1. E N T E R P R I S E Developing Consistency in ITS Safety Solutions – Intersection Warning Systems Project Overview December 2011

2. E N T E R P R I S E Agenda Project scope Design and evaluation guidance Roadmap to standardization Questions

3. E N T E R P R I S E Bring together organizations that have developed and deployed intersection warning systems to develop a consistent approach for accelerated, uniform deployment and further evaluation of intersection warning systems, and to recommend preliminary design and evaluation guidance for MUTCD consideration. Project Scope

4. E N T E R P R I S E Project Scope Anticipated results – Increase awareness of systems deployed – Develop design guidance to support accelerated and more consistent deployment – Establish evaluation framework – Create roadmap for reaching standards in MUTCD and Highway Safety Manual

5. E N T E R P R I S E Project Scope Webinar (June 23) – Shared knowledge and educated each other on systems deployed Missouri, North Carolina and Minnesota – Identified challenges with future deployments Warrants/Function Liability Placement Failsafe/Reliability Design Capital and Operating Costs Effectiveness Connected Vehicle Quality Control

6. Project Scope

7. E N T E R P R I S E Project Scope Workshop #1 (July 28-29) – Discussed content of a preliminary standard Shift to design and evaluation guidance – Discussed roadmap for reaching standardization Engage further human factors research Support further evaluation across state boundaries Identify what may be required for interim compliance with existing MUTCD standards Allow for continued deployment and evaluation Brief the NCUTCD and AASHTO SCOTE to initiate formal processes

8. Project Scope

9. E N T E R P R I S E Project Scope Workshop #2 (September 15-16) – Review preliminary design guidance – Develop an evaluation framework that may be used in future deployments Establish measures of effectiveness and data needs for each system type to facilitate comparison of systems – Discuss plans for future deployment and coordination plans Refined roadmap for standardization

10. Introduction Purpose Typical system components Glossary of terms Design and Evaluation Guidance

11. E N T E R P R I S E Design and Evaluation Guidance Design guidance – Four typical layouts based on warning direction and intersection configuration – Preliminary illustrations – Offer technical insight and recommended practice Do not limit engineering judgment or agency discretion – Conditions, intended driver use, layout, options, notes and references More details conditions (warrants) Anticipated benefits and costs

12. Design and Evaluation Guidance Evaluation guidance – Not all systems have been formally evaluated Acknowledged various evaluation approaches – Establish a common framework for evaluation Individual and national – Based on ITS Evaluation Guidelines Goal Strategy Hypotheses Test plan parameters E N T E R P R I S E

13. Roadmap to Standardization Individual development and field testing Webinar #1 Compile and assess lessons learned from individual development and field testing Florida Georgia Iowa Kansas Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri North Carolina Pennsylvania Virginia Wisconsin Workshop #1 Develop preliminary design guidance Function Placement Sign Size/Message Failsafe Liability Costs/benefits Vehicle vs. infrastructure Workshop #2 Develop evaluation framework Review preliminary design guidance Develop evaluation framework Discuss future deployment plans Further deployments and evaluation See details on next slide Standard for MUTCD consideration 2000 – 2011Jun 2011Jul 2011 Sep 2011 2012-13 2014 E N T E R P R I S E

14. Roadmap to Standardization 1.ENTERPRISE: Jon Jackels, MN a.Monthly board meetings; next is October 6, 2011 b.Summarize webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance document c.Request consideration of supporting national evaluation or ongoing coordination role 2.Design and Evaluation Guidance for ICWS: Athey Creek a.Develop and distribute second draft week of October 17, 2011 b.Develop support materials for summarizing webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance 3.FHWA MUTCD Team and Office of Safety: Jon Jackels, MN a.Small group webinar in late-October 2011 b.Summarize webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance document c.Identify what may be required for interim compliance with existing MUTCD standards

15. Roadmap to Standardization 4.NCUTCD RWSTC: Tom Heydel (Matt Rauch), WI a.Meet January 18-19, 2012 during TRB in Washington, DC b.Summarize webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance document c.Request consideration of task force to evaluate MUTCD prospects d.Key members include Tom Heydel, WI and Bruce Ibarguen, ME 5.AASHTO SCOTE: Bob Koeberlein (Gary Sanderson), ID a.Likely to meet in January 2012 during TRB in Washington, DC b.Summarize webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance document c.Request consideration of a recommendation to NCUTCD d.Key members include Bob Koeberlein, ID and Sue Groth, MN 6.ATSSA ICWS Industry Workshop: Jon Jackels, MN a.Proposed during ATSSA Annual Meeting, February 12 - 16, 2012 in Tampa, FL b.Summarize webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance document c.Request industry response to key questions about ICWS product development

16. Roadmap to Standardization 7.Traffic Control Devices Transportation Pooled Fund 5(065): Julie Stotlemeyer, MO a.Annual meeting in April 2012 in KS b.Summarize webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance document c.Consider human factors research of sign placement and message set d.Members include IA, KS, MO, NC and PA 8.Evaluation of Low Cost Safety Improvements Transportation Pooled Fund 5(099): Shawn Troy, NC a.Annual meeting in March or April 2012 b.Summarize webinar/workshop proceedings and guidance document c.Consider coordination of national evaluation d.Members include IA, KS, MN, MO, NC, PA and WI 9.Others? a.ITE, International Municipal Signal Association, etc. b.Cooperative Transportation Systems TPF and Connected Vehicle c.FHWA-NCHRP Unsignalized Intersection Information Guide in 2012

17. E N T E R P R I S E Questions?