two years.Approximately 3,600 square feet of space in our garage for two years for prototype developmentTechnical support from bus maintenance and operations staff representing approximately 50% time for two technicians