Initiating the Systems Engineering Process for Rural Connected Vehicle Corridors, Volume 1: Research Overview (2021)

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.

14 Findings from Literature Review and Stakeholder Engagement e Task 2 literature review ndings that set the stage for future stakeholder engagement were documented in Interim Report 2. e Task 3 stakeholder engagement ndings, survey results, interview responses, and conrmation webinar feedback were summarized in the Task 3 Interim Report. Because the interim reports are not published, the summary tables are provided in Chapter 3 of this report. Stakeholder feedback from the second Task 4 webinar, conducted aer the two dra model documents were developed, was used to update the two nal model documents prior to submission. 3.1 Findings from Literature Review is section summarizes key information relevant to connected vehicles and rural corridors as identied by the project team. e materials identied in the literature review included a user needs assessment and potential concepts to address that can be adopted and adapted to rural corridors. e literature review summarized key resources and captured potential issues, challenges, opportunities, and successful practices related to integrating connected vehicles in rural corridors. Key ndings from the Task 2 literature review include the following: • Many of the connected vehicle applications that have been prototyped and deployed apply to rural corridors. However, the applications must be tailored to address the specic issues and characteristics of rural corridors. • Extreme changes in weather and climate indicate that road weather data collection and dissem- ination will likely continue to be a need for rural corridors. Leveraging research from the Road Weather Management Program and adapting applications developed by early deployers will greatly aid integration of connected vehicle technologies into rural corridors. Larger urban deployments may have access to greater resources than their rural counterparts. Consequently, consideration should be given to the time required for development, limitations of existing infrastructure, and corridor uniqueness. Doing so may present opportunities for eciencies that can be shared with the broader deployment community. • With increasing trac volume and aging of the nation’s roadway, trac and work zone data collection and dissemination will likely continue to be a need for rural corridors. Connected vehicle capabilities for gathering probe data and providing traveler information could directly address these congestion and work zone issues in rural areas. • Rural agencies can build on prototypes developed to address communications problems faced by emergency and incident management agencies and adapt methods of sharing real-time infor- mation, as was done in the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) Connected Vehicle (CV) Pilot Deployment, whose system design documentation is available for public use on the CV Pilot Deployment Program website at https://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/cv_pubs.htm. C H A P T E R   3

Findings from Literature Review and Stakeholder Engagement 15   • Several mobility applications developed by the Dynamic Mobility Applications (DMA) program address the mobility needs and challenges identied by research conducted by the Small Urban, Rural and Tribal Center on Mobility (SURTCOM). Although some of the DMA prototypes and enhanced prototypes were not elded or tested on rural corridors, a combination of the SURTCOM and DMA program work should be a good starting point for generating questions in Task 3. e Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) program also provides a good example of eciently moving people and goods using dierent modes. • Rural roads typically have larger percentages of fatalities than urban roads. Many of the safety and crash issues identied and targeted under the V2I safety and V2V safety programs are relevant to rural corridors. V2V and V2I applications address multiple modes as well as pedes- trians. Many applications are in a relatively mature state having been prototyped and eld tested; several are currently deployed either in a CV Pilot Deployment project or testing in collab- oration with a state DOT. • Over the last decade, the needs of the freight community (e.g., truck drivers, eet carriers, state DOT, and enforcement agencies) have been researched, prototypes developed, and concepts rened in the private sector. Much of the work conducted is relevant to and can be adapted to meet the characteristics of rural corridors. e WYDOT CV Pilot is a key eort to look to from a rural agency perspective. WYDOT has adapted applications and integrated connected vehicle tech- nology into the state TMC. Ongoing research with truck platooning will provide needed insight into the integration of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) with state/regional TMCs. • Interoperability, common approaches and tools, security, planning, and other factors, such as resources available to operators and maintainers of rural corridors, ultimately play a role in addressing challenges and how successful practices can be applied. 3.2 Key Gaps and Challenges e review of available literature yielded an initial list of gaps and challenges. ese were further explored with the stakeholders through the survey and interviews conducted as part of Task 3. e purpose of these survey and interview questions was to elicit the needs and to identify the problems and challenges being faced by rural corridor practitioners. e seven topic areas used in the literature review to organize available resources also served as a means to organize stake- holder engagement. See Appendices B and C for details on stakeholders’ current conditions and critical gaps and challenges by topic area and crosscutting, respectively. Table 1 provides a summary by topic area of the gaps and challenges that respondents considered to be the most critical and of the highest priority. 3.3 Interview Findings Ten follow-up interviews were conducted to further assess the needs, challenges, opportu- nities, and practices as stated by the survey respondents. Figure 7 illustrates the distribution and geographic coverage of the respondents, and Table 2 details the challenges highlighted throughout these interviews. 3.4 Webinar Feedback 3.4.1 Conrmation Webinar Around 22 people, excluding the project team, participated in the Task 3 conrmation webinar held December 17, 2019. ey provided more information on each topic area discussed in the survey. Table 3 provides a summary of the additional information and discussion from the conrmation webinar.

16 Initiating the Systems Engineering Process for Rural Connected Vehicle Corridors R oad W eather Management • L ack of timely road condition data/reports • L ack of situational awareness of localiz ed or rapidly changing road conditions for agencies Traffic Condition and W ork Z one • L imited coverage through fixed infrastructure (e.g., traffic detectors) • L ack of real-time information on the location and status of work z ones Incident Management and R esponse • L ack of real-time situational awareness across the network about incidents • L imited ability to quickly assess incident situation to provide a coordinated and integrated response for responder community (e.g., faster detection and notification, pre-staging) R ural Mob ility • L ack of communications infrastructure • L imited ability to warn drivers of existing and impending queues R ural Safety • Motor vehicle incidents at non-signaliz ed intersections that can result in high severity crashes and roadway departure Freight O perations • L imitations in communicating emergency truck-parking notifications Planning Challenges • L ack of operating and maintenance funding for these deployments • Uncertainty in regulation, communication technologies [ Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) versus cellular-V2X ] , business models, benefits of connected vehicle technology Sy stem Integration Issues • L ack of communications infrastructure to the field (backhaul bandwidth) W ork force N eeds • Big data expertise • Cybersecurity assessment capabilities Table 1. Summary of high-criticality gaps and challenges. (Source: Noblis 2020.) Figure 7. Distribution of participants of stakeholder engagement activities.

Findings from Literature Review and Stakeholder Engagement 17   others said they do not have the staff needed to operate and maintain complex connected vehicle systems. • L ack 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 cellular-V2X /C-V2X ) especially now with the new Federal Communications Commission (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. • W ildlife detection technologies would be useful for rural areas. • Justification for deployment of connected vehicle technologies in rural areas is difficult because agencies have difficulty identifying the users. • Difficult to integrate information from equipment that has been processed and filtered. Impact of Connected Vehicles on Agencies • Incorporating connected vehicle technology including closed-circuit television (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 z one management, road weather, and improving mobility issues. • 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 in maintenance. Integration of Connected Vehicles into R ural Corridor O perations • L imited capability due to limited coverage through fixed infrastructure in some areas, outdated controllers and traffic signal equipment, fiber backhaul to cover generally big, remote areas. Most interviewees said this was due to/because of a limited amount of funding. • L ack 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, while Table 2. Findings and challenges highlighted in the interviews. (continued on next page)

18 Initiating the Systems Engineering Process for Rural Connected Vehicle Corridors Scale of Anticipated Deploy ments • 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 near future. • There is a perception that deployment in rural areas will not be at the same order of magnitude, compared with urban areas, and will not take place in the near future. • The remoteness of some of these dictates the type of technology already in place to help with the deployment of connected vehicle technologies. There are communication and power issues in some areas that could deter future deployments. • Planning for the 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 W Y DOT CV Pilot, the Tampa H illsborough Expressway Authority (TH EA) CV Pilot Deployment, and Ann Arbor were 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 technologies in their corridors. • There is a lack of action by the automakers in enabling connectivity—t here 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. L evel Coordination with, W ithin, 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 the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system for real-time situational awareness (e.g., incident detection and verification) in areas where there are no cameras or other digital technologies. • K ey stakeholders to involve include State H ighway Patrol, maintenance, emergency/incident response, freight (UPS, FedEx, DH L , etc.), information technology (IT) staff, legislators, automated vehicle (AV) manufacturers (OEMs), railroad, general public, and third-party information providers (e.g., W az e). L evel Coordination with O E Ms • L ack of direct engagement with OEMs—t here is communication, but not necessarily a deep connection. Table 2. (Continued). 3.4.2 Validation Webinar Approximately 20 people, excluding the project team, participated in the Task 4 validation webinar held August 31, 2020. ey provided feedback and asked questions about information presented during the 1.5-hour webinar. Table 4 provides a summary of the information and discussion from the validation webinar. Following the webinar, the nal model ConOps and model SyRS were revised to reect feedback from stakeholders.

Findings from Literature Review and Stakeholder Engagement 19   R oad W eather Management • L ack of timely road data/reports may overlap with other challenges. • Fixed infrastructure is not enough; probes and other sources [ e.g., cameras on snowplows because may not have Road W eather Information Systems (RW ISs)] are still needed to have timely data on road conditions everywhere. Traffic Condition and W ork Z one • There is also a lack of accurate information. Agencies need to improve the data they collect/produce. For instance, agencies may talk about lane closure, but not which lane or specific time/location. • Connected vehicles and automated vehicles as probes can help with the lack of accurate, specific, and real-time information. • Construction contractors could be pushed to provide more information, but not all can do so. • Technology is one component; institutional is another. Incident Management and R esponse • Similar to road weather management, fixed infrastructure is not enough. Need more accurate and wide-area coverage. • The quickness of response is also a challenge and an important aspect of the effectiveness of incident management. • Need to see the different steps of an accident and see what the challenges are (e.g., identifying incidents has different challenges from verifying the incidents). Therefore, while a solution may not be available for all steps, it is still possible to obtain more information on each step through connected vehicle technologies. R ural Mob ility • Rural areas can have rural transit that is not a fixed route and acts as an on- demand service. This needs to be taken into account as a need. This can be tied to the steps of providing the transit service. If dispatchers and vehicles/drivers had more information, then there is an opportunity to improve mobility. And this might not necessarily depend on advanced connected vehicle technology, this could be done with traditional solutions. R ural Safety • There are rural areas that do not demand a fully controlled intersection, but still need some type of control or means to reduce severe crash types including road departures. This is also true of national parks, especially with the presence of bicyclists in national parks, and seasonal tourist spots. • Rail crossing warning is also an issue for rural areas. • Related to incident management, response time for incidents is also an issue, especially if this happens in very remote areas. Freight O perations • It is necessary to provide location information on runaway truck ramps to drivers. It is also important to derive the best ways to obtain data back from the usage of the ramp. • Being able to detect and prevent potential collisions (with vehicles and infrastructure such as bridge strikes) would be very beneficial. Sy stem Integration Issues • It is important to have a clear connected vehicle data dictionary to enable communication and exchange of information. For example, the W ork Z one Data Dictionary, while this is not generating connected vehicle data, it enables the consumption of such data. • Need an application programming interface (API) to enable exchange of data. • Need to consider consumers of the data. W ork force N eeds • Some of our existing practices will evolve due to connected vehicles. As such, there is a need for management and training on how to adjust response given the new data. • L ook at how Software as a Service (SaaS) and IT as a service will change and how contracts/procurement will change. L ook at how support to develop/provide APIs will change. General Feedb ack • It is important to clearly define “ rural connected vehicle systems” and to be careful in creating new terms that are not needed or are redundant with existing terms/systems. This will help clarify which systems need to be developed and which needs can be satisfied by existing systems. • It is important to identify the needs of the actors/users and then develop system needs to address these. Table 3. Summary of the feedback from the conrmation webinar.

20 Initiating the Systems Engineering Process for Rural Connected Vehicle Corridors Discussion on Prioritize d U ser N eeds • Consider the support needs from local agencies. Issues such as lack of funding opportunities to develop and support connected vehicle technology and infrastructure. Note: lack of operating and maintenance funding was identified in Task 3 under Planning Challenges. • The point about local jurisdiction is important. Metropolitan Planning Organiza tions (MPOs) are by definition in urban areas and have more opportunities in general than smaller entities. • Is the assumption that the Backoffice is controlled by a public agency? The Backoffice is a general representation, could be a server, a sub-TMS that connects to a larger one. The intent was not to be prescriptive, but it does largely assume that it is under a public agency. • Could the Backoffice be subbed out to a contractor? In this situation, would need to consider as a constraint or agreement. It would need to be tailored to the situation. For example, could the contractor operate 24x7 if required by the agency? Also, some parts of the system could be contracted out. For example, the New Y ork City Department of Transportation (NY C DOT) CV Pilot Deployment used some of the content from requirements documents in specifications for contractors. • H ow do agencies connect with fire and ambulance services? Fire and ambulance services can be included in the Emergency Management/Public Safety System within Other Centers. Depending on actual deployment, this will vary but notification can be made electronically using Traffic Management Data Dictionary (TMDD) feed, radio, or phone call, for example. The W Y DOT CV Pilot system is tied to the highway patrol and with CAD to ambulance/Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The way information gets out from the Backoffice to the individual will be defined on a case-by-case basis depending on deployment. • H ow did you determine relative lower priority of use case like V2V, transit? W ere they lower in respondent mentions or were other priority methods used? A survey and interviews were conducted, and the responses were used for rating for the use cases. Usually, the top two of each of the six topic areas were selected based on stakeholder feedback and not the project team. Each stakeholder gave feedback and prioritize d their gap. That information was used for selecting cases to focus on in this project. For an agency using the model ConOps, they should also prioritize based on local needs and can also document additional needs for the future. • W ould a connection with OnStar be helpful? Note: see the Incident Response and Management use case in the model ConOps. The topic was covered in the example use case during the webinar. • W as regional (states) communication and information considered? Y es, communication between jurisdictions or regions has been considered in this project. One of the Other Centers is “ Other Jurisdiction Traffic Management System,” which could be within a state or across state borders. Discussion on O perational Scenarios • The presentation is good. L ooking to do a wind warning system in rural K ansas in the coming year. This will definitely help because it is exactly what I am trying to accomplish. I really don' t know what to ask at this time, but we are using edge computing with the proposed system. • The example [ Incident Response and Management] scenario was good. Please explain the two use cases with the term “ G eneral” in them (1st and 4th use case). More information would help the agency. G eneral is a methodology about sending information. The use depends on the scenario, and having a general flexible method to get information out is a benefit. Also, the methodology for sending out messages is general and flexible in structure, so it could be used for snow, rain, etc. W e realize d freight was highly important to project stakeholders and therefore wanted to focus on that topic area broadly and specifically. For freight, could be used for high wind, or truck parking, for example. • I like the way this information is organize d and presented. • I think you have done a good job of capturing the use cases that are most likely for us to deploy. And the example scenario was helpful. • I agree that traffic signals do not need to be part of this, as they are getting plenty of attention elsewhere. Table 4. Summary of the feedback from the conrmation webinar.

Findings from Literature Review and Stakeholder Engagement 21   • Regarding pedestrian/cyclist, one stakeholder suggested the topic would be more applicable for urban settings. H owever, the consensus was that the topic applies to rural communities (e.g., the pedestrian/cyclist topic would be important in rural shoulderless roadways, active transportation is critically important in rural communities, and pedestrians and cyclists have different characteristics in more rural situations). Note: the model ConOps contains a use case about active transportation by pedestrians/cyclists in a rural setting. • Are slow-moving vehicles (such as tractors, school buses) accounted for in the list? Perhaps they are accounted for in one of the use cases, but it is important to make sure they are included. Note: the final model ConOps was revised to include examples of slow-moving vehicles to encourage practitioners to consider this and other situations that should be addressed in use cases. Discussion on Sy stem R eq uirements • Are Public Safety Answering Points considered stakeholders? Public Safety Answering Points could be stakeholders that the agency will need to collaborate with, especially as you flesh out the operational scenarios. It is important that every agency look to see if the right stakeholders are included to give input, but not too many to be ineffective. • H ow do we involve tow services? The context diagram has various boxes, and they can be included in maintenance management or third-party services. Those could be used to capture tow services, maybe as part as data flow that shows the Backoffice providing information for towing action. It should also be defined in the use cases for your local system. It may be outside the system of interest, but it may need to be included in procedures for O& M. • Is it easy to see if functional requirements relate to in-agency versus subbed out? Depending on the particular environment, it may be outside the system, and the agency will need to make note of that and add it as a constraint the system will have to deal with. The Backoffice is broken down into parts, so some may be contracted out. These areas of the functional diagram should be mapped to the agency structure. Feedb ack from E mail • Thanks for today’ s workshop. I’ m not a rural planning expert by any stretch. There are so many interesting environments for operations in that umbrella of rural. I think of the immediate connector roads just outside of the MPO boundary but utilize d heavily at times. I’ ve seen parts of Michigan that are intensely used exurb- serving corridors. Then there are farms/forestland and many smaller cities and towns. Also, Native American tribal lands are often rural. Plus, unique communities like Amish, who use horse-drawn transportation. I hope you are able to anchor the benefits of connected vehicles in serving a variety of communities. • Another use case: As forest fires become more prevalent, there may be additional data sources needed for operations and connected vehicle/traveler information. Note: the final model ConOps was revised to include examples of heavy smoke from forest fires to encourage practitioners to consider this and other situations that should be addressed in use cases. Table 4. (Continued).