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.

1 According to the National Transit Database (NTD), there were 4,750 collisions, 16,338 injuries, 98 fatalities (NTD 2018), and $694,493,189 in casualty and liability expenses (NTD 2017) involving transit buses in 2017. These statistics are unfortunately not an anomaly: bus collisions, injuries, and fatalities have followed a general increasing trend over the past decade. The purpose of this study is to gather the current practices in the use of various onboard technologies by transit agencies to improve safety, with the primary objective of compiling information on whether transit agencies find these technologies to be effective in actual practice. Technologies used to reduce accidents include, but are not limited to, the following: • Forward collision warning • Mitigation or automated emergency braking • Lane departure warning • Electronic stability control • Pedestrian and other vulnerable road-user detection Recognizing that safety does not occur in isolation and that measures to mitigate bus accidents and incidents are not strictly confined to technology applications, the study also focuses on other approaches that have been implemented to address safety hazards. These approaches include bus operator training, vehicle modifications, accident and incident investigations, and other safety-related policies and procedures. To effectively meet the primary objectives of the study, the synthesis team reviewed rele- vant literature and conducted a survey of 55 transit agencies. The team then performed detailed case example interviews of seven public transit agencies, chosen from the survey respondents according to their responses concerning agency pilots and implementation of onboard collision avoidance technologies to reduce accidents and incidents. The survey of select transit agencies was used to obtain their perspective and experiences regarding the piloting and use of onboard collision avoidance technologies to reduce bus accidents and incidents. The 38-question survey instrument was sent to 55 transit agency representatives throughout the United States. The method for selecting the agencies ensured both regional and size variation among the systems represented, as well as an acceptable survey response rate. Forty-four of the transit agencies responded, yielding an 80 percent response rate. Among the agencies that responded to the survey, 88 percent track causal or contrib- uting factors in safety events, and 81 percent perform evaluations to determine whether technology applications were working properly at the time of an incident. Respondents S U M M A R Y Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents

2 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents identified human factors related to not following policies or procedures as the most common causal factors in safety events. When asked how risk is identified within their agencies, most respondents reported multiple methods, such as reviewing accident reports, employee reporting, tracking perfor- mance metrics trends, customer complaints, and internal safety reviews. Fifty percent of the responding agencies indicated that they identify risk through employee close-call or near-miss reporting. Transit agencies were asked why they considered implementing collision avoidance technology, and specifically if their consideration was in response to specific safety events or to the trends noted at the beginning of this summary. Responses varied from proactive consideration due to benchmarking with peer agencies and additional funding available to reactive consideration due to increased trends in pedestrian collisions. Other reasons for considering the technology included the Vision Zero Initiative, driver requests, and “basic logic.” Survey respondents were asked to identify collision avoidance technologies they use to reduce collision events. Half of the responding agencies indicated using exterior vehicle security cameras, 30 percent have implemented some sort of rear bus treatment, and 23 per- cent have implemented pedestrian warning technology on their buses; 32 percent responded that they have not implemented any type of collision avoidance technology. Of the responding agencies that have implemented an onboard collision avoidance technology, 53 percent indicated that they strategized implementation either by the route and type of operating environment or by bus type or age. The routes and operating envi- ronments with higher potential for interaction were more common strategic factors for installing onboard collision avoidance technology than was bus type. Of the agencies reporting the procurement and installation of some type of collision avoidance technology, 46 percent indicated that the transit agency modified its buses, while 4 percent indicated that the manufacturer prewired the transit bus during final vehicle assembly. Regarding vendor agreements, 86 percent of agencies reported that agreements included terms for troubleshooting, maintenance, or technical support, while 74 percent reported that agreements did not include any terms for upgrading the technology. Vendor agree- ments and the content of these agreements are important, as these technologies are evolving at a rapid pace. The synthesis team thoroughly examined and reported vendor negotiation and contracting challenges presented by case example and survey respondents. In summary, the public transportation industry would benefit from a comprehensive guidance report, how-to guide, or recommended practices that address the procurement of technologies and the many aspects of technology vendor negotiations and contracting. The suggested guide could focus on performance-based procurement language and vendor services. The most common barriers to implementation of collision avoidance technologies on buses are concerns over costs and return on investment, retrofitting challenges, and union or operator resistance. Of the agencies that surveyed their employees for feedback on collision avoidance technologies, 36 percent had mostly positive feedback, 29 percent had mixed reactions, and 14 percent had mostly negative feedback, with concerns about distraction and effectiveness. The literature review identified several challenges with pedestrian detection technology features. These issues related to the accuracy of distinguishing a pedestrian from a vehicle, knowing when the vehicle has entered the crosswalk area, seeing the vehicle’s position

Summary 3 relative to a crosswalk, and modifying the alerts for when the driver has passed the cross- walk. The use of the global positioning system (GPS) for pedestrian detection and vehicle right-turn warnings can also limit the applicability and accuracy of pedestrian detection technology features, especially in downtown urban settings. The study team selected seven case examples on the basis of varying pilots and imple- mentation of onboard collision avoidance technologies to reduce bus accidents and incidents, as reported in response to the survey questionnaire. The examples include the following: • 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) The case example narratives reflect the following specific discussion points: • Safety risk assessment • Technology pilots/demonstrations • Technology solutions • Agency’s vendor experience • Acceptance of technology • Safety outcomes While case example agencies had different experiences with the use of onboard tech- nologies to prevent transit bus incidents and accidents, all shared certain qualities and characteristics, including highly functioning safety cultures. • All case example agencies piloted or implemented at least one collision avoidance technology, many of which provide pedestrian detection alerts. • All case example agencies approach safety in a holistic, agency-wide manner, in which they apply multiple approaches to address safety concerns. • While case example agencies reported using many means to identify safety risks, all made use of – Data trend analysis, – Internal safety reviews, – Some form of employee reporting, and – Customer reports/complaints. • All case example agencies showed a proactive commitment to safety through their willing- ness to pilot various technologies to mitigate or prevent bus accidents and incidents. • All case example agencies emphasized the importance of conducting pilots for enough time to determine if the technology is effective and feasible for the agency, and they urged other agencies to consider the possibility of vehicle interface challenges and delays in equipment installation. • All case example agencies recognized the value of their frontline employees and provided opportunities for those employees to offer input concerning the technologies. The technologies that case example agencies have piloted or currently use include, but are not limited to, the following: • 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

4 Current Practices in the Use of Onboard Technologies to Avoid Transit Bus Incidents and Accidents light warning on the exterior of the bus to attract the attention of distracted or vulner- able road users. 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 Enhanced Transit Safety Retrofit Package (E-TRP) includes dedicated short-range communications, a high-precision global navigation satellite system, and forward-looking infrared 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 obstructions. 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. Most of the case example agencies examine and track causal or contributing factors in safety accident and incident investigations, including evaluations that determine whether technology applications were working properly at the time of the incident. As with survey respondents, most case example agencies reported human factors—primarily not following agency policy/procedure—as the most prevalent causal factors of preventable safety incidents. Other human factors identified during case example interviews include distractions, disobeying traffic laws, fatigue, route schedule pressures, and inadequate training or training retention. A common thread among the case example agencies was the importance of using multiple survey distribution methods to gather employee feedback, as electronic forms did not result in high response rates. Several agencies provided recommendations to increase survey response rates, including multiple distribution methods, developing focus groups, or incentivizing survey responses. Finally, the combination of many safety initiatives was a recurring theme throughout each of the case example transit agencies, and each agency cited the importance of approaching system safety in a holistic manner, focusing on improving the safety culture of the agency.