SPECIAL NOTICE
B -- TIER 2 EXPLORATORY PROJECT: ITS TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE PEDESTRIAN INJURIES AND FATALITIES
- Notice Date
- 5/4/2005
- Notice Type
- Special Notice
- NAICS
- 488490
— Other Support Activities for Road Transportation
- Contracting Office
- Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Acquisition Management, HAAM, Room 4410 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC, 20590
- ZIP Code
- 20590
- Solicitation Number
- DTFH61-05-RFI-050405
- Response Due
- 6/21/2005
- Description
- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration TIER 2 EXPLORATORY PROJECT: ITS TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE PEDESTRIAN INJURIES AND FATALITIES AGENCIES: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), USDOT. ACTION: Notice; Request For Information. SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), is examining the feasibility of implementing innovative Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) that will help prevent pedestrian crashes on roads as part of a wide-scale program. The purpose of this RFI is to request ideas containing concepts, as well as associated proof of concept information, for pedestrian crash prevention through the use and incorporation of ITS, particularly at locations where pedestrian crashes frequently occur. This RFI is only a request for information and is not a request for application or proposal (no funding will be issued to this RFI). OBJECTIVE: The FHWA is emphasizing countermeasure systems that can detect a potential crash or conflict between a pedestrian and a motorist and then provide a warning to either the pedestrian or the motorist prior to the crash. The concepts should be innovative and the systems dependent upon vehicle or pedestrian detection sensors (dynamic systems), but may involve passive systems. An example of a passive system may be pre-timed or manually-activated flashing beacons at a crosswalk to warn motorists. An example of a dynamic system would be one where the flashing beacons are activated only when pedestrians are detected. These are the most basic examples of applying ITS solutions for the pedestrian crash problem. Advanced solutions may incorporate multiple sensors and even pedestrian walking speed or multiple vehicle speeds. Solutions should also incorporate advanced logic. An example of using advanced logic would be a system that can differentiate between a curbside pedestrian waiting to cross a crosswalk from a pedestrian that happens to be walking past a crosswalk with no intention of crossing. Alternatively, respondents can offer ITS-based concepts that prevent crashes without necessarily warning either pedestrians or motorists. Examples might include systems that guide pedestrians toward crossings with crosswalks or improve pedestrian conspicuity or visual presence, particularly at night and twilight. Other examples may include systems that modify motorists? signal phasing when pedestrians are caught in a crosswalk at the end of the pedestrian signal phase. This RFI is part of the FHWA?s Tier 2 initiative. The objective of this Tier 2 initiative is to collect concepts that are shown to be technically and economically feasible and are shown to potentially reduce pedestrian crashes. The next step toward implementing these concepts is a Tier 1 initiative. In a Tier 1 initiative, the FHWA will try to demonstrate the effectiveness of those prototype concepts collected by this RFI by conducting field operation tests, public demonstrations, public implementations at select sites, or by other means. The goal of the Tier 1 initiative is to analytically prove whether or not a concept is worth deploying on a wide-scale basis. Respondents whose concepts are selected for further review will be asked to bid for a Tier 1 initiative. DATES: Responses to this announcement should be submitted on or before 42 days after the posted date of this RFI. See the "How to Respond" section for electronic access and filing addresses. POINT OF CONTACT: Ann Do, (ann.do@fhwa.dot.gov, 202-493-3319). Ms. Do is located at the United States Department of Transportation, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. BACKGROUND, SUPPORT INFORMATION AND COMMON PEDESTRIAN CRASH SCENARIOS The following information is supplied so that respondents can tailor their countermeasure to the specific crash types and causal factors that are most prevalent. This allows for the countermeasure to have a higher potential for adoption and greater likelihood of acceptance in the traffic engineering and safety communities. Pedestrian crashes account for about 80,000 collisions per year, according to General Estimate System (GES) data from 1995 to 1998. This represents about 1.2% of all crashes reported. Over this time, there were, on average, 6000 pedestrian fatalities per year (on average), accounting for about 15% of all roadway fatalities. A literature review suggests that pedestrian crashes occur at the following locations in order of frequency: Urban mid-block locations Urban intersections Side of the road Parking lots Driveways/alleys Pre-crash scenarios refer to the actions of vehicles and pedestrians immediately prior to a pedestrian crash. A review of these pre-crash scenarios from GES data suggests that the most frequent scenario is one where a vehicle is going straight and the pedestrian is either crossing the street legally or illegally. This accounts for about 65% of all pedestrian crashes. Fifteen percent of the pre-crash scenarios occur when a vehicle is either turning left or right (8.6% and 6.8%, respectively). According to GES data, 55% of all pedestrian crashes occur at non-junctions, while 40% occur at intersections (or intersection-related locations). Of the non-junction pedestrian crashes, the overwhelming majority occur when a vehicle is traveling straight and the pedestrian is crossing/darting across the road, suggesting that these are midblock collisions. From the (Fatality Analysis Reporting System) FARS, it was determined that the pre-crash scenarios for fatal crashes are even more skewed to the vehicle traveling straight. Turning vehicles represent about 4.1% of the fatal crashes (2.8% for left-turning and 1.3% for right-turning vehicles). Common scenarios in fatal crashes involve a pedestrian improperly crossing (28.5%); walking/playing/working in the road (27.5%); and darting/stumbling/running onto road (9.9%). However, the largest group, representing about a third of the crashes, is ?other/unknown.? ?Other/unknown? is the result of no eyewitnesses present to account for the pedestrian?s actions. A literature review of pre-crash scenarios was used to determine which situations most frequently result in pedestrian crashes. The following list shows the most common pre-crash scenarios. The number in parentheses that follows each scenario represents the percentage of all pedestrian crashes that involved that particular pre-crash scenario. 1. Vehicle going straight and pedestrian crossing roadway at a non-junction (25.9%) 2. Vehicle going straight and pedestrian crossing roadway at an intersection (18.5%) 3. Vehicle going straight and pedestrian darting onto roadway at a non-junction (16.0%) 4. Vehicle turning left and pedestrian crossing roadway at an intersection (8.6%) 5. Vehicle turning right and pedestrian crossing roadway at an intersection (6.2%) 6. Vehicle going straight and pedestrian walking along roadway at a non-junction (3.7%) 7. Vehicle going straight and pedestrian darting onto roadway at an intersection (2.5%) 8. Vehicle backing up (2.5%) 9. Vehicle going straight and pedestrian not in roadway at a non-junction (1.2%) 10. Vehicle going straight and pedestrian playing/working in roadway at a non-junction (1.2%) Examples of right-turn crashes and left-turn crashes are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. Left-turn and right-turn pedestrian crashes can occur two different ways ? 1) with the pedestrian walking towards the motorist from the opposite end of the street; and 2) with the pedestrian crossing the crosswalk from behind the motorist. Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the latter case, as this is more dangerous for the pedestrian. [Figure 1 shows a vehicle stopped, facing north, at a stop sign at a four leg intersection. The opposite southern approach has a stop sign, but the other two east-west approaches do not. A pedestrian is walking north into a crosswalk starting from the southeast corner of the intersection, directly to the vehicle?s right. The vehicle is planning on turning right, as indicated by an arrow.] Figure 1: Example of a right-turn pedestrian crash In a common right-turn pedestrian crash, the vehicle involved is stopped at a side street and is looking left for a gap in downstream traffic, whose approach is uncontrolled. As a result of looking only for an available gap, the motorist does not see the pedestrian entering the crosswalk from the right. The motorist puts more emphasis on looking for an available gap in traffic than in looking for pedestrians that have the right of way. Figure 2 shows a typical left-turning crash scenario. [Figure 2 shows a vehicle stopped in the middle of an intersection, facing east, at a four leg intersection. The vehicle does not have a stop sign. The opposite direction traffic does not have a stop sign. North and South approaches do have a stop sign. A pedestrian is walking east into a crosswalk starting from the northwest corner of the intersection. The vehicle is planning on turning left, as indicated by an arrow.] Figure 2: Example of a left-turn pedestrian crash Similar to Figure 1, Figure 2 shows a motorist waiting for a gap in opposing traffic prior to turning left. The intersection is shown as two-way stop-controlled, but it could also be a standard 3-ball traffic signal, as well. The left-turning motorist may or may not be stopped inside the intersection as shown in Figure 2, but is facing the same direction as the pedestrian. Accordingly, the pedestrian comes into the motorist?s field of view from behind or from the motorist?s periphery. The left-turning motorist is looking only for available gaps in opposite direction traffic and does not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk. Other Pedestrian Crash Factors GES data also contained certain road features relevant to crash analysis. Of the 10 scenarios that contain a vehicle going straight, curves in the road were present in only 4% of the crashes and hillcrests were present in only 1% of the crashes. The literature also shows the distribution of speed limits for 5 of the 10 crash scenarios listed above involving a vehicle going straight and a pedestrian crossing at a non-junction - scenarios 1,3,6,9 and 10. The most frequently observed speed limit in all of these scenarios was 25 mph. This is intuitive based on the fact that most pedestrians would be located in urban areas where speed limits are lower than rural and suburban areas. About 2/3 of all crashes in the above-mentioned scenarios occurred at posted speeds between 25 and 35 mph. A high percentage of crashes in Scenarios 1, 6 and 9 occur at 55 mph (8.2%, 19.8%, and 19.3%, respectively). While the majority of pedestrian crashes occur at lower speeds, higher speed crashes (40+ mph) are far more likely to result in fatalities. A review of the distribution of traffic control devices for scenarios that occur at intersections is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Distribution of traffic control devices among select crash scenarios [The X-axis of the table has 6 columns labeled: ?Traffic control device? scenario 2 scenario 4 scenario 5 scenario 7 scenario 8. The Y-axis has 3 rows labeled ?3 ball signal? ?stop sign? ?no controls? and ?other signs.? The ?3 ball signal? row reads 40.1% 57.7% 61.8% 36% and 7.1%. The ?stop sign? row reads 17.8% 14.5% 18.4% 8.0% 1.9%. The ?no controls? row reads 36.6% 25.9% 18.9% 55.6% 89.3%. The ?other signs? row reads 5.5% 1.9% .9% .3% 1.6%. The last column gives a total for each traffic control device. For the 3-ball, it is 45.2%, for stop sign it is 15.5%, for no controls it is 36% and for other signs it is 3.3%] The ?traffic control device? in the first column of Table 1 relates to the traffic control that the motorist sees. The 3-ball traffic signal was the most common control device in scenarios four and five, while in scenarios 7 and 8, the motorist typically had an uncontrolled approach (?no controls?). The situation usually represents a two-way stop-controlled intersection where there are stop signs on the minor roads, but the motorist on the major road has no stop sign. Further data were collected with regard to the whether or not the pedestrian was in the crosswalk, as shown in Table 2. Table 2: Distribution of pedestrian in or out of the crosswalk for all scenarios [The X-axis of the table has 6 columns labeled: ?in crosswalk? scenario 2 scenario 4 scenario 5 scenario 7 scenario 8. The Y-axis has 3 rows labeled ?yes? ?no? and ?total percentage.? The total percentage rows all read 100%. The ?yes? row reads 31.2% 46.4% 49.2% 25% 16.8%. The ?no? row reads 68.8% 53.4% 50.8% 75% 83.2%] In scenarios 1, 3, 6, 9 and 10, virtually 100% of pedestrian were not in the crosswalk at the time of the crash. Other Contributing Factors and Conditions The crash parameters above and the following crash contributing factors are useful in developing a crash countermeasure, because they allow for the system to be tailored to the most frequently occurring crash types and causal factors/parameters. Causal factors were also examined for each scenario. They were divided up by pedestrian causal factors and by motorist causal factors. Table 3 shows several contributing factors and the distribution of them for each of the ten scenarios. Table 3: Causal factors and conditions for motorists on a per-scenario basis [The x-axis is labeled scenarios 1 thru 10. The Y axis is titled ?contributing factor.? Under it, 13 factors are labeled as such: alcohol/drugs, impaired, driver distracted, driver vision, speeding/reckless driving, signal/sign violation, driver lost control, other violation charged, hit and run, other/clear day, other/adverse day, other/clear nigh, other/adverse night. The first column reads (in percentages) 6.1, .1, 3, 3.6, 1.6, .3, 0, 8.5, 15, 32.6, 2.8, 21.9, 4.5. The second column reads 7.2, .1, .8, 5.4, .4, 3.3, .1, .1, 9.7, 22.3, 26.1, 4.9, 15, 4.8. The third column reads 1.4, 0, 1, 41.8, .2, 0, 0, 3.3, 3.1, 34.3, 1.2, 11.7, 1.9. The fourth column reads 2.8, 0, 3, 5.1, .8, 8.8, .2, 13.5, 14.5, 32.4, 3.2, 9.9, 6. The fifth column reads 9.3, 0, 1.1, 1.5, .2, 12.2, .4, 5.5, 22.3, 30.5, 4.9, 7.8, 4.4. The sixth column reads 14.6, .8, 3.2, 4, .9, 0, .2, 4.1, 27.8, 12.8, 2.5, 24.9, 4.3. The seventh column reads 1.3, 0, .2, 34.4, 0, 0.3, 0, 4.8, 1.8, 34.5, 1.9, 15.9, 4.9. The eighth column reads 8.6, 0, 4.9, .7, .3, 0, 0, 11.6, 26.9, 24.4, 2.8, 11.4, 8.6. The ninth column reads 16.3, 1, 9.8, 1.4, 8.6, 0, 9.5, 9.9, 23.7, 11, 0, 8.7, 0. The last column reads 8.3, 0, 6.4, 4.2, 0, 0, 0, 21.6, 20.1, 23.7, 0, 14.9, .7] ?Impaired? refers to the motorist having a physical impairment unrelated to drugs or alcohol (e.g. drowsy, handicapped, etc.). Also, there is a large percentage of crashes labeled ?other.? For these crashes, no causal factors were determined or reported by the police reports. The ?other? categories show that adverse environmental conditions are only a small factor in contributing to pedestrian crashes. The table shows that a large number of crashes in scenarios 3 and 7 are caused by motorist?s obscured vision. Sign/signal violation (or other violation) occur for a large number of crashes only for scenarios 4, 5 and 10. This can be seen more clearly in Figure 3. [Figure 3 shows a stacked bar chart with all 10 scenarios on the x-axis and relative frequency on the y axis. The legend has blue for sign/signal violation and red for other violation. Scenario 1 shows about .5% sign/signal violation and about 11% for both violations types combined. Scenario 2 shows about 5% sign/signal violation and about 16% for both violations types combined. Scenario 3 shows about 0% sign/signal violation and about 8% for both violations types combined. Scenario 4 shows about 11% sign/signal violation and about 27% for both violations types combined. Scenario 5 shows about 12.5% sign/signal violation and about 21% for both violations types combined. Scenario 6 shows about 1% sign/signal violation and about 10% for both violations types combined. Scenario 7 shows about 1% sign/signal violation and about 8% for both violations types combined. Scenario 8 shows about 0% sign/signal violation and about 13% for both violations types combined. Scenario 9 shows about 0% sign/signal violation and about 16% for both violations types combined. Scenario 10 shows about 0% sign/signal violation and about 23% for both violations types combined. All the scenarios show that 3% of crashes are due to stop sign/signal violation and that 14% of all crashes had some motorist violation associated with them.] Figure 3: Frequency of violations per crash scenario It can be seen in Figure 3 that violations occur in scenarios 4 and 5, but also are heavily represented in scenarios 2, 9 and 10. Table 3 shows that speeding, loss of control, and reckless driving are responsible for only a small percentage of the crashes in these 10 scenarios. A significant proportion of the causal factors are represented by alcohol/drugs, hit and run, and other/clear (no causal factor found and weather was not a factor); it is unclear whether ITS technologies will be able to reduce crashes due to these causal factors. Hit and run crashes were included in this to make this list complete, but clearly no causal factor can be attributed to the motorist in a hit and run crash if no witnesses were present. Causal factors for pedestrian are also described. Table 4 lists them by scenario. Table 4: Causal factors for pedestrians on a per-scenario basis [The x-axis has all 10 scenarios. The y axis is titled ?contributing factor.? It has 4 labels: Alcohol/drugs, impaired, improper crossing, and all other pedestrians. The first row reads, in percentages as follows: 9.9, 9.5, 3.9, 3, 2, 10.5, 3.1, .6, .7, 0. The second row reads .4, 1, .3, .6, 0, 1.8, 0, .8, 0, 0. The third row reads 44.5, 17.1, 8.7, 8, 9.5, 0, 8.1, 16.7, .5, 0. The last row reads 45.1, 72.3, 87, 88.4, 88.5, 87.7, 88.8, 81.9, 98.8, 100.] ?Improper crossing? refers to a pedestrian that is crossing either outside of the crosswalk or crossing when the pedestrian signal indicates that a crossing is unlawful. Improper crossings are represented heavily in scenarios 1, 2 and 8. Alcohol is a most represented in scenarios 1, 2 and 6, but it may prove difficult to alert or warn a pedestrian with an ITS-based solution if they are intoxicated or otherwise encumbered. The last row - ?all other pedestrians? - means that no causal was attributed to the pedestrian or none was identified. Atmospheric conditions were also reviewed and summarized in Figure 4. [Figure 4 shows a stacked bar chart with each scenario on the x-axis and the proportion of crashes that occurred in the four following conditions: night/adverse, night/clear, day/adverse, and day/clear. The following percentages are listed for each scenario in that same order. Scenario 1: 7.8, 37.5, 3.9, 50.8. Scenario 2: 8.5, 27.4, 8, 56.1, Scenario 3: 4.6, 21.8, 3.3, 70.3, Scenario 4: 9, 19.1, 6.9, 65.1, Scenario 5: 6, 20.3, 7.7, 66, Scenario 6: 7, 52.4, 4.8, 35.7, Scenario 7: 4.9, 22.2, 5.3, 67.6, Scenario 8: 19.8, 18.4, 7, 54.7, Scenario 9: 5.1, 34.3, 5.2, 55.5, Scenario 10: .7, 33.6, 1.7, 64.1] Figure 4: Percentage of crashes by daytime and by weather condition for each scenario Clear weather was reported when 87% of the crashes occurred. Also, 64% of the crashes occurred in the daytime. RFI RESPONDENTS REQUIREMENTS Expected respondents include private industry, individuals, Universities, public agencies or research groups. Respondents should submit an information package of their concepts with supporting information to defend their concept. Examples of supporting information can be found in this section of the RFI. This FHWA initiative is focused on detection-and-warning systems, however, any system that detects the pedestrians/vehicles and prevents a crash will be considered. The system need not warn a motorist or pedestrian, but could potentially alter a traffic signal. Such a system would usually apply only at signalized intersections, and would not be applicable to mid-block crossings. However, mid-block crossings occasionally have traffic signals or other warning beacons, that can be modified based on pedestrian presence or other factors. The innovative concepts should present the crash scenario and/or type that each is addressing. Respondents should be able to demonstrate how their product and concept will prevent or reduce crashes and show how the system will work in its entirety. Respondents should provide the following information, along with the concept: Functional specifications and performance requirements System and technological needs (e.g. does the technology currently exist) Commercial availability and timeline System details Supporting data (if available) Deployment potential Brief economic analysis The above bullets are discussed in more detail below. Functional specification and performance requirements: FHWA would like respondents to describe each concept?s functional specifications and performance requirements. Functional specifications refer to the individual sub-functions that inter-relate to form a working concept. Respondents should describe how the system works as a whole and how each component of the system is inter-related to perform the function that the concept is proposing. For example, if a system were to simply detect a curbside pedestrian and display an overhead warning to approaching motorists, the overall system at a minimum, would be comprised of a detection sub-system, a warning sub-system, and also a communication sub-system between the two. However, there may be additional sub-systems that facilitate or back up the communication process. In addition, any logic that may be programmed into either of the sub-systems should also be explained. Performance requirements refer to the specifications of individual components. For example, if a system includes a pedestrian sensor, the respondent should provide its range of detection, accuracy levels, etc. Alternatively, if a system includes a display for communicating information to a pedestrian (or motorist), then the respondent should indicate the range of view for the display. Similarly, if a warning were audible, the respondent should include decibel levels and show that it can be heard above typical road noise levels. These are only examples; all components should have estimated performance specifications listed. System and technological needs: Respondents can provide concepts that are a combination of off-the-shelf products, are producible as one complete system, or concepts that are theoretical in nature. Should the respondent?s concept include performance specifications that are not currently attainable in commercially available products, respondents should document these specification shortcomings. Respondent can optionally offer alternative methods to accomplish the necessary functions that cannot be satisfied using commercially available products. HOW TO RESPOND Responses can be e-mailed to Ann Do at ann.do@fhwa.dot.gov. Responses can also be mailed to the following address: Attention: Ann Do Office of Safety R&D Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101
- Record
- SN00800664-W 20050506/050504211831 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |