Safety Implementation Update AASHTO RAC Meeting, July 22, 2014 Ann Brach, TRB, Director, SHRP 2 Debra Elston, Director of Corporate R&T, FHWA

What we’ll cover 2 Safety Training & Analysis Center (STAC) STAC Tool Development Projects thru the Exploratory Advanced Research (EAR) Program Implementation Assistance Program (IAP) Safety Proposals Phase 1 Implementation Activities

FHWA Safety Training and Analysis Center (STAC) STAC Initial Service Goals Training and technical assistance for State Research opportunities for graduate students, fellows, and post docs to gain Support U.S. DOT research agenda

STAC Status Facility constructed & 80% equipped. New staff (Researcher and Data Analyst) selected. DOT Staff Training on NDS Session 1: July/August, 2014 Session 2: September 2014 DOT Staff Training on RID in planning Target date: After TRB Annual Meeting 4

Automated video decoding/data extraction Carnegie Melon Univ. (CMU), “Machine Learning for Automated Analysis of Large Volumes of Highway Video” CMU, “DB-SAM: CMU Driver Behavioral Situational Awareness System” SRI, “DCode: A Comprehensive Automatic Coding System for Driver Behavior Analysis” Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison, “Quantifying Driver Distraction and Engagement” Automated Identity Masking CMU, Video De-identification in the Automobile Environment” SRI, “DMask: A Reliable Identity Masking System for Driver Safety Video Data” Calibration and Algorithm evaluation Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) - “Computer Vision Measurements and Analysis to Support Naturalistic Driving Study” Coordinating Workshop for PIs was held on Friday July 11, 2014 at Keck Center 5 STAC Tool Development – EAR Projects

Creation of the SHRP2 Safety Task Force Safety Task Force met in March 2014 –Rudy Malfabon, Director, Nevada DOT, chair –Sandra Larson, Iowa DOT, vice chair Multi-disciplinary team across AASHTO Committee structure Liaisons from FHWA and TRB Proposed framework for implementation and identified several research priorities 6

IAP Approach for Safety FHWA, AASHTO are pursuing a phased approach to reduce risk and cost to states States accept responsibility to manage research, implement findings States encouraged to partner with researchers, particularly ones with IRB process States must deliver the authorized research If the concept phase is successful, in-depth research phase with a large data set may be authorized – Goal is to ultimately develop safety countermeasures 30 applications received! 7

Safety Data, Phase 1 Approach recommended by NRC committee Objectives: –Provide oversight and technical guidance –Promote conditions for data availability –Gain experience to support decisions for post-Phase 1 –Support transition to Phase 2, as appropriate Status: –Executed MOU: FHWA, AASHTO, NHTSA, TRB; lays out governance and management –Negotiating cooperative agreement : FHWA and TRB; provides funding, statement of work 8

Safety Data Committees Safety Data Oversight Committee (not established) –Leaders from sponsors, user groups, information tech –Strategy, budget, work plans; data sharing policy; study and evaluate data access methods and institutional structures; identify decisions regarding future phases, coordinate among partners, users and contractors First Expert Task Group (established and met) –Highway safety, computer science, big data, spatial information, data sharing, statistical protection of identity –Draft SOWs for contractors; give input on performance measures, tools, user activities emerging technologies,... 9