Rural Intelligent Transportation Systems Rural Intersection Accident Mitigation

1. Rural Intelligent Transportation SystemsRural Intersection Accident Mitigation New Mexico ITS 2011 Sandia Casino, NM November 4 2011 John Hansen VP Sales AM Signal /Delegate to NCMUTCD

2. Problem The problem of rural road crashes (lane departure, intersection, merges, etc.) and the resulting fatalities, serious injury and property damage is real. Bottom line, how to develop low-cost, readily deployable, low maintenance systems that can be used by government agencies to improve safety on rural roads and non-signalized rural intersections. Case Study Rural Minnesota Intersection

3. Problem • Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2009 • 421 fatalities down from 455 in 2008 • 31,074 injuries down from 33,379 in 2007 • Rural areas account for 2 out of 3 fatalities • 1/3 involve single vehicle • 2/3 involve 2 or more vehicles • 2009 crashes cost Minnesota $1.5 billion

4. Underlying Causes • In Single Vehicle Crashes • Illegal or unsafe speed contributing factor most often cited for all drivers • In Multiple Vehicle Crashes • For drivers through age 64 – driver inattention or distraction most often cited • Failure to yieldsecond most common • Over Age 65 Pattern Reverses • Failure to yieldmost common • Driver inattention or distraction second most common

5. Driving Conditions • Most Crashes Occur in Good Driving Conditions • Over 50% of fatal and about 2/3 of nonfatal occur during daylight hours • Good Weather Conditions • Over 60% of fatal and about 56% of nonfatal – “clear” weather • Road Surface Condition for Fatal Crashes • Usually “good” • 10% on wet roads • 15% on snowy or icy roads • Road Surface Condition for Nonfatal Crashes • 60% of nonfatal on dry roads • 13% on wet roads • 25% on snowy or icy roads

6. Literature Search • Discovered considerable research • Found few off-the-shelf products available • Found almost nothing to address • low-volume dynamic rural intersection warning systems • dynamic lane departure warning systems specifically relating to horizontal curves

7. The Solution SEH and NTT working with the other major participants have been developing and demonstrating low-cost, portable systems that can be used by counties on low-volume roads and intersections to reduce crashes and move Toward Zero Deaths. The technologies used are integrations of commercial off-the-shelf (COS) technologies. Utilized together as a system they represent an innovative low-cost approach and better understanding and solving serious safety problems.

8. Rural ITS Toolbox

9. Rural ITS • Intersection Warning System (IWS) • Driver Behavior Evaluation System (DBES) • Stop Sign Warning System (SSWS) • Curve Warning System (CWS)

10. Intersection Warning SystemMajor Participants • Mn/DOT 2007 Innovative Ideas Program – OTST • USDOT - FHWA • Hennepin County, MN • SEH Inc. • Network Transportation Technologies, LLC (NTT)

11. Project Goal Develop a low-cost, readily deployable, low maintenance system that can be used to improve safety at low volume, non-signalized intersections.

12. Innovation • Merits of dynamic warning systems • Moving from research to reality • Off-the-shelf components • Solar/Battery powered • Modular design • Ease of installation and maintenance • Relative low-cost

13. Solar Solar Fault Indicator Radar SIGN Controller Communications (Radio) Controller User Interface Communications (Radio) Battery Battery System Configurations Detection Node Warning Node

14. CR 47 and Lawndale Lane

15. Going Live

16. Solar Panel & Controller Cabinet

17. Controller Cabinet Electronics

18. IWS In Operation

19. CR 47 West Detector Node Looking East

20. Safety Impacts • 54% reduction in the number of “conflicts” • Reduction from 3.9 to 1.8 conflicts per 1000 vehicles

21. Owner Satisfaction(Data from Evaluation Report prepared by SRF) • Reliable and effective at warning drivers of approaching cross-street traffic • Easy to install and maintain • Relatively low fixed cost • Transferable

22. User Perception • 94.2% were aware of the sign • 88.5% understood the meaning of the sign • 79.4% had improved awareness of approaching traffic • 65.2% are more likely to stop when sign is flashing • Half of survey respondents indicated they pay more attention when the sign is flashing

23. Performance • Operated with a 98.6% uptime during 6 month test period • Experienced 3 failures during the 6 month test period • Worked well in all weather conditions • Continuous operation for over 3 years

24. Rural ITS Safety Systems (RITSS) • Mn/DOT’s 2009 Innovative Ideas Program that included the following elements: • Driver Behavior Evaluation System (DBES) currently being evaluated in Olmsted County, MN • Stop Sign Warning System (SSWS) currently being evaluated in Washington County, MN • Curve Warning System (CWS) currently being evaluated in Wright County, MN

25. Driver Behavior Evaluation System (DBES) Concept • Need to know exactly what the problem is: • System to provide reliable data • Driver behavior underlying the problem • At rural intersection stop signs • Behavior of driver approaching stop sign • Behavior of driver on through road • Speed profiles • At horizontal curve • Behavior of driver approaching curve • Speed profile

26. Driver Behavior Evaluation System • Hardware • Doppler radar • GPS receiver • Data logger • Battery powered with life of 3 weeks • Up to 4 devices to cover 4-way intersection • Single device to cover each approach to a curve • Software • Analysis and reporting strategies

27. DBES Field Unit

28. Driver Behavior Evaluation System Olmsted County, MN TH 42/CSAH 9

29. Stop Sign Warning System (SSWS) Concept • Radar-based detection to monitor speed profile of vehicle approaching a stop sign • Provide a flashing warning of the stop based on speed • Within normal stop profile – No warning • Excessive speed detected – flashing lights to alert driver

30. Stop Sign Warning System • Hardware • Doppler radar • Wireless link • Controller • Flasher stop sign • Fault notification • Software • Speed/distance data algorithm to set parameters • Determine spatial position of the vehicle • Activate flashers

31. Stop Sign Warning SystemDesign • Deceleration Rate = 14.8 ft/s2 • Maximum Approach Speed Design = 80 mph • Duration of Flash = Detection Speed / 14.8 ft/s2 • Enhance Border of Near Right Stop Sign On-Site Fault Notification Device

32. Curve Warning System (CWS)Concept • Radar-based detection to monitor speed profile of vehicle approaching a horizontal curve • Provide a flashing warning of the curve ahead based on speed • Within normal speed reduction profile – No warning • Excessive speed detected – flashing lights to alert driver

33. Curve Warning SystemDesign • Deceleration Rate = 14.8 ft/s2 • Design for Curve Entry Speed = 47 mph (posted 40 mph) • Maximum Approach Speed Design = 75 mph • Enhance Chevron Signs 3, 4, 5 and 6 • Duration of Flash = 4 seconds from curve entry (50 mph to Sign 6 from Curve Entry)

34. Curve Warning System Line of Sight Washington County

35. Curve Warning System Installation

36. CSAH 17 & CSAH 42 Intersection

37. Mainline Warning Node

38. Wright County • Active warning Node for vehicles approaching the stop sign on the minor road • Solar/Battery • Controller/Radio • Default notification

39. Questions ? John Hansen/John Morast PE Application Consultants AM Signal Inc 720.348.6925