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.

27 The case example sites included within this examination were selected on the basis of varying pilots and implementation of onboard collision avoidance technologies to reduce bus accidents and incidents, as reported in responses to the survey questionnaire. The following agencies—also illustrated in Figure 22—were selected from the survey respondents as case example sites. • Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, Texas) • GoTriangle (Durham, North Carolina) • Greater Bridgeport Transit (Bridgeport, Connecticut) • Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland, Ohio) • King County Metro Transit (Seattle, Washington) • Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston, Texas) • Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) Size classifications of the case example agencies were established using unlinked passenger trips (UPTs) from 2017 NTD data. Agencies classified as small were those that provided fewer than 10 million UPTs, “medium” agencies were those that provided between 10 million and 100 million UPTs, and large agencies were those that provided more than 100 million UPTs. A guide was developed to formalize the approach to the initial telephone interviews with case example locations. Additional email and telephonic communication occurred with each case example agency to ensure the accuracy and thoroughness of the examination narrative. A summary of the case example agency characteristics is provided in Table 2. A summary of the engagement with case example sites follows. The section is organized alphabetically by case example agency. Each case example segment includes a discussion of the successes that transit agencies achieved through various safety-related applications and programs. In addition, reported lessons learned are presented, as well as any issues identified as constraints, challenges, or barriers to program or application implementation, and the methods undertaken to overcome them. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Dallas, Texas) Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) (Figure 23) was established in 1983 and serves 13 cities in the Dallas, Texas, area with bus, light rail, commuter rail, vanpool, and paratransit services. The agency’s slogan is “DART is far more than just the thing you ride. It is your trusted guide to discovering all that North Texas has to offer.” DART has a vision of being the preferred choice of transportation for now and in the future. The mission of DART is To build, establish and operate a safe, efficient and effective transportation system that, within the DART Service Area, provides mobility, improves the quality of life, and stimulates economic C H A P T E R 4 Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites

28 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents development through the implementation of the DART Service Plan as adopted by the voters on August 13, 1983, and as amended from time to time. (DART.org) Summary DART has already incorporated several technologies and is currently piloting the Mobileye Shield+. In addition, it has taken on many safety-related initiatives, such as rear-end reflective tape and side lighting, which have led to a 40 percent drop in the number of rear-end collisions in the first year, as well as a reduction in mirror strikes. DART reports that the street-side lighted mirror marker works well and that all new buses will come with high mount street-side mirrors, which should limit side mirror collisions. Safety Risk Assessment The agency conducted a study that examined 500 DART bus collisions to identify the most common collision characteristics. The study recommended specific mitigation measures for the agency to consider piloting in an effort to reduce collision. Following those recommenda- tions, DART developed a three-pronged Collision Avoidance Countermeasure project in 2015 to increase safety and reduce claims costs. DART subsequently implemented several collision avoidance countermeasures, including rear bus modifications, mirror lighting, and rear bus signage, all of which are discussed in more detail in Appendix C. Technology Pilots/Demonstrations Current Pilots/Demonstrations. DART is currently participating in an ongoing pilot of the Mobileye Shield+, which began in March 2018 and was originally planned for three months but has been extended through the end of 2019. Currently, the Mobileye Shield+ is installed on seven buses, each with two windshield mounted cameras, two rear exterior cameras, and three Agency Size Large = Over 100 million UPTs Medium = 10 million to 100 million UPTs Small = Fewer than 10 million UPTs Figure 22. Case example locations. Figure 23. DART logo.

Agency Dallas Area Rapid Transit GoTriangle Greater Bridgeport Transit Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority King County Metro Transit Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 20 17 N TD A ge nc y Pr ofi le s Annual Passenger Miles 117,278,600 18,546,048 17,145,461 122,633,841 483,528,654 285,574,057 532,244,156 Annual Revenue Miles 27,565,509 2,830,944 1,916,537 13,416,938 33,818,331 34,576,281 39,615,495 Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips 31,951,162 1,662,758 5,477,783 30,931,172 102,013,147 58,050,763 163,236,065 VOMS 537 77 43 299 1,015 692 1,193 Pr ev al en t C au sa l F ac to rs Not Following Policy or Procedure Distractions Disobeying/Not Observing Traffic Laws Training Related Fatigue Other Ex am in e an d Tr ac k Ca us al o r Co nt ri bu ti ng F ac to rs Accident Review Reports Other Employee Reporting Customer Reports Tracking Data Trends Internal Safety Reviews Employee Close-Call/Near- Miss Reporting Reviews of Telemetric Systems Te ch no lo gy Im pl em en ta ti on D et ai ls Incident Type to Mitigate Mirror Strikes and Rear-End Collisions Pedestrian Strikes Pedestrian Strikes Pedestrian Strikes Pedestrian Strikes Pedestrian Strikes Pedestrian Strikes Technology Piloted/ Implemented Shield+ and Rear Bus Modifications Safe Turn Alert System Safe Turn Alert System Enhanced Transit Safety Retrofit Package Safe Turn Alert System Shield+ and Backeye360 Safe Turn Alert System and Blind Spot Awareness System NOTE: VOMS = Vehicles operated in maximum service. Table 2. Characteristics of case example agencies.

30 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents operator displays that provide a warning if a collision is imminent. Stealth mode operations were conducted for a four-week period prior to transitioning to live mode. While in stealth mode, alerts were transmitted to the database with corresponding identifying information but were not provided to the bus operator. Thus, the data collected during stealth mode established a basis on which to compare the live data. The live data generated and collected by Mobileye include • Type, time, and number of alerts and the geolocation of the alerts; • Road conditions or other environmental data including traffic lights, road signs, lanes, street- lights, and signage; • Vehicle information including the vehicle identification number, make, model year, or license plate number; and • Performance data such as vehicle location, routes traveled, and other personally identifiable information. DART reports that night driving is a significant challenge, because the technology is less effective in low-light environments. According to agency representatives, however, Mobileye will have improved camera technology that eliminates the night vision challenges and will provide the updated system to DART in the summer of 2019. DART’s police, engineering, and operations offices are working to determine if they will expand the testing of the Mobileye Shield+ beyond 2019. More details related to the pilot are included in subsequent sections of this report. Technology and Other Devices Considered. The field mirror extension indicator stick, a stick that extends beyond the mirror to prevent it from striking external obstacles, was considered but not piloted. DART representatives determined the indicator stick to be an unreasonable solution to the mirror strike issue because of aesthetics, as well as constantly needing to fix marks made by the stick. Other considerations were subsequently made to mitigate the mirror strikes, including light-emitting diodes (LEDs) added to the mirrors, which were more aesthetically pleasing. The LED mirror light solution is discussed more in Appendix C. Agency’s Vendor Experience The Mobileye Shield+ pilot test plan prescribed the specific characteristics of the equipment installation. The vendor subcontracted the installation services but maintained supervision over the process and provided an installation manual. The plan also outlined the data collection and telematics accessibility and protocol. The Mobileye agreement did not include terms for trouble- shooting, maintenance, technology upgrades, or technical support; however, the agreement did define the training Mobileye would provide. The vendor provided two training categories for the Mobileye Shield+ pilot—operator training and telematics training—all of which occurred after the equipment installation. The vendor facilitated the operator training session, which took place while the equipment was still operating in stealth mode. This training consisted of a one-hour classroom session in a train-the-trainer format, in which bus operator trainers were trained and then subsequently trained their fellow bus operators. Telematics training occurred via an online conference room format, in which the vendor’s data analytics team reviewed the various features of the data platform. The vendor recommended that at least one person receive the telematics training. For the current Mobileye Shield+ pilot, Mobileye collects, maintains, and owns the data. While DART does not directly own the data that are collected from the Mobileye Shield+ pilot, DART representatives indicate that this arrangement works well for the agency because the vendor is forthcoming with the data, which includes trending features and maps of pedestrian hot spots.

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 31 Acceptance of Technology The data collection and test plan for the Mobileye Shield+ pilot includes a Driver Experience Questionnaire that was developed by Mobileye to obtain critical feedback to evaluate the system. The questionnaire, which will be disseminated in electronic form, asks operators to rate 11 statements on a scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The operator name and additional comments are optional at the bottom of the electronic form. The statements address the degree to which • The training was clear and comprehensive, • The visual and audible alerts were simple to understand, • The system was easy to use, • Alerts decreased over time, • The system was helpful, • Operators felt safer driving a bus equipped with the Mobileye Shield+ technology, • The system made operators feel like the company is committed to keeping operators safe, • The system proved its value with at least one alert of a possible incident, • The system made operators more aware of their driving habits, • Operators would recommend the system to other operators, and • Operators would consider the technology for their personal vehicle. Initially, there was overall positive anecdotal feedback from operators via word of mouth. The Driver Experience Questionnaire will be distributed after the conclusion of the pilot to document operator feedback. DART incentivizes operators to monitor speed, braking profile, cornering left and right turns, and damage by holding an annual safety awards banquet, an event that recognizes the exemplary performance of the agency’s safest operators. GoTriangle (Durham, North Carolina) GoTriangle (Figure 24) is a small transit agency that provides bus, shuttle, and paratransit services in the Raleigh–Durham–Chapel Hill area of North Carolina. The agency’s mission is to improve the quality of life in the region by connect- ing people and places through safe, reliable, and easy-to-use choices. The vision is to make exceptional public transportation the foundation of the region’s community, prosperity, and mobility. GoTriangle’s Strategic Plan, 2017–2021, states that the agency is dedicated to promoting a culture of safety, with defined objectives of decreasing customer injury rates, decreasing preventable collision rates, and decreasing employee workdays lost due to injuries. Summary GoTriangle piloted the Protran Safe Turn Alert pedestrian warning system on one of its buses for six months. The agency decided not to procure the technology, citing system cost and false positive alerts as the major barriers to implementation. Operators complained that the Protran Safe Turn Alert features were distracting while driving; however, operators have been receptive to other collision avoidance measures that GoTriangle implemented on its buses, such as rear vehicle treatments and inward- and outward-facing cameras. GoTriangle has also updated a nonpunitive near-miss employee reporting system, which has seen increased employee participation over the past three years. The agency has expressed continuous interest in technology that has the potential to improve the safety of bus operators. According to agency representatives, GoTriangle is willing to pilot and invest in the implemen- tation of advanced technologies, but they say that funding is one of the greatest challenges in doing so. GoTriangle representatives also recommend that agencies invest in at least six months Figure 24. GoTriangle logo.

32 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents of pilot time, conducting the pilot on multiple vehicles if possible, to allow more than one operator at a time to have access to the technology. Additionally, they emphasized that dif ferent operators and different operating environments will result in a wide variety of operator feedback. Safety Risk Assessment GoTriangle’s safety department analyzes collisions and incidents, both qualitatively and quantitatively, for safety hazard identification, resolution, and risk management purposes. Results of the analyses are useful for identifying collision prevention technologies for research and eventual testing or implementation. GoTriangle also analyzes safety data to help improve system safety performance. While the data do not indicate increasing collision trends, the agency’s stance is to remain proactive and open to the possibility of implementing collision avoidance technologies. One such technology that GoTriangle is considering is a driver monitoring system. Technology Pilots/Demonstrations Piloted Technology That Was Not Implemented. GoTriangle piloted the Protran Safe Turn Alert technology on one bus over the course of six months. According to agency representatives, GoTriangle installed the system on the front of the bus and did not include Protran’s add-on Blind Spot Awareness technology. The bus that was equipped with the Protran Safe Turn Alert technology operated on the highest ridership route with the most traffic and the most turns, to determine if this technology was valuable to the agency. Ultimately, the pilot was not conclusive in proving the technology would lead to a reduction of any near misses or collisions. Furthermore, operators felt that the system was a distraction, as alerts occurred every time the bus made turns. Because of the system’s overall cost and the lack of supporting data to prove its effectiveness, GoTriangle chose not to procure the technology. While agency representatives recognize the technology may have performed differently in a less congested environment, the goal of the pilot was to determine if the technology would improve driving conditions on the most congested route, where there is the greatest risk of pedestrian strikes and near-miss incidents. Agency’s Vendor Experience The Protran Safe Turn Alert pilot was not part of a proposal in response to a federally or state-funded demonstration project. The transit vehicles were provided to the technology vendor, and the system was installed “after market” by a vendor technician and a GoTriangle electronic technician. GoTriangle provided operator training for the Protran Safe Turn Alert system to allow operators to gain familiarity with the technology before driving. During training, GoTriangle also informed operators of the type of feedback that management would be requesting after completion of a shift on the bus equipped with Protran Safe Turn Alert. GoTriangle planned the initial pilot of the Protran Safe Turn Alert System for three months, but the demonstration was extended to six months to allow more time to evaluate the use- fulness of the technology. GoTriangle representatives reported that working with the vendor was seamless with regard to troubleshooting and that the vendor was cooperative even after GoTriangle revealed that it was not ready to implement the technology following the end of the pilot. The agency provided the vendor with useful feedback on ways to improve the technology, such as addressing the oversensitivity of the external proximity sensors. Acceptance of Technology GoTriangle garnered operator feedback by distributing a brief questionnaire to operators following their assignment on a bus outfitted with the technology. The questionnaire asked if the Protran Safe Turn Alert System worked properly for the pre-check inspection, and if there

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 33 were any positive or negative comments from passengers regarding the technology. Operators expressed concerns about the sensitivity of the exterior proximity sensors, as the system would sound the alarm in unnecessary situations, creating an irritating distraction. In addition to this negative feedback, some operators reported that the system improved their situational awareness. Safety Outcomes GoTriangle measures safety improvements through perception, specific performance metrics, and the results of research projects. While GoTriangle piloted the Protran Safe Turn Alert system, the agency found no evidence that the system would lead to a reduction of near misses or collisions. Greater Bridgeport Transit (Bridgeport, Connecticut) Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) (Figure 25) was organized in 1998 to operate public transit services in the geographical area encompassed by the Connecticut municipalities of Bridgeport, Fairfield, Stratford, and Trumbull. GBT, a small bus and paratransit agency with fewer than 100 bus operators, provides over 5 million annual passenger trips. GBT’s mission is “Contributing to a better community through public transportation.” GBT offers fixed route and paratransit services to eight municipalities in southwestern Connecticut. Summary In 2014, GBT considered a beta version of a pedestrian detection technology that provided both audio and color-coded visual warnings to the operator, but the agency chose not to implement the technology because of unsuccessful demonstrations. The system did not reliably identify pedestrians, and the agency was concerned that drivers would be less vigilant with this system in place. GBT representatives recognized, however, that pedestrian technology had likely improved dramatically since their initial beta testing. The agency has now implemented the Protran Safe Turn Alert pedestrian warning technology. The transit bus manufacturer prewired the buses during final vehicle assembly. The Protran Safe Turn Alert System has audible warnings and flashing lights on the outside of the bus to warn pedestrians of a turning bus. As part of an agreement with the union, GBT also installed driver barriers in buses. GBT stressed that proper investigation of all reports is crucial for gathering all the infor- mation necessary to understand the agency’s safety culture, identify gaps in safety performance, and implement mitigation measures to improve safety performance in a prescriptive manner. The agency also noted the value of the information provided by bus operators and riders. GBT is now working to transition from a System Safety Program Plan to a Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan (PTASP) under Safety Management Systems. When asked what they would tell peer agencies, GBT representatives emphasized the importance of keeping safety in the forefront to ensure that complacency does not become a factor. They recommend a focus on safety culture rather than a reactive approach of deter- mining preventability after an event occurs. Additionally, GBT representatives suggested that other agencies try new technologies in a methodical way whenever possible, especially those that are relatively low cost and minimally intrusive. Safety Risk Assessment GBT has found that customer complaints often lead to the identification of safety issues; thus, the agency investigates customer complaints the same way as accident reviews, including the use of surveillance systems. GBT has also organized a Service Review Committee, which Figure 25. GBT logo.

34 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents consists of operators, trainers, planning staff, and union representatives, to identify issues that have the potential to affect the safety of the system. Some of the concerns raised in the Service Review Committee include bus schedules, bus stop locations, and passenger crowding. GBT also conducts annual in-service reviews of operators. These reviews are conducted by GBT trainers and cover an extensive checklist of safety items. Presently, GBT staff now are in the process of developing a near-miss reporting program. GBT is committed to improving safety from a holis- tic standpoint, including technology, training, scheduling, safety awareness promotion, and the review of all improvements to continuously improve system safety. Technology Pilots/Demonstrations In 2014, GBT considered a beta version of a pedestrian detection technology that provided both audio and color-coded visual warnings to the operator, but the agency chose not to imple- ment the technology due to unsuccessful demonstrations. The system did not reliably identify pedestrians, and there was concern that drivers would be less vigilant with this system in place. GBT representatives later recognized that the technology had improved since the pilot, and the agency implemented the Protran Safe Turn Alert system. Technology Solutions GBT has implemented outward-facing video monitoring in the operator cab, exterior vehicle security cameras, front door brake interlocks, and pedestrian warning devices. The agency added the Protran Safe Turn Alert pedestrian warning device to reduce the possibility of pedestrian strikes. The Protran Safe Turn Alert System, which is installed on 30 of 57 buses in the fleet, has flashing lights and a speaker on the outside of the bus to warn pedestrians of the turning bus. The volume of the warnings is such that it will not be a neighborhood nuisance in the early morning hours, but it will be loud enough to gain the attention of a pedestrian walking in the vicinity of a turning bus. The volume of the audible external warnings does not vary with ambient noise volume changes. In recognition that it could be difficult for some pedestrians to hear the warn- ing, the system also has an external light that flashes to get the pedestrian’s attention when the bus turns. The system has been in operation since 2016. Technology Procurement, Installation, and Training The implementation of the Protran Safe Turn Alert technology was not part of a proposal in response to a federally or state-funded demonstration project. GBT procured the system though a request for proposals at the time of bus purchases. The transit vehicle manufacturer prewired GBT buses during final vehicle assembly. GBT now procures new buses with the technology installed; it has not been inclined to retrofit older buses, as GBT prefers that the installation of new technologies be done by the manufacturer during bus production. GBT provided employee familiarization training for the Protran Safe Turn Alert technology; however, since the technology did not require any changes in operator behavior, the training was not extensive. Acceptance of Technology GBT representatives mentioned that working with the union and with drivers is important, and that listening to and accounting for employee concerns results in greater acceptance and approval of safety initiatives. Adding the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, along with operator barriers and increased training, helps operators to feel that GBT cares about employee safety. Agency representatives also indicated that, overall, the operators appreciate the Protran Safe Turn Alert System. GBT reported that some drivers complained of high volume at the time of initial system implementation, but they were able to adjust to the new situation over time. There were no complaints from neighborhoods about noise from the system.

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 35 Safety Outcomes Safety improvements at GBT have resulted in a 66 percent reduction in the agency’s prevent- able collision rate. The average preventable collision rate was 3.27 collisions per 100,000 miles in the first 12 months after the start of the safety work. The most recent 12-month average preventable collision rate was 1.11 preventable collisions per 100,000 miles. Additionally, there has not been a pedestrian strike since the implementation of the Protran Safe Turn Alert System. Because training and schedule changes also occurred during this period, however, safety improvements cannot be attributed solely to the Protran Safe Turn Alert System. GBT also saw a dramatic improvement in large loss claims, which the agency was able to reduce by more than 98 percent—from $1.5 million in 2014 to $18,000 in 2018. GBT representatives acknowledge that the claims paid in 2014 are skewed somewhat due to one very large pay- ment; nonetheless, the reduction in claims remains impressive. GBT credits its success in safety improvements to a continuity in training and leadership and an unwavering commitment to continuous improvement. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Cleveland, Ohio) The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA), the largest transit agency in Ohio (Figure 26), provides public transit services to Cleveland and the surrounding suburbs of Cuyahoga County. Although RTA operates one heavy rail line and two interurban light rail lines, the bulk of the agency’s service consists of buses, including regular fixed-route bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), and paratransit buses for customers with disabilities. Bus operators are members of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). RTA’s mission is “to provide safe, reliable, clean and courteous public transportation”; and the agency’s top priority is to protect the safety of employees, riders, and the public. Additionally, RTA’s vision states that, among other things, the agency will continually improve its quality of service, enhance its value to the community, and upgrade and manage technologies to best serve customers. Summary RTA was the site of an FTA-sponsored project awarded to Battelle to deploy an Enhanced Transit Safety Retrofit Package (E-TRP), which included bus side-detection systems and pedes- trian warnings for crosswalks and transit stops (further discussed in the section on technology solutions). Because of RTA’s experience with this deployment, it was asked what advice it would provide to peer agencies that are considering implementing a similar collision avoidance technology. RTA encouraged other agencies to implement the technology, but it also noted that the transit bus mode could benefit from more industry advocacy. Specifically, RTA repre- sentatives cited the potential for cost reductions of the technology if the industry unites and demands improvements from the vehicle manufacturers. Moreover, as these advanced technology systems become commonplace on personal vehicles, they should be adapted and made avail- able as standard equipment for transit buses. RTA’s involvement in the pilot has been mutually beneficial through both improved collision rates and advancements in the research and develop- ment of pedestrian detection technology. Safety Risk Assessment RTA’s Safety Management System (SMS) Framework and Implementation Plan (approved August of 2018) defines the safety risk management steps that the agency will take to support its SMS. According to RTA’s policies, agency personnel are required to report identified Figure 26. RTA logo.

36 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents hazards and undesired events, and to resolve the identified hazards through a hazard assess- ment hierarchy. RTA’s goal of safety risk management is to eliminate safety risks where possible; thus, it also recognizes the importance of ensuring that mitigation measures do not pose additional hazards. When it is not possible to eliminate a safety hazard, other safety guards and administrative controls are implemented to reduce the associated risk. Additionally, RTA will reevaluate hazards if a new technology or process is introduced that may affect system safety. Recognizing that change is constant in the public transit industry and that technology improves rapidly, RTA is committed to remaining abreast of technology improvements and enhancements. Technology Pilots/Demonstrations Current Pilots. In 2015, FTA awarded the Battelle Memorial Institute funding to conduct the Connected Vehicle Infrastructure—Urban Bus Operational Safety Platform Project or E-TRP project. RTA participated in a 6-month pilot project with Battelle that focused on provid- ing warning notices to bus operators. The pilot, which included 24 buses at three intersection sites, used pedestrian detection technology to alert bus operators of pedestrians in, or about to enter, crosswalks. Some benefits of the pilot demonstration are highlighted in the technology solutions section. Battelle’s in-depth final report documenting the outcomes of the E-TRIP was not available at the time of this report. Piloted Technology That Was Not Implemented. Due to the cost of equipping the entire bus fleet and downtown road network, the piloted technology was not fully implemented. RTA representatives indicated a desire to have bus side-detection monitors installed on all newly procured buses, preferably by the vehicle manufacturer. With regard to costs, it is important that agencies consider the useful life of the technologies that are procured and installed on their fleets. As fleets age and their useful life decreases, the time over which the cost of the technology can be amortized is reduced, making the technology less cost-effective. Thus, the cost of a technology may be more reasonable in the context of a longer projected fleet life. Technology Solutions As mentioned previously, as part of a 6-month FTA-connected vehicle pilot program, Battelle worked with RTA to deploy E-TRP, which includes bus side-detection systems and pedestrian warnings for crosswalks and transit stops. This Battelle E-TRP pilot included both bus-mounted and roadside equipment. The Battelle system notifies the operator (1) when a pedestrian is in, or about to enter, a crosswalk in the path of the bus, and (2) when another connected vehicle is turning in front of the bus as it pulls away from a stop. Because RTA buses were the only vehicles equipped with the technology for the pilot, this type of warning would occur only if another RTA bus turned in front of the bus. The system uses dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) radio for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, GPS for vehicle tracking, and forward looking infrared (FLIR) cameras for pedestrian detection. Other technology solutions on RTA buses include Protran Safe Turn Alerts, as well as rear LED lights that the agency installed on its 40-foot and BRT buses to serve as an added brake light warning to motorists. Agency’s Vendor Experience RTA provided each transit vehicle to Battelle for “after-market” installation. The agreement did not include terms for upgrading the technology. Upon the completion of the pilot, Battelle removed all the vendor technology from the buses and intersections.

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 37 The vendor agreement between RTA and Battelle included terms for troubleshooting, maintenance, and technical support, and specifically identified repairs and modifications that could be made locally versus those that required direct oversight by Battelle. While the structure of the pilot project established a direct relationship between Battelle and the technology vendor, RTA worked directly with Battelle and therefore did not have any direct interaction with the vendor. Ultimately, RTA has considered the pros and cons of competing technologies and has not ruled out possible inclusion on future fleets. Battelle provided a train-the-trainer session at RTA headquarters to educate transit super- visors on how to train bus operators on their interaction with the system. The training was then integrated into RTA’s training program. The content included an overview of connected vehicle technology and background information on the E-TRP project and purpose. Training covered hardware design of the in-vehicle subsystem and showed pictures of the hardware installed on transit buses to familiarize RTA with the system. The primary focus was to ensure bus operators were familiar with and could interact with the display, and knew which vehicles, routes, and intersection locations would be affected by the system. Acceptance of Technology One barrier to implementation of the Battelle E-TRP was the distraction factor associated with the audio and visual cues provided by the technology. Additionally, an email survey that was conducted to gauge technology acceptance resulted in a near-even split between employees who reacted favorably to the technology and those who reacted unfavorably. Respondents who reacted favorably indicated that the technology was another tool in the toolbox, while those reacting unfavorably perceived it as another distraction. It should be noted that the method by which the surveys were distributed to operators was identified as a weakness in the survey methodology. While all RTA bus operators have a company-issued email address, they rarely use it. Therefore, less than 2 percent of the operators responded to the survey that was conducted as part of the Battelle E-TRP pilot. With such a low rate of response, the survey results do not accurately represent employee opinion. RTA representatives recommended that future surveys be available in paper form to improve response rates. The agency also recognized the potential value of incentivizing responses to the survey. Ideas for improving the survey response rate included setting up a focus group at the beginning of the pilot and emphasizing the value of the group’s opinions. Additionally, RTA concluded that providing the focus group with some additional benefit, such as paid early dismissal, might improve employees’ eagerness to participate and voice their opinions. Safety Outcomes When the Battelle E-TRP was first installed on RTA buses, the alerts were suppressed and not visible to the driver, in order to establish a baseline average operator reaction time. This baseline average reaction time (1.6 seconds) was then compared with the average operator reaction time after the warning alerts were provided (1.3 seconds), resulting in an improvement in operator reaction time of 18.8 percent. The technology also resulted in a 16 percent improvement in driver’s response to pedestrian collision warnings. The Battelle E-TRP pilot also benefited the industry as a whole by providing insight into the system’s performance, including identifying the installation configurations that were most conducive to providing correct alerts while also minimizing false alarms and incorrect alerts. A false alarm occurs if no pedestrian is present in any defined zone, while an incorrect alert occurs if a pedestrian is detected in a different zone than indicated by the alert. The pilot at RTA

38 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents resulted in 81 percent correct alerts, with a 9 percent false alert rate and a 10 percent incorrect alarm rate. The deployment of the collision avoidance technologies did not result in any documented cost savings to the agency; however, total collision rates and preventable collision rates have decreased consistently from 2016 to 2018, as shown in Figure 27. Overall, the Battelle Enhanced Transit Safety Retrofit Package, which included warnings for “pedestrian in signalized crosswalk” and “vehicle turning right in front of bus,” dem- onstrated reliable system performance, a positive safety impact, and general driver acceptance. Generalizations about driver acceptance cannot be made, however, because of the low survey response rates. King County Metro (Seattle, Washington) King County Metro (Figure 28), officially the King County Department of Metro Transit or “Metro” for short, is the public transit authority of King County, Washington, serving the greater Seattle metropolitan area and outlying commu- nities. Although Metro began operations in 1973, the agency traces its origins to Overlake Transit Service and Seattle Transit, founded in 1927 and 1939, respec- tively. Metro is the eighth-largest transit bus agency in the United States, and it provides fixed route bus, vanpool, and paratransit services throughout the greater Seattle area. Metro also operates and maintains Sound Transit’s Link light rail system, eight Sound Transit express bus routes, and the Seattle Streetcar owned by the city of Seattle. Bus operators are members of ATU. According to Metro’s Strategic Plan, its mission is “to provide the best possible public transportation services and improve regional mobility and quality of life in King County.” Metro’s vision is to provide “safe, efficient and reliable public transportation that people find easy to use.” Summary Metro piloted Mobileye and determined that the technology’s level of performance was not sufficient to warrant a full implementation. Metro cited the number of false positive alarms, particularly at bus stops, and engine throttle problems as some of the reasons for not moving forward with full deployment of the technology. The agency has, however, begun testing a 4.29 3.92 3.51 1.55 1.38 1.31 0 1 2 3 4 5 2016 2017 2018 C ol lis io ns p er 1 00 k m ile s Total collision rate Preventable collision rate Figure 27. RTA collision rate trend. Figure 28. King County Metro logo.

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 39 prototype vision system with an A-pillar monitor for blind spot detection, and it has received positive anecdotal feedback from the operators so far. There are plans to upgrade the accident review process in the near future to improve the efficiency of accident reviews. There has also been a drop in the number of collisions over the past year, which agency representatives attribute to a multitude of safety improvement efforts, including the vision system that displays the bus blind spot, public relations campaigns and training focusing on Metro’s frontline employees, and partnering with community organizations. When asked what advice they would provide their peer agencies, Metro representatives indicated that there is value in developing a working group to determine the advantages and disadvantages of considered technologies. The agency does not want to disregard a potential technology that may be useful, but the time investment required to determine technology fea- sibility could be significant. Finally, Metro representatives caution peer agencies that increased reliance on technology decreases reliance on the operator. Operators should be supported with reasonable schedules, well-designed equipment, and a focus on fundamentals. Safety Risk Assessment Protecting the safety and security of customers, employees, and facilities is a Metro value and a top priority. The agency accomplishes this priority in a variety of ways, including planning, facility design, policing, operational practices, safety training, and collaboration with local jurisdictions and other agencies on safety-related matters. Technology Pilots/Demonstrations Current Pilots/Demonstrations. Metro is currently testing an A-pillar monitor, which is a Rosco prototype vision system that uses an outward-facing camera to display the operator’s blind spot on a thin, vertically mounted screen attached to the bus A-pillar. Anecdotal operator feed- back has been positive over the year that the prototype vision system has been in the testing phase. Piloted Technology That Was Not Implemented. Due to the tenure of the Metro repre- sentative interviewed for this report, it was not possible to confirm why Metro chose not to implement certain technologies in the past. The agency remains open to piloting collision avoidance technologies. As an example of this interest, Metro is in the early stages of starting a Pedestrian Avoidance Technologies Review Team. The team is charged with reviewing the technologies that are either currently available or in development, and then recommending which to test, employ, or both. Metro representatives indicated that the agency had tested a Mobileye Advanced Driver Assistance system with autonomous emergency braking in the past. Metro decided not to pursue this technology at the time, however, due to false positive alarms, “jerky” autonomous braking that led to slips and falls, and engine throttle problems. The agency also decided to remove audible pedestrian warning systems because of operator fatigue and feedback from the public, which revealed that the system’s alerts were considered an unhelpful nuisance. Technology Solutions Metro has implemented several collision avoidance technologies on its transit buses, such as driver-view external video monitoring/detection, exterior vehicle security cameras, and pedestrian warning devices. As of February 2019, 89 percent of Metro’s buses were equipped with video/audio surveillance cameras. Metro has not invested in video/audio surveillance for coaches that will be imminently decommissioned, as all new buses are equipped with the technology prior to being put into service. Metro is scheduled to have cameras on the entire fleet by 2020.

40 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents Metro recently deactivated audible pedestrian warning announcements on its buses after public and employee feedback on the pilot project revealed unacceptable reliability issues and noise complaints. Agency’s Vendor Experience Metro’s transit buses were modified on-site at the agency by vendor technicians, agency personnel, or both. The vendor provided on-site technical support during testing. The vendor agreement did not include terms for upgrading the technology. When Metro elected not to use the technology, the equipment was either deactivated or removed by the vendor. Metro personnel indicated that no specific vendor orientation or agency training was provided to its operations personnel beyond what was required for the testing phase. Acceptance of Technology Acceptance of technology at Metro is twofold. Employee input indicates interest in installing monitors that provide a visual representation of obstructed views; however, Metro did express general concern regarding the number of technologies being incorporated into vehicles across the transit industry, noting the propensity for cognitive overload or distraction. Metro repre- sentatives viewed cognitive overload as a relevant and important issue to mitigate, especially with organizations, such as Metro, that provide services in densely populated and congested urban areas. The most common complaint by Metro operators is the concern over the distractions caused by various technologies and the alert systems and monitors placed in the drivers’ workstation. Safety Outcomes Data show that the number of collisions at Metro decreased in 2018, a trend that continues into 2019, after spiking over the previous few years. Agency representatives emphasized that safety does not happen in isolation and that these improvements were likely due to multiple efforts. In addition to the vision system to display the bus blind spot, safety improvements are also attributed to both internal and external campaigns focusing on pedestrian awareness for the frontline staff at Metro, as well as to beneficial partnerships with various groups throughout the community, such as the Walk Safe Pedestrian Group and the Bicyclist Awareness Group. In addition, an upcoming campaign called “Rock and Roll in the Driver’s Seat” focuses on bus operators moving and looking around more instead of relying too heavily on technology. A complete overhaul of the accident review process is currently underway to determine how best to address accidents and injuries and determine preventability in the future. This effort includes an online data system that will allow Metro to find event information, such as operator, location, and type of collision, with greater ease and speed. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston, Texas) The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) (Figure 29) provides bus, METRORail light rail lines, and METROLift complementary paratransit services to 15 cities and major portions of unincorporated Harris County, Texas. METRO’s mission is “to provide safe, clean, reliable, accessible, and friendly public trans- portation services” to the service region. The agency’s vision is that, “through collaborative relations and innovative approaches, METRO will be an industry leader in delivering timely and efficient service that is transformative by providing multi-modal interactions for communities to connect to everyday work and life opportunities.” Figure 29. METRO logo.

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 41 Summary METRO began piloting the Mobileye Shield+ technology and the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technology systems in late 2017 after a fatal pedestrian collision. The Mobileye Shield+ technology is installed on five buses, and the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technology is installed on two commuter buses. Both technologies have proved to be advantageous when working properly, though the pilot identified challenges related to camera and sensor capabilities in low lighting and rainy conditions. Additionally, there were operator complaints related to sensor technology alerts. METRO’s preliminary analysis did not reveal a noticeable reduction in collisions during the pilot; however, no definitive analysis has been conducted. Safety Risk Assessment METRO has an Office of Innovation charged with examining existing technologies that have the potential to reduce risks and improve overall system performance. The agency’s safety risk assessment process identified accident reduction as a priority, necessitating the implementa- tion of mitigation measures. One of these measures was the deployment of collision avoidance technologies on METRO buses. The Office of Innovation investigated the options and suggested piloting the Mobileye Shield+ technology. Through a visit to the bus manufacturer facilities, METRO learned that its standard bus build contract with bus manufacturer MCI included Brigade Backeye360 cameras as an option. Brigade’s Backeye360 is a four-camera technology designed to eliminate blind spots and assist low-speed maneuverability by providing a complete view of operators’ surroundings in real time. METRO contacted the camera manufacturer and chose to pilot the Brigade Backeye360 on two commuter buses. Additionally, METRO worked with Brigade to add ultrasonic sensors to the system in order to alert the driver of obstacles close to the vehicle, whether moving or stationary. The Brigade Backeye360 pilot is still active. Technology Pilots/Demonstrations Current Pilots/Demonstrations. As mentioned previously, METRO is currently piloting the Mobileye Shield+ technology and the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technology, both of which the agency began piloting in late 2017 after a fatal pedestrian collision. METRO installed the Mobileye Shield+ technology on five buses, which run mainly on the busiest and longest route, along the Westheimer Corridor. The Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor system was installed, and is currently active, on two commuter buses. When METRO implements a new technology, the agency’s practice is to involve the union as soon as logistically plausible in order to gain consensus and buy-in. The labor union was not involved, therefore, with the initial decision to pilot the Mobileye Shield+ technology, but it was included in the implementation process once METRO decided to conduct the pilot. Agency safety representatives described the Mobileye Shield+ technology as an additional tool to ensure that operators have the opportunity to perform their duties to the best of their ability. Through the pilots of the Mobileye Shield+ technology and the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technologies, METRO discovered some challenges associated with lighting and rain. After sunset, the Mobileye Shield+ technology could not accurately capture objects in the path of the vehicle. Additionally, the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technologies did not work properly when there was rain. Thus, METRO noted that the sensor technologies of both systems would need to be improved in order for it to use them. Because of excessive notifications that continued to occur even after reducing the alert range to within 2 feet of a collision, the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technology

42 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents was disabled on the curbside of METRO buses. The agency states that the curbside sensors will remain disabled until the sensor can provide alerts only when the bus is traveling below 3 miles per hour. Technology Solutions In addition to the pilots of the collision avoidance technology, METRO also implemented exterior vehicle security cameras and special rear vehicle treatments on its buses. A discussion of these passive systems is included in Appendix C. METRO is considering audible turn alerts, like white noise generators, to address the risk associated with transit buses turning in environments where vulnerable road users are present. These white-noise turn alerts would be used in place of audible turn announcements that have garnered some public pushback at other agencies, especially related to disruptive noise in neighborhoods at night. METRO is also considering piloting a driver monitoring system to improve overall system safety. This consideration was still being evaluated as of the March 2019 interview date. Agency’s Vendor Experience For the piloted Mobileye Shield+ technology, the transit vehicles were modified on-site at METRO by Mobileye technicians, agency personnel, or both. It was necessary to make provisions for installation, which did not progress according to Mobileye’s initial plan, causing delays in the deployment and issues with overall schedule adherence. METRO suggested that transit agencies considering this type of technology build additional time into the installation and deployment schedule to allow for unexpected challenges. Both Mobileye representatives and METRO trained the agency’s maintenance personnel and bus operators on the piloted technologies. Maintenance personnel received training on the installation process and maintenance of the technology, while operators were trained on the capabilities of the system, what to expect when the technology provides an alert, and how to respond to those alerts. According to METRO representatives, the vendors of both the Mobileye Shield+ technology and the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technology responded to the agency’s concerns and requested changes. METRO has its own data plan but was required to subscribe to the vendors’ data plans to use the system. This requirement is one issue that METRO would like to discuss when considering future implementation. Acceptance of Technology METRO’s Transportation Operation Group solicited operator feedback through a one-page paper survey. Feedback regarding the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technology system included driver complaints related to the sound of system alerts, which drivers identified as distracting. In addition, there was confusion as to whether the Brigade Backeye360 camera and sensor technology system, the bus, or the radio was making the sound. Operators also indicated concerns of noise fatigue and confusion as to where the operator should focus when an alert occurs. In response to operators’ concerns related to noise fatigue, METRO is asking all manufacturers to use voice announcements in lieu of audible beeping sounds. This vocal announcement request is not only applicable to collision avoidance technologies but also being considered in place of warning lights such as the check engine light. Ideally, METRO would like an audible announcement to the operator that says, “pull over and call dispatch,” rather than an engine-light

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 43 icon displayed on the driver’s dashboard. This modification may help reduce technology over- load in the operator’s workstation. Safety Outcomes METRO representatives reported no significant reduction in collisions, with the caveat that the agency had not yet performed a longitudinal analysis. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) (Figure 30) provides multimodal public transit services, including bus, BRT, paratransit, light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail to Philadelphia and surrounding counties. SEPTA was created by the Pennsylvania legislature in August 1963 and is a state-created authority with a 17-member board of directors that includes representatives from the city of Philadelphia, each of the five counties served, four legislative appointees, and a gubernatorial appointee. SEPTA’s mission is to deliver “safe, reliable, sustainable, accessible, and customer-focused public transit services, contributing to the region’s economic vitality, sustainability, and enhanced quality of life.” The agency’s vision is “to be the region’s preferred choice for transportation” by “providing safe, excellent service by a team of dedicated employees.” Summary SEPTA representatives have considered the pros and cons of competing technologies. As far as collision avoidance systems, the agency continues to research and evaluate the reliability of various technologies. To date, all systems are still in the development stage, and none has provided the reliability that would justify the investment required for system-wide deployment. SEPTA realizes, however, that the technologies will likely advance to the point at which they can be implemented at a reasonable cost and other contract terms will be acceptable. Safety Risk Assessment As part of SEPTA’s SMS, it seeks to eliminate safety risks where possible; when identifying and implementing mitigation measures, it recognizes the importance of ensuring those measures do not pose additional hazards. SEPTA’s bus and rail safety committees, which focus on safety risk management, consider unintended consequences of potential mitigation strategies prior to implementing those solutions. When it is not possible to eliminate certain safety hazards, the agency implements other safeguards and administrative controls to reduce risk. In addition, once a system is implemented to mitigate an identified hazard, several follow-up activities are conducted to ensure that the mitigation is working properly and that the hazards have been eliminated or have been brought to an acceptable level of risk. The safety risk assessment process at SEPTA identified an increase in pedestrian knockdowns, notably related to left-turning movements. To address this trend, SEPTA considered two differ- ent technologies that produce audible bus turning warnings. One manufacturer, Protran, was willing to pilot two Blind Spot Awareness units at no cost to the agency and was able to meet the vehicle interface specifications. Technology Pilots/Demonstrations Piloted Technology That Was Not Implemented. In 2015, SEPTA piloted the Protran Blind Spot Awareness System as an add-on to the Protran Safe Turn Alert System that the agency Figure 30. SEPTA logo.

44 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents implemented on its bus fleet. The initial demonstration of the Protran Blind Spot Awareness System included installation of the technology on two buses for a 6-month period. One issue that SEPTA identified immediately following the installation of the Protran Blind Spot Aware- ness System was the production of erroneous alerts in response to the bike racks on the front of the buses. The vendor resolved that issue quickly. Subsequent changes and tweaks to the technology led to an extended demo, which lasted more than 2 years. SEPTA operators expressed concern with the number of false positive alerts due to the challenge of the system in distinguishing between a pedestrian and a fixed object, such as a mailbox or fire hydrant. Because the vendor was not able to reduce the number of false positive alerts generated by the system, SEPTA decided not to advance the Protran Blind Spot Awareness System, leaving the Protran Safe Turn Alert System with the external audible warning. In an effort to remain proactive, SEPTA also evaluated the Mobileye Advanced Collision Avoidance System. After receiving positive feedback from New York City Transit regarding the Advanced Collision Avoidance System, SEPTA conducted initial investigations of the tech- nology and requested installation of the technology on two of its buses for a demonstration of 4 to 6 months, with the option to purchase the technology fleet-wide based upon the outcome of the demonstration. The installation of the demo did not occur, however, because SEPTA was not pleased after negotiations with the vendor and could not agree on the issue of control over the data collected through the system. It was important to SEPTA to have access and control of the data collected. Technology Solutions The Protran Safe Turn Alert System, which was first a 10-month pilot on 12 buses at SEPTA, is being installed on the agency’s entire bus fleet. The campaign started in 2015, and installation is complete on 909 buses to date, with the entire fleet scheduled to be complete by 2020. The initial Protran Safe Turn Alert installation strategically targeted areas where most pedestrian interactions occur, beginning with vehicles serving Philadelphia’s Center City routes and then progressing to all other SEPTA routes. SEPTA maintenance technicians retrofitted existing buses with the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, and bus manufacturers will install the system on all new buses coming off the production line. The Protran Safe Turn Alert System features included both internal and external audible warnings. After receiving many complaints from operators on the internal system features, however, SEPTA decided to remove the internal notifications, leaving only the external audible warnings. Operators reported that they were able to hear the external announcements; thus, SEPTA felt the internal announcements were unnecessary. When an operator turned the steering wheel more than 15 degrees, the Protran Safe Turn Alert System produced an external audible warning to indicate that the bus was turning. The system sensed outside ambient decibel noise levels and adjusted the sound to the environmental conditions to ensure that it could be heard. For instance, when the bus ran at night or on a quiet street, the system automatically lowered the volume. SEPTA anticipated noise complaints from the public, specifically from residents who live near bus routes, but public complaints related to the Protran Safe Turn Alert System’s external alerts were minimal. SEPTA considers the Protran Safe Turn Alert System technology to be one of the better options due to the less intrusive nature of the technology. All parties involved in the purchasing decision, including union representatives, mechanics, operators, and management, agreed to equip all buses with the system. SEPTA did encounter resistance from its vehicle maintenance technicians who felt the system would interfere with other onboard systems or with the main interface of the bus. This concern is no longer an issue, because SEPTA has almost completed the bus fleet retrofit, and manufacturers are now outfitting newly procured buses with the technology during the build process.

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 45 Agency’s Vendor Experience While SEPTA consistently monitors federal and state funding opportunities for these types of pilot programs, the pilots and technology solutions discussed previously were not part of a federally or state-funded project. The procurement of the Protran Safe Turn Alert System occurred with SEPTA funds through a regular bid with strict specifications to ensure the ability to work with limited interface with, and impact to, the steering column and other systems on the bus. SEPTA provided in-house training conducted by vendor technicians and SEPTA personnel. Once SEPTA’s management decided to install the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, the first training focused on educating union representatives on the usefulness of the system. SEPTA included labor representatives in the discussion and decision making associated with the deployment of the Protran Safe Turn Alert System. SEPTA then introduced the system and provided training to the safety department, bus operators, and mechanics. Training varied by audience: for instance, mechanic training included system installation, including potential impacts to other technologies on the bus, while SEPTA operators received system familiarization training. The vendor provided full support for its Protran Safe Turn Alert System, including SEPTA’s request for the removal of the internal audible warning. The vendor also provided assistance during the installation of the piloted Protran Blind Spot Awareness System and subsequent technology removal once SEPTA decided to remove it. Acceptance of Technology SEPTA conducted a paper survey and distributed it to all operators who operated a bus that was equipped with the Protran Blind Spot Awareness technology. The survey asked the operators four questions: 1. Did the system work as it was intended? 2. Did you feel the LEDs on the dashboard heightened your awareness of your surroundings? 3. Did you feel that the Blind Spot Awareness device provided adequate advance warning of pedestrians in your blind spot? 4. Was the volume of the audio warning adequate? Following the survey, several face-to-face discussions helped provide SEPTA representatives with a picture of overall acceptance. Generally speaking, operators were optimistic about the use of collision avoidance technology but did not like a system that provided too many false- positive alerts. All operators firmly rejected the internal audible warning; therefore, SEPTA has not advanced this pilot program. Safety Outcomes Since 2015, following the installation of the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, SEPTA saw a 54 percent decrease in left-turn pedestrian knockdowns, a 50 percent decrease in right-turn pedestrian knockdowns, and a 41 percent decline in total pedestrian knockdown incidents, as shown in Figure 31. The safety improvements at SEPTA were not solely due to the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, however, but were a result of a multitude of initiatives. Between 2012 and 2015, prior to the installation of the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, SEPTA implemented a “Bus/Pedestrian Collision Mitigation Program” that included a training program, increased supervisory oversight, and increased system safety oversight. In addition, SEPTA worked with a consultant to reduce the size of the left side mirror. The culmination of all the safety improve- ments, including the implementation of the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, led to a reduction in pedestrian knockdowns and a subsequent reduction in claims payouts. The year following the implementation of the technology, SEPTA experienced a whole year without a right-turn knockdown.

46 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents Common Threads among Case Examples In the examination of these case example agencies, some common threads emerged. DART and SEPTA have invested in various consultant studies to analyze the specific events that have occurred at the two agencies and to provide recommendations for subsequent mitigation alternatives. At DART, the study resulted in the implementation of the agency’s Collision Avoidance Countermeasure Project. Similar to DART’s project, SEPTA implemented the Bus/Pedestrian Collision Mitigation Program, which included a training program and increased oversight, in addition to the recommendation to pilot the Protran Safe Turn Alert technology. The consultant study also led to a reduction in the size of the left side mirror. Each of the case example agencies piloted or implemented at least one collision avoidance technology. Many of the collision avoidance technologies provide pedestrian detection alerts. In addition, some of these technologies serve other functions such as generating forward collision and lane departure warnings. Case example agencies piloted or otherwise implemented the following technologies: • Mobileye Advanced Driver Assistance System • Mobileye Shield+ • Protran Safe Turn Alert System • Protran Blind Spot Awareness System • Battelle Enhanced Transit Safety Retrofit Package (E-TRP) • Brigade Backeye360 camera and ultrasonic sensors Each of the collision avoidance technologies provides bus operators with an additional tool to improve the safe operation of their vehicle and improves agency-wide system safety. The Mobileye Advanced Driver Assistance System includes a sensor mounted on the windshield and a display on the dash to warn bus operators of pedestrians or cyclists within the bus’s front danger zone. The Mobileye Shield+ System expands upon the Mobileye Advanced Driver Assistance System, using additional sensors to detect pedestrians and cyclists and to provide visual and audible alerts to the operator if an object is detected in the bus’s danger zones. Both Mobileye systems also have the ability to warn of imminent forward collisions, lane departures, unsafe headway distances, and speeds in excess of the speed limit. Both systems also collect perfor- mance metrics to provide to the transit agencies. The Protran Safe Turn Alert System is a stand-alone passive warning system that plays an audible message to warn that the bus is turning. The system also has an optional strobe-light warning on the exterior of the bus to attract the attention of distracted or vulnerable road users. Figure 31. Total pedestrian knockdown incident trend at SEPTA. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2015 2016 2017 2018

Examination of Synthesis Case Example Sites 47 The Protran Safe Turn Alert System also includes data logging and GPS features. The Protran Blind Spot Awareness technology, available as an add-on to the Protran Safe Turn Alert System, provides the bus operator with an audible and visual warning if an object is detected on either side of the bus. The Battelle E-TRP includes DSRC, a High-Precision Global Navigation Satellite System, and FLIR cameras to warn bus operators of pedestrians in crossings and vehicles turning right in front of the bus. The warnings produced by the Battelle E-TRP include both audio and visual alerts from a color touch screen display mounted in the cab of the bus. The Brigade Backeye360 camera and ultrasonic sensors provide a complete view of the bus surroundings to assist the operator with low-speed maneuvering by removing all visual obstruc- tions. The additional ultrasonic sensors detect pedestrians or obstacles close to the vehicle, whether moving or stationary, and provide an audible or visual (or both) in-cab warning to inform the operator of the obstacle. Each of the transit agencies that was selected as a case example site stressed the importance of piloting technologies for enough time to determine if the technology is effective and financially feasible for the agency. Case example agencies also recommended that agencies consider the possibility of delays in equipping the vehicles with the technology, and they noted possible vehicle interface challenges associated with piloting new technologies. Another common thread among the case example agencies was the suggestion to gather feedback in multiple distribution methods, as electronic forms did not result in high response rates. Several agencies provided recommendations to increase technology acceptance survey response rates, such as developing focus groups or incentivizing survey responses. Similarly, the need to combine many safety initiatives was a recurring theme throughout each of the case example transit agencies. Each agency cited the importance of approaching system safety in a holistic manner, focusing on improving the safety culture of the agency. Case Example Lessons Learned The lessons learned in reference to technology solutions to prevent bus accidents and incidents are presented through a number of case example engagements. Representatives from DART emphasized the importance of working with technology vendors to iteratively address any challenges that arise when piloting a new technology. Another lesson learned from the DART pilot of the Mobileye Shield+ technology was that new technologies require more than a few months of testing to verify the usefulness, after working through any initial installation challenges. GoTriangle representatives also recommended that agencies invest in at least 6 months of pilot time and that they conduct the pilot on multiple vehicles, if possible, to allow more than one operator at a time to have access to the technology. Additionally, they emphasized that different operators and different operating environments will result in a wide variety of operator feedback. GBT representatives emphasized the importance of keeping safety in the forefront to ensure that complacency does not become a factor. They recommend a focus on safety culture rather than a reactive approach of determining preventability after an event occurs. Additionally, GBT representatives suggested that other agencies try new technologies in a methodical way whenever possible, especially those that are relatively low cost and minimally intrusive. RTA encouraged other agencies to implement collision avoidance technology, but it also noted that the transit bus mode could benefit from more advocacy. Specifically, RTA representa- tives cited the potential for cost reductions of the technology if the industry unites and demands improvements from the vehicle manufacturers.

48 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents King County Metro representatives indicated that there is value in developing a working group to determine the advantages and disadvantages of considered technologies. The agency does not want to disregard a potential technology that may be useful, but the time investment required to determine technology feasibility could be significant. Finally, Metro representatives caution peer agencies that increased reliance on technology decreases reliance on the operator. Operators should be supported with reasonable schedules, well-designed equipment, and a focus on fundamentals. METRO emphasized the importance of union involvement as soon as logistically possible to gain consensus and buy-in. Other lessons learned include emphasizing that the technologies are provided as an additional tool for operators to ensure they have an opportunity to perform their duties to the best of their ability. A resounding lesson learned from METRO is the importance of limiting operator distractions, including beep fatigue. METRO is working to reduce the overall number of beeping alerts provided to operators, opting for audible announcements instead, to reduce technology overload in the operator’s workstation. SEPTA representatives encouraged the trial of new technologies, especially when they are low cost and minimally intrusive in terms of the vehicle interface requirements. SEPTA was able to gather additional operator feedback from face-to-face discussions as follow-up to the technology acceptance survey. This input method and associated follow-up activities resulted in more operators who were willing to share their opinions, and an awareness that their opinions were valued by the agency. SEPTA also acknowledges that, as technologies are advancing at a fast pace, cost and contract terms will likely improve as the technologies mature.