1. Application of Autonomous Driving Technology to Transit
Washington State Transit Insurance Pool Quarterly Board Meeting, Tacoma, WA
December 5, 2013
Jerome M. Lutin, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Director, Statewide & Regional Planning (retired)
NJ TRANSIT

3. Transit and Autonomous Vehicle Technology
Impact of Self-Driving Cars on Transit
Opportunities for Autonomous Driving Technology in Transit
Our proposal to FTA

4. How Autonomous Cars Will Affect The Market for Transit
Transit riders generally fall into two categories, captive and choice
Captive riders – cannot drive or do not have access to a car
Choice 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 Vehicles
Level 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 car
Level 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 Autos
Adaptive cruise control
Adaptive headlights
Autonomous emergency braking
Blind spot detection
Cross traffic alert/avoidance
Driver fatigue/inattention alert
Forward collision avoidance
Lane departure warning
Lane keeping assist
Parking assist
Pedestrian detection/avoidance
Rear collision warning/mitigation
Self-parking
Side impact detection

14. These Systems are Reducing Claims
Vehicles rated “Superior” in front crash avoidance by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Cadillac ATS sedan and SRX crossover-utility vehicle
Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedan
Subaru Legacy sedan and Outback wagon
Volvo S60 sedan and XC60 crossover

15. Impact of Level 2 Technology - Cars
Key Features
Jam assist
Adaptive Cruise Control
Lane-keeping
Likely Impacts
Fewer crashes
Lower Stress
Some 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 Features
Automatic Valet Parking
Limited Self-driving – freeways, pre-mapped or programmed routes, good weather
Likely Impacts
Significant reduction in center city parking time and cost
Drivers safely can do some non-driving activities
Increases in longer auto commuting trips

18. Impact of Level 4 Technology - Cars
Key Features
Unrestricted self-driving
Empty vehicle movements permitted
Likely Impacts
Growth in shared automated taxi services
Non-drivers can make low-cost individual trips
Time spent in motion no longer wasted – in-vehicle experience is transformed
Vehicle trips may exceed person trips

19. Could This be the Future of Self-Driving Cars?

20. The self-driving car as an extension of living or working space

21. You could live in this.

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

25. Good News! Travel by Bus is getting safer!

26. Good News! Injuries have been trending down!

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 Agencies
Casualty and Liability Amount
General Administration
$432,228,288
Vehicle Maintenance
$50,847,722
Sub-Total Casualty and Liability
$483,076,010
Maximum Available Buses
59,871
Sub-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 claims
For many self-insured transit agencies these expenses are direct “out-of-pocket”
Large reserves for claims must be budgeted
Claims experience is reflected in insurance premiums
There are gaps in data reporting

30. Costs of Bus Crashes – Industry Wide
Tangible – reported as casualty and liability expense
Physical damage insurance premiums
Recovery of physical damage losses for public liability and property damage insurance premiums
Insured and uninsured public liability and property damage settlement pay outs and recoveries
Other 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 expense
Accident investigation
D & A testing
Emergency services response
Hearings and discipline
In-house legal services
In-house vehicle repair
Lost fare revenue
Overtime
Passenger and service delays
Sick time
Spare vehicles and replacements
Vehicle recovery

32. Costs of Bus Crashes – Industry Wide
Intangible
Human loss and suffering
Media attention
Good will

33. Level 2 Automation - Potential Impact for Transit – Claims Reduction
Adaptive Cruise Control
Autonomous emergency braking
Blind spot monitoring (for vehicles and pedestrians)
Driver fatigue and attentiveness monitoring
Lane keeping assistance
Obstacle detection and avoidance
Rear 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 Buses
Estimated
Average Annual Claims Reduction per Bus
Collision Avoidance System Installation Costs
Based 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 Cost 10
484.60
5.8
11.6
17.3
23.1
28.8 20
969.20
2.9
8.7
14.4 30
1,453.80
1.9
3.9
7.7
9.6 40
1,938.40
1.4
4.3
7.2 50
2,423.00
1.1
2.3
3.5
4.6 60
2,907.60
1.0
4.8 70
3,392.20
0.8
1.7
2.5
3.3
4.1 80
3,876.80
0.7
2.2
3.6 90
4,361.40
0.6
1.3
2.6
3.2

36. Potential Impact for Transit – Level 3 Automation
Key Features
Co-operative Adaptive Cruise Control
Lane keeping
Precision docking
Potential Impacts
Increased 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 Hour
Additional Buses per Hour
Seated Passengers Per Hour
Increase in Seated Passengers per Hour 1 6 2
3,600
2,880
205,200
164,160 47 14
1,800
1,080
102,600
61,560 3
109 33
1,200
480
68,400
27,360 4
150 46
900
180
51,300
10,260
5 (Base)
212 64
720 -
41,040

42. Potential Impact for Transit – Level 4 Automation
Key Features
Bus capable of fully automated operation
Potential Impacts
Unstaffed non-revenue operation
Paired or bus “train” operation possible
BRT systems can emulate rail in capacity at less cost

43. Connected Vehicle and Autonomous Driving Technology for Bus Platooning – Leader/Close-Follower Concept
Schematic – Wireless Short-Range Connections Between Busses Interface with Automated Driving and Passenger Systems Functions

45. Opportunities for Autonomous Driving Technology in Transit - Recommendations
Institutional Response
Technological 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 disabilities
Exit markets where transit load factors are too low to justify operating a transit vehicle
Concentrate 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 riders
Create compact activity centers
Allow higher density
Promote mixed use development
Make streets pedestrian and bike friendly
Manage 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 more
Computer technology becomes obsolete in 18 months to two years
Expect to replace components and systems several times during the life of a bus
Do not expect replacement parts to still be available
Sometimes stuff does not work as expected

50. Need Open Architectures and Standards
Avoid problems of legacy systems and sole source procurements
Modular systems and components
Standard interfaces between systems and components
Multiple sources and innovation from vendors
“Plug and play”

51. Federal Transit Administration Notice of Funding Availability
Federal Register October 1, 2013
Seeking Research Development Demonstration & Deployment Projects – 3 Categories
Operational Safety
Resiliency
All Hazards Emergency Response & Recovery
$29 million available
Grants from $500k to $5 million
Open to anyone
Deadline December 2, 2013

52. Proposal Title: Application of Autonomous Collision Avoidance Technology to Transit Buses to Reduce Claims, Injuries and Fatalities
Submitted 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 Area
Kitsap Transit
Link Transit
Ben Franklin Transit
Mason County Transit
Clallam Transit
Pacific Transit
Columbia County Public Transportation
Pierce Transit
Community Transit
Pullman Transit
C-Tran
River Cities Transit
Everett Transit
Skagit Transit
Grant Transit
Spokane Transit
Grays Harbor Transit
Twin Transit
Intercity Transit
Valley Transit
Island Transit
Whatcom Transit
Jefferson Transit
Yakima Transit

54. ENDORSING/SUPPORTING ENTITIES
California Transit Indemnity Pool On Behalf of 33 Member Agencies
Ohio Transit Risk Pool On Behalf of 10 Member Agencies
Virginia 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 sides
representatives of transit agencies
risk management and insurance providers
consultants
vehicle manufacturers
systems developers
standards organizations
vendors
motor vehicle regulators
USDOT officials

56. Expert Technical Working Groups (ETWG’s)
Claims analysis and data collection
Human factors/operations/safety
Bus interfaces/systems/maintainability
Autonomous systems and controls
Testing 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 claims
historical trends
reasons that the costs of collisions are increasing
relationship between costs and types of accidents
link individual claims and other expenses with individual incidents
assemble an accurate record of the total agency cost of each collision
identify 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 buses
define the capabilities and performance requirements for autonomous collision avoidance technology for buses
allow autonomous collision avoidance technologies to be retrofitted to buses, using competitive procurements and “plug and play” interfaces
balloted 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 deployment
on-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 technologies
collision 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 system
data 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 standards
extensive 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 member
Staff time for data collection on collisions and claims, representing 10% time for two staff members for six months
Two 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 development
Technical support from bus maintenance and operations staff representing approximately 50% time for two technicians

62. Next Steps Wait to hear about FTA grant If awarded, get busy!
If not awarded-find out why
Revise proposal
Resubmit
Look for alternative funding
Keep pressing FTA
Don’t give up – This is worth doing!

63. Jerry Lutin Jerome.Lutin@Verizon.net
Thank You
Jerry Lutin