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.
B-1  Interviews were conducted to further assess the needs, challenges, opportunities, and practices as stated by the survey respondents. Table B-1 details the ndings and challenges highlighted throughout these interviews. Summary Feedback from Stakeholder Interviews A P P E N D I X B Integration of Connected Vehicles into R u ral Corridor Operations ⢠Limited capability due to limited coverage through fixed infrastructure in some areas, outdated controllers and traffic signal equipment, fiber backhaul, etc., to cover generally big, remote areas. Most interviewees said this was due to/because of a limited amount of funding. ⢠Lack of interoperability where there are multiple systems in play. The processing and filtering of the information received from all equipment with different vendors are hard to integrate. ⢠Operational and maintenance costs are the most challenging when considering capital improvements in rural areas. ⢠Major disconnect in the level of connected vehicle system integration workforce needs. Some interviewees indicated that their staff needed training on connected vehicle systems, including managing data, security, DSRC, deployment, etc., while others said they did not have the staff needed to operate and maintain complex connected vehicle systems. ⢠Lack of rural-specific deployment guidance, including guidance from the private sector. ⢠G eneral incertitude about how to communicate with the vehicles (i.e., DSRC or C-V2X ), especially now with the new FCC ruling. In addition, most mentioned that they do not have a lot of knowledge about C-V2X . ⢠There is a lack of work/guidance on rural arterials to learn from. There is also a lack of guidance on how connected vehicle data will look, especially from retrofitted vehicles. ⢠Wildlife detection technologies would be useful for rural areas. ⢠Ju stification for deployment of connected vehicle infrastructure in rural areas is difficult because agencies have difficulty identifying the users. ⢠Difficult to integrate information from equipment that has been processed and filtered. Table B-1. Findings and challenges highlighted in the interviews. (continued on next page)
B-2 Initiating the Systems Engineering Process for Rural Connected Vehicle Corridors Scale of Anticipated Deployments ⢠Some agencies are looking to get a capital program for ITS and connected vehicle projects to help showcase the technology in the next few years. ⢠Understanding the full benefits of the system, especially in a rural setting, will help determine the need to commit to a large-scale deployment in the future. ⢠There is a perception that deployment in rural areas will not be on the same order of magnitude, as compared with urban areas, and will not take place in the near future. ⢠The remoteness of some of these areas dictates the type of technology already in place to help with the deployment of connected vehicles. There are some communication and power issues in some areas that could deter future deployments. ⢠Planning for CAV is a type of TSMO activity. If there is some level of investment in TSMO activities, it will pave the way for future connected vehicle deployment discussions. ⢠There are some gaps in legislation that are not clear in terms of defining what is permitted by state law for connected vehicle deployments. ⢠The Wyoming Connected Vehicle and Tampa Connected Vehicle Pilots and Ann Arbor were carefully chosen to address unique and somewhat representative connected vehicle deployments. There is some lack of direction given to rural settings that are interested in deploying connected vehicle infrastructure along their corridors. ⢠There is a lack of action by the automakers in enabling connectivity; there is not going to be enough penetration in rural roads to benefit from some of these applications, as the need for cars to have V2V capabilities already installed is essential for connectivity. Level of Coordination Within and Across States ⢠Ownership of signals can be an issue, because state, county, and cities may have different priorities. This also applies to interoperability between equipment and across jurisdictions. ⢠Agencies work with state police and CAD system for real-time situational awareness (e.g., incident detection and verification) in areas where there are no cameras and other digital technologies. ⢠Key stakeholders to involve include State Highway Patrol, Maintenance, Emergency/Incident Response, Freight (UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc.), IT staff, Legislators, automated vehicle manufacturers (OEMs), railroad, general public, and third-party information providers (e.g., Waze) to mention a few. Level of Coordination ⢠Lack of direct engagement with OEMs; there is communication, but not necessarily a deep connection.with OEMs Impact of Connected Vehicles on Agencies ⢠Incorporating connected vehicle infrastructure and ITS equipment, including CCTV and digital infrastructure in rural corridors is going to improve incident response time and coverage provided. ⢠Connected vehicle deployment will require more proactivity among agencies and their systems as it relates to incident response times, work zone management, road weather, improving mobility issues, etc. ⢠Capability of rural agencies varies immensely, with some being very advanced and others operating with basic ITS, old equipment, and even without a TMC. ⢠Obtaining more probe data on the traffic flows and speeds can help improve planning, operations, and incident response efforts. ⢠The workforce needs to transform into what is needed today. There is overall limited staff and expertise in rural agencies, with many people wearing multiple hats. Need maintenance capabilities for connected vehicle systems (but you can always train existing staff). Most interviewees said they had limited staff in operations as well as maintenance. Table B-1. (Continued).
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 ACIâNA Airports Council InternationalâNorth 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 Americaâs Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association 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
Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED ISBN 978-0-309-67434-8 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 7 4 3 4 8 9 0 0 0 0
