Roadway Measurement System Evaluation (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2011 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M Report S2-S03-RW-01 Roadway Measurement System Evaluation J. E. HUNT Applied Research Associates, Inc. A. VANDERVALK AND D. SNYDER Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Subscriber Categories Data and Information Technology Highways

The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of sig- nificant transportation problems, however, requires concen- trated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to comple- ment existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitiga- tion; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environ- mental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit- based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-S03-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-12899-5 © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scien- tific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Insti- tute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Neil F. Hawks, Director Ann M. Brach, Deputy Director Kizzy Anderson, Senior Program Assistant, Implementation Stephen Andrle, Chief Program Officer, Capacity James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Mark Bush, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity Eduardo Cusicanqui, Finance Officer Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Safety Elizabeth Forney, Assistant Editor Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Abdelmename Hedhli, Visiting Professional Ralph Hessian, Visiting Professional Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Reliability Gummada Murthy, Senior Program Officer, Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Noreen Stevenson-Fenwick, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal Charles Taylor, Special Consultant, Renewal Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Hans van Saan, Visiting Professional Pat Williams, Administrative Assistant Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications Specialist ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Safety. The principal investigators for this effort were John E. Hunt, PE, of Applied Research Associates, Inc., and Anita P. Vandervalk, PE, of Cambridge Systematics, Inc. The researchers would like to thank Mr. Robert Wilson of the Virginia Department of Transportation for his assistance in identifying candidate test sites in Northern Virginia. We also thank all the data collection vendors who took part in the equipment rodeo.

F O R E W O R D Charles Fay, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Safety This report for SHRP 2 Safety Project S03 documents the evaluation of automated/mobile data-collection services to provide data on roadway features and characteristics considered important for safety analysis, especially analysis of data from the SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driv- ing Study (NDS). To obtain these roadway data, SHRP 2 set out to procure the services of a vendor to collect data at highway speed. However, at the time, no validation of vendors’ capabilities to collect these data was publicly available. As a result, SHRP 2 conducted its own evaluation—the rodeo. The objectives of the rodeo were to determine the capabilities of the industry (as represented by 10 participating vendors) and to prequalify a list of vendors to bid on the project that would collect new roadway data in the six NDS sites throughout the United States. The design of the rodeo focused on replicating real-world data-collection environments likely to be encountered in the six sites. Two data-collection routes—one rural and one urban—totaled approximately 43 centerline miles. These routes included a variety of road- way types, terrain, and vegetation cover. Within the two routes were six 2,500-ft test sec- tions that contained 113 data elements of interest. These six test sections were manually surveyed and certified by a professional land surveyor. The surveyor’s measurements were used as reference data for the evaluation. Vendors were evaluated for coverage, consistency, completeness, and accuracy. Vendors provided data from three separate data-collection passes totaling approximately 8.5 survey miles for the six test sections. In addition to the data collected from the test sec- tions, vendors provided GPS data on 258 survey miles covering the entire rodeo route. For the GPS data, most of the vendors achieved a consistency of sub 30 cm over the entire rodeo route. This represents the capability of the vendors to geo-reference their vehicles while the vehicles are traveling at highway speed. In general, the vendors’ ability to locate roadside features diminishes the farther the features are from the vehicle, especially if these features are beyond the paved shoulder. With sufficient quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA), features up to the paved shoulder can be located consistently to an accuracy of sub meter, although this is not true without adequate QC/QA processes. Numerous issues were encountered that made it difficult for the Project S03 contracting team to achieve the objective of prequalifying a short list of vendors. Vendors were incon- sistent in adhering to the data-collection procedures and data-processing requirements out- lined in the rodeo instructions. No vendor reported all 113 data elements. The data were often incomplete, making it difficult to link the data to the reference data set. Almost all the vendors failed to provide any geometric data (e.g., horizontal radius of curvature)—a data category of high importance to the SHRP 2 Safety program for analyzing run-off-road crashes. This lack of reporting resulted in the need for SHRP 2 to conduct a follow-up evaluation that was managed under another project (Safety Project S04A, Roadway Information Data-

base Development and Technical Coordination and Quality Assurance of the Mobile Data Collection Project). Seven out of the original 10 rodeo vendors participated in the follow- up evaluation; three of the seven were prequalified to bid on the mobile data collection proj- ect (Safety Project S04B, Mobile Data Collection). Results of the follow-up evaluation were considered when developing the specifications for Project S04B. These specifications are provided in Table F.1. There were several things that SHRP 2 learned from Project S03 that are being addressed as Safety projects move forward with roadway data collection. To clarify parameters and specifications for data collection, a Data Dictionary and Field Data Collection Manual are being developed by the Project S04A contractor. The S04A contractor is responsible for pro- viding quality assurance (QA) for new data collected under Project S04B, and the S04A materials will be provided to the vendor chosen for Project S04B. Calibration sites will be established in each of the six NDS sites by the S04A contractor; the S04B contractor will be required to run these calibration sites at specific times during the data-collection process. In addition, the S04A contractor will develop QA processes to ensure that the data collected by the S04B contractor meets project specifications. In hindsight, 113 data elements were too many; a subset of data elements would have suf- ficed. SHRP 2 used such a subset in the follow-up evaluation conducted under Project S04A. In addition, the rodeo target accuracies were too stringent. Table F.1 compares the rodeo target accuracies with the specifications for Project S04B. The information in this report provides an overview of the rodeo that evaluated the capa- bilities of automated/mobile data-collection services to collect data on roadway features and characteristics considered important for safety analysis. Although not a complete guide, it will provide highway agencies with valuable information before they conduct their own eval- uation or procure automated/mobile data-collection services. Data Type Rodeo Target Accuracy Project S04B Specification Curvature length 2 ft 50 ft Curvature radius 25 ft 50 ft Point of curvature 3 ft 25 ft Point of tangency 3 ft 25 ft Grade 0.50% 0.50% Cross slope 0.10% 1.00% Lane width 1 ft 1 ft Paved shoulder width 1 ft 1 ft Inventory feature location 3 ft 7 ft Table F.1. Comparison of Rodeo Target Accuracy and Project S04B Specifications

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction: The Research Approach 4 Task 1: Finalizing Work Plan and QA/QC Plan 4 Task 2: Determining Prioritization of Data Elements 4 Task 3: Developing the Test Site Selection Criteria 4 Task 4: Test Site Evaluation and Recommendation 5 Task 5: Test Site Mapping and Surveying 6 Task 6: Organizing and Conducting the Rodeo 6 Task 7: Evaluating Rodeo Data 6 Task 8: Producing the Final Report 7 CHAPTER 2 Roadway Measurement System Evaluation Rodeo 7 Challenges and Issues 7 Data Elements 10 Lessons Learned 11 CHAPTER 3 Results 11 Data Evaluation Results 11 Assessment of State of the Practice 18 Reference 19 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 19 Prequalification of Vendors for SHRP 2 Safety Project S04B 19 Precision and Accuracy 19 Recommended Roadway Data Elements 20 Cost Implications of Recommended Data Set 25 Summary 25 Reference 26 Glossary