Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents (2020)

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.

69 Case Example Review—Passive Technologies and Safety Practices Dallas Area Rapid Transit As a result of previous pilot studies, DART has deployed several technologies within the entire fleet to improve safety, including two different driver monitoring systems and an elec- tronic pretrip inspection system. The two driver monitoring systems, DriveCam and SmartDrive, capture incidents such as speeding, hard braking, cornering too hard, driving without using the seatbelt, and falling asleep. DART uses both technologies as coaching tools for remedial training. Every DART bus also has a data recorder and each of the 30- and 40-foot transit buses also has a vehicle data logger. These devices capture and analyze data to aid in postaccident reconstruc- tion and developing measures to prevent future bus accidents. Over 100 vehicle parameters are logged—including engine speed; gravitational force; transmission response; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; and even pothole locations. The technology records the condition of the vehicle and vehicle systems and is used to perform event investigations more effectively. The system data provide a clearer picture to the agency of what occurred before and during an event, and some investigations utilizing the data from these data reorders resulted in the bus operator being exonerated of any fault or wrongdoing. Finally, on the 2017 and 2019 40-foot transit buses, the driver has camera views on the dash, covering four separate views of the interior. This feature works only when the vehicle is in park. The Zonar electronic pretrip inspection system includes a checklist with drop-down menus for defects and conditions. The technology application requires the operator to be in the physical place required to check each zone of the vehicle through the use of radio frequency identification tags, which reduces the possibility of approval without review. Once complete, the driver sends the report electronically to a maintenance supervisor who creates a work order to get the reported defects repaired. DART’s Collision Avoidance Countermeasure project included the implementation of three specific bus treatments: 1. A street-side mirror with a light-emitting diode (LED) clearance marker and turn indicator flasher to increase visibility (Figure C-1) 2. Highly reflective tape that outlines the rear of the bus to provide better definition of the vehicle envelope (Figure C-2) 3. Reprogramming of the rear sign to read “STOP” when the brakes are applied and the vehicle decelerates to a speed of 2 miles per hour or less (Figure C-3) All 640 buses in DART’s fleet were retrofitted with the rear reflective tape collision mitigation measure. DART’s rear route signs were reprogrammed to display “STOP,” and the lighted A P P E N D I X C Passive Collision Avoidance Technologies and Safety Practices

70 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents Figure C-1. Street-side mirror with LED light. Figure C-2. Added rear reflective tape. street-side mirror markers were implemented on DART’s 528 30-foot and 40-foot transit buses. The combination of these collision avoidance countermeasures led to reduced mirror strikes and a 40 percent reduction in rear-end collisions. DART also added curbside rear wheel turn lights (Figure C-4) to its bus fleet to help operators clearly see the tire envelope in their mirrors in low-light environments. DART measures safety improvements through both anecdotal evidence and specific perfor- mance metrics, including reduced payouts and decreased incidents. DART originally piloted rear bus treatments on 150 of the 640 buses in its fleet. The treatment included red and white

Passive Collision Avoidance Technologies and Safety Practices 71 tape placed vertically from bumper to roof as well as horizontally above the engine door and in the center section of the rear bumper. The destination sign was reprogrammed to display the word “STOP” when the bus was stopped. If the service brake was applied and the ramp was deployed, the word “STOP” would appear along with route information and the universal wheelchair symbol. The bus mirrors were also equipped with an LED light casing, which visually provides the mirror clearance distance while also acting as an additional turn signal indicator. Street-side LED lighting was also added to the length of the bus to make the rear dual tires visible in the operators mirror in low-light situations. These initiatives have led to a 40 percent reduction in the number of rear end collisions in the first year, and have since been implemented throughout the entire fleet. Figure C-3. STOP display on rear sign. Figure C-4. Curbside rear wheel turn light.

72 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents GoTriangle GoTriangle has implemented exterior vehicle security cameras on its bus fleet to help reduce collisions. Depending on its size, each GoTriangle bus is equipped with six to eight cameras capable of audio and video recording. The cameras are inward and outward facing, and they capture the operator workstation, passenger activity, and external bus environments. GoTriangle pulls videos monthly to monitor driver behaviors and practices. If the agency dis- covers unsafe behaviors, the videos are used as coaching opportunities to intervene proactively prior to the occurrence of an incident. Although operators were initially apprehensive of the cameras, they have found them to be a valuable asset. GoTriangle representatives indicate that the cameras and subsequent proactive training have led to fewer preventable collisions. One challenge associated with the exterior cameras was damage from contact with trees. This issue was resolved by facing many of the cameras backward, as the housing of the camera protects the lens to reduce damage when contact with low branches does occur. Another issue the agency had to overcome was the difficulty in observing operator actions in low-light environments. GoTriangle is considering infrared cameras as a possible solution to this issue. Rear vehicle cameras are also installed on all buses manufactured since 2017 and will be installed on any newly purchased vehicles, though GoTriangle still utilizes spotter protocol if an operator is required to back the bus. In response to a 2008 increase in rear-end collisions, GoTriangle implemented a rear bus modification—the addition of an LED light that illuminates to spell “STOP” when the opera- tor applies the bus brakes, as shown in Figure C-5. GoTriangle installed these lights on its buses in 2011 as a pilot test, but they were subsequently uninstalled due to complaints from motorists that the LED lights were too bright. In 2016, GoTriangle installed the “STOP” light with a pulsating feature, which led to a reduction in rear-end collisions in 2017. Since 2017, however, rear-end collision rates have remained constant rather than following a continuous reduction trend. The agency is exploring new mirror designs to help prevent mirror taps. While mirror con- figuration is not a technology application, GoTriangle is exploring options to bring the mirrors closer, thereby reducing the overall width of the bus that is exposed to other vehicles. GoTriangle has introduced the safety management system to its employees in preparation for the release of the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP). One element of the PTASP is the proactive identification of safety hazards and near misses through an employee safety reporting system. GoTriangle updated its near-miss employee safety-reporting program Figure C-5. Bus rear “STOP” LED light.

Passive Collision Avoidance Technologies and Safety Practices 73 within the last three years, resulting in increased employee participation and the implementa- tion of additional mitigation measures. Many of the reports included issues such as low-hanging branches and potholes, which were resolved as quickly as possible. GoTriangle representatives indicated that the agency plans to continue looking into ways of encouraging more robust reporting. Greater Bridgeport Transit GBT has implemented driver-view external video monitoring, exterior vehicle security cameras, front door brake interlocks, as passive collision avoidance technologies. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority In 2014, RTA conducted a fleet-wide installation of DriveCam, a telemetry-based driver monitoring system (DMS) to help protect its operators, reduce costs associated with risky driving behaviors, and create a safer experience for riders. The DMS is a video-based data capture and analytics technology that identifies behaviors that have the highest probability of causing or contributing to a collision event. The DMS provider issues a “report card” every quarter, allowing RTA to examine and discuss trends. RTA reported that incident records increased immediately after instituting the technology because the cameras were capturing behaviors that had previously gone unrecognized. After this initial period of adjustment, however, the agency saw significant reductions in unsafe behaviors. Operator acceptance was critical for achieving these results, and RTA maintained constant communication with its local ATU chapter and associated operators before, during, and after the implementation. RTA’s audiovisual surveillance systems consist of four external and four internal cameras. The use of this equipment was also reported as beneficial for one-on-one bus operator coaching, as well as for refresher training in group settings. These videos are also reported to generate most of the topics that come up for discussion during Safety Rounds meetings. King County Metro King County Metro has implemented several passive collision avoidance technologies on their transit buses, such as driver-view external video monitoring/detection and exterior vehicle security cameras. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County In order to mitigation rear-end collisions in its system, METRO equipped its buses with four 7-inch lights, two in each corner, and two red strips of lighting in the middle of the bus. There is also an LED sign that spells the word “STOP” in the middle of the engine door. There are two approximately 16-inch strips of amber lights that activate when the operator takes his or her foot off the accelerator, informing following motorists that the bus is slowing. These rear bus lighting modifications, which METRO first put in place about 10 years ago, initially resulted in the reduction of rear-end collisions; however, the agency states that rear-end collisions have since increased, and it attributes that increase to the ubiquitous use of smartphones. METRO in Houston is considering equipping its fleet with a passive, vision-based advanced operator assistance system like DriveCam, and it is also considering testing the technology on some of its newer buses. Because the technology has been tested extensively in the trucking industry, METRO is attempting to determine if the technology can be successfully migrated to the transit industry. Houston METRO also implemented exterior vehicle security cameras and on their buses.

74 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents Background Research Summary DMSs, such as DriveCam and SmartDrive, are passive technologies reported as successful in reducing bus accidents and incidents. Case example sites have indicated the use or testing of these systems, a number reporting the systems as effective in improving system safety. More information on the successes of driver monitoring systems can be found in TCRP Synthesis of Practice 126: Successful Practices and Training Initiatives to Reduce Bus Accidents and Incidents at Transit Agencies (Staes et al. 2017). When asked about collision avoidance technologies for transit buses, several transit agencies indicated that these driver monitoring systems have been successful at their agencies. There have also been efforts to examine the effectiveness of 360-degree camera systems, associated design challenges, and what are characterized as both opportunities and hazards associated with their use. A 2017 presentation developed by the Amalgamated Transit Union, “360 Degree Cameras for Transit – Opportunities and Hazards,” describes the limitations of 360-degree camera systems and methods to improve the accuracy of these devices (ATU 2017b). It also presents concerns related to the ability of these camera systems to quickly and effectively deliver visual information to bus operators in time for the operator to respond quickly enough to avoid a collision. Establishing these concerns as “The Problems of Geometry, Time, Speed, and Distance,” the presenter addresses the length of time it takes for a bus operator to stop the vehicle safely once a pedestrian is detected; the travel distance required; and the human elements, such as cognitive and perceptual load that may affect an operator’s ability to react. The presentation also addresses the procedure that should be utilized when making a left turn and speaks to the visual obstruction and field-of-vision limitations with current transit mirror designs and placement. Transport for London (TfL), in conjunction with the Transportation Research Laboratory, produced a Bus Safety Standard report that addresses vehicle design and safety system perfor- mance for buses operating in London (TfL and TRL 2018). Researchers consulted with the bus industry, manufacturers, engineers, and human factors experts to address a range of topics. Included is an independent standard and framework for assessing the safety of TfL’s buses, a “Bus Safety Roadmap” that establishes future requirements for the bus industry, and a “Bus Safety Innovation Challenge” by which new innovative technologies will be assessed. One area of focus is improving direct (line of sight) and indirect (using cameras or mirrors) vision for bus operators. The Bus Safety Standard incorporates requirements to minimize direct vision obstructions from pillars and improve indirect vision utilizing mirrors. Camera Monitor Systems were described as a future application. There has been considerable research performed on the safety risks associated with direct vision (generally related to an individual’s field of view) limitations and limitations of indirect vision technologies. “Blind spots” and the risks that can contribute to increased collisions with other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists have been the topic of research specifically for heavy goods vehicles. While these vision topics are not specifically the focus of this study, future research and the identification of associated recommended practices or design elements to mitigate reduced vision would benefit the industry.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-48107-6 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 1 0 7 6 9 0 0 0 0