# Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS)

# CICAS Workshop

December 9-10, 2004

Churchill Hotel

Washington, D.C.

**SUMMARY OF CICAS WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS**

The CICAS Workshop activities included the following:

-   Stakeholders from the FHWA, NHTSA, FTA, FMCSA, automobile industry,
    state DOTs, and university ITS research groups convened to present
    their various approaches to CICAS.

-   The Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP), a research
    consortium of automobile manufacturers, presented its vision for
    CICAS. CAMP described in detail a model for potential solutions to
    intersection collision avoidance systems and the evolutionary path
    from a cooperative vehicle-infrastructure system in the near-term to
    a future system of autonomous vehicles communicating with each other
    about impending crashes.

-   The FHWA presented summaries of its current research projects, and
    of the research being conducted by the States and their university
    partners.

-   The USDOT presented its vision for CICAS, including the requirements
    for the output of the program at its scheduled end date of 2009.

The workshop resulted in:

-   A detailed discussion of both the USDOT's requirements for CICAS and
    a debate about the CAMP model from the perspective of the other
    stakeholders

-   acceptance of the high-level requirements for a cooperative system
    as outlined by the USDOT and by a diverse set of stakeholders

-   An outline of the research agenda that will be needed to reach the
    USDOT's goals for CICAS

-   A charge to the States and the Infrastructure Consortium to build a
    model of the solution from the point of view of the infrastructure.
    This model will eventually merge with the CAMP model and will
    encompass the USDOT's requirements for CICAS

-   The beginnings of a research path to achieve a field-tested version
    of CICAS by 2009

-   A beginning of a vision of what CICAS should be in 2009

-   A suggestion to reconvene in January with representatives of
    additional stakeholder groups, e.g., traffic device manufacturers

**DAY ONE -- 12/09/2004**

**Welcome**

Mike Schagrin, ITS JPO

Mike Schagrin welcomed the group to the Cooperative Intersection
Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS) Workshop and provided an overview of
the workshop including the need for a consensus on the vision,
development of a high-level roadmap, a better understanding of how to
invest funds for program activities and support.

**Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP)**

Vehicle Safety Communications Consortium

IVI Light Vehicle Enabling Research Program

Task 15

Rajiv Gupta, GM

Michael Maile, Daimler Chrysler

Ron Heft, Nissan

The Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) provided an overview of
their work to date with regard to Cooperative Intersection Collision
Avoidance Systems (CICAS). CAMP has been working to develop a Concept of
Operations (ConOps), requirements, specifications, and the design of a
driver-vehicle interface (DVI) for CICAS. They provided a review of
existing technologies, including dedicated short-range communications
(DSRC). The scope of CAMP's ICA effort led them to develop seven models
or concepts of how ICA could be implemented, ranging from infrastructure
only to vehicle only options, with combinations of the options as
intermediate positions. Details of the concepts can be found in the
report: Vehicle Safety Communications Project Task 15: Preparatory
Analysis to Support Intersection Collision Avoidance (ICA) Workshop
Discussions, CAMP, November 19, 2004. See workshop slides for outline of
overview.

CAMP, by definition, presented a vehicle-centric view of the
evolutionary path to a mature, operational CICAS. However, the CAMP
model does include infrastructure-centric components that provide data
communications capability to DSRC-equipped vehicles and driver interface
capabilities to non-DSRC-equipped vehicles. Key elements of the CAMP
model include the following:

-   DSRC is the enabling communication technology with a roadside unit
    (RSU) and an onboard unit (OBU) always present.

-   The location of sensing, computation and/or warning in the vehicle
    or infrastructure depends on the model concept being implemented in
    the vehicle.

-   The driver-vehicle interface (DVI) alerts the driver and is
    functionally integrated with other safety systems.

Table 1 indicates the concepts that form the CAMP solution. Table 2[^1]
arrays the concepts along several descriptive dimensions.

**Table 1: CAMP CICAS Concepts**

+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
|   | **Scenario**      | **Description**                             |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| * | **Infrastructure  | Infrastructure autonomous system            |
| * | Only; No DSRC**   |                                             |
| 1 |                   |                                             |
| * |                   |                                             |
| * |                   |                                             |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| * | **Infrastructure  | Starting point for Infrastructure decision  |
| * | Decision, Vehicle | based CICAS.                                |
| 2 | Display; DSRC**   |                                             |
| * |                   | I2V communication required for in-vehicle   |
| * |                   | display                                     |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| * | **Infrastructure  | Starting point for Vehicle decision based   |
| * | Supported,        | CICAS                                       |
| 3 | [Vehicle          |                                             |
| * | Decisi            |                                             |
| * | on]{.underline}** |                                             |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| * | **Vehicle         | Vehicles all send their information to      |
| * | Supported**       | infrastructure.                             |
| 4 |                   |                                             |
| * | **Infrastructure  | Infrastructure does calculations and issues |
| * | Intensive         | commands to particular vehicle to issue     |
|   | Infrastructure    | warnings.                                   |
|   | Decision**        |                                             |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| * | **Vehicle and     | Vehicles all send their information to the  |
| * | Infrastructure    | infrastructure.                             |
| 5 | Supported**       |                                             |
| * |                   | Infrastructure compiles information and     |
| * | **[Vehicle        | provides intersection 'dynamic state' to    |
|   | Decisi            | all vehicles (DSRC equipped and             |
|   | on]{.underline}** | non-equipped).                              |
|   |                   |                                             |
|   |                   | Vehicles warn as appropriate.               |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| * | **High            | All vehicles transmit their relevant        |
| * | DSRC-Vehicle      | information.                                |
| 6 | Penetration,      |                                             |
| * | Intersection      | Infrastructure re-transmits vehicle         |
| * | Supported,        | messages and any infrastructure             |
|   | [Vehicle          | information. Vehicles receive messages from |
|   | decisi            | all other vehicles and warn appropriately   |
|   | on]{.underline}** |                                             |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| * | **Vehicle Only**  | Vehicle autonomous systems. Based entirely  |
| * |                   | on V2V communication                        |
| 7 |                   |                                             |
| * |                   |                                             |
| * |                   |                                             |
+---+-------------------+---------------------------------------------+

**Table 2: CAMP CICAS Concepts -- Descriptive Array**

CAMP proposes that CICAS development start with Concept 3, proceed to
the intermediate system architecture suggested by Concept 5, and extend
to Concept 6 as DSRC-equipped vehicles become more common in the vehicle
fleet. Concept 7 would be the final, long-term result of CICAS
development. CAMP also recommended the formation of a working team of
infrastructure and vehicle experts to develop the architecture,
communications system, and deployment systems.

Much of the discussion involved reconciling the vehicle-centric view
with an infrastructure-centric view. The following questions and issues
emerged from the group discussion following the CAMP presentation:

-   **Pedestrians:** The positions of pedestrians, bicyclists, dogs,
    horses (or generalized traffic participants) were not present in the
    state map of the intersection described by CAMP; CAMP responded that
    this capability belongs in Concept 5, and that Concept 6 assumes
    that there will be enough additional sensors on equipped cars to
    sense pedestrians and unequipped cars. Pedestrian sensing is a
    general problem that needs to be addressed in future program
    activities. Decisions are required for how pedestrian sensing will
    be performed (infrastructure or vehicle) and how the warnings will
    be delivered.

-   **Warnings:** All warnings are in the vehicle. CAMP Concept 3 does
    not exclude infrastructure-delivered warnings. However, the
    infrastructure perspective was not in CAMP's scope. Some workshop
    participants believe that infrastructure communications/warnings may
    be a better alternative than in-vehicle ones, because infrastructure
    warnings can warn all vehicles at the same time while in-vehicle
    warnings only warn equipped vehicles. These participants believe
    that in-vehicle warnings may be suboptimal at this time.

-   **Relationship of Concepts:** Combining Concept 1 and Concept 3 is,
    in effect, pre-Concept 5.

-   **Concept 3 Benefits:** The benefit is proportional to the number of
    DSRC-equipped vehicles. The States felt that if too few vehicles
    were equipped, there would not be enough benefit to justify the cost
    of the infrastructure component to the States. CAMP responded that
    it is recommending that infrastructure only development be conducted
    in parallel to its development efforts.

-   **Latency:** The controller-RSU interface has a specification of 10
    Hz and 100 ms. CAMP feels that this is sufficient for the
    application, but CAMP has not yet worked out the overall system
    latency budget.

-   **Harmonization of Infrastructure and In-Vehicle Warnings:**
    Participants suggested that this is an issue on which further
    research is needed.

-   **Combined Error:** The combined error from the map of intersection
    geometry plus the error from GPS is 10m, which translates to a one
    second error. Is this enough accuracy? What is the accuracy needed
    for the state map? CAMP does not have a good fix on the
    requirements, particularly for lane level positioning where 1m
    accuracy is needed.

-   **Gap Acceptance:** There are, in fact, two types of gap acceptance
    depending on whether the vehicle is stopped or moving. CAMP has not
    decided whether its gap acceptance research will be focused on
    stationary or moving vehicles. There was some discussion as to
    whether drivers time the gap or gauge distance; a large body of
    research exists on this type of driver behavior.

-   **The Dilemma Zone:** A participant from the FHWA stated that the
    signal state is more complex than portrayed, including instances of
    an extended green phase and a variable time for the yellow. Traffic
    behavior in the dilemma zone needs to be studied. If a vehicle stops
    at the yellow in a high-speed intersection, this is likely to cause
    rear end collisions. CAMP answered that in the future they will need
    to generate requirements for traffic controllers, so that CICAS can
    anticipate signal change rather than just react to it. It was
    recommended that CAMP work with State DOT researchers to better
    understand needs and develop requirements. There was also discussion
    of acceptable deceleration rates (.3g) for autos in the dilemma
    zone.

-   **DII:** A comment was that in Concept 5/6 the risk level for the
    DII should be changed to "red" as DII represents a high-risk area
    requiring further research.

-   **Starting with Concept 2:** A participant suggested that the
    evolutionary path should start with Concept 2. CAMP picked its start
    point as Concept 3, because it knows the most about vehicle-based
    systems. In addition, in Concept 2, the system may not have enough
    information available, because the system does not know the braking
    capability of the vehicle, or whether the driver's foot is on the
    brake. DSRC and in-vehicle messages are going to be used for many
    different applications

-   **Rural/Urban/Suburban Suitability:** A question was raised that the
    CAMP concept was unsuitable for rural areas. CAMP representatives
    debated this point and provided evidence for why they felt
    differently.

-   **Relationship Between Infrastructure-only and Vehicle-based
    Systems:** Issues raised included:

    -   The understanding that the infrastructure delivered a message to
        the driver, not a warning

    -   The distribution of liability among automobile manufacturers,
        device manufacturers, and public transportation agencies in the
        various concepts

    -   Whether Concept 3 is a feasible starting point without going
        through Concept 1 or Concept 2

    -   The ability (or lack of ability, as stated by VTTI) of
        vehicle-based systems to detect a car behind a truck

    -   The low likelihood that the States will invest in a system that
        requires a high penetration of DSRC

    -   The evidence, if any, that in-vehicle warnings are better than
        infrastructure warnings. (Which leads to more effective driver
        action? CAMP stated that there are fewer false alarms with
        in-vehicle warnings.) One participant questioned whether, since
        about 50% of intersection violators are willful violators, will
        a DII shame them into following the rules?

-   **Partial or Full Automation:** Is either a better solution than
    providing decision support to the driver? Given the level of
    uncertainty of the data can we move to automated control? Full
    discussion was deferred to the breakout session.

-   **Concept 5/6:** What is the decision point to move from Concept 3
    to Concept 5/6? The suggestion was that there will be a necessity to
    do Concept 5 or maybe Concept 4 to have a combined
    infrastructure/vehicle solution. Another suggestion was to more
    fully incorporate ranging sensors into the vision for Concept 5/6.
    CAMP answered that the cost of sensors is prohibitive at this point.

-   **Willful Violators:** What about willful violators? (These were 40%
    of the intersection collision problem 10 years ago.) DII may
    actually change driver behavior, whereas a violator can ignore an
    in-vehicle warning.

-   **Policy and Business Model Questions:** What business, voluntary,
    and regulatory deployment models are needed? Deployment of the
    needed equipment into new vehicles will not affect the existing
    fleet. It takes 7 -- 10 years to turn over the fleet, which is under
    the control of state licensing and inspection agencies. There was
    discussion about the likelihood of success of DSRC and its
    penetration into the market possibly being another hurdle to the
    deployment of CICAS. There was discussion of the fact that, even if
    100% of new vehicles were equipped with DSRC, it would take a number
    of years for such vehicles to become a large percentage of the US
    vehicle fleet.

-   **Testing and Implementation:** VTTI has concluded that
    implementation is not straightforward. There are too many type 1 and
    type 2 errors in their tests. NHTSA noted that there will be a
    100-car study with fully sensor-equipped cars; CAMP will follow up.
    Another research effort will be looking at intersections for next
    4-5 years.

-   **Driver Performance Research:** There seems to be a significant
    hole in driver performance research. Where does the research gap
    lie, with CAMP or other research efforts? When will this research be
    done and by whom? Will new and existing information be gathered by
    FOTs and OEMs?

**Current USDOT related research projects**

Gene McHale, FHWA, R&D

Following McHale's presentation on current FHWA research projects, the
discussion centered on research needs and the kinds of data that are
being collected. VTTI listed ideas for future research:

-   Collect live data at intersections -- for example, such as
    determining the effects of infrastructure-based sign near Blacksburg

-   Examine in-vehicle and infrastructure warning interaction

-   Mine existing database sponsored by NHTSA, which contains
    naturalistic data for 100 cars driven throughout controlled
    intersections in northern Virginia. The data collection will end in
    September.

CAMP has eye-tracking data (which includes 1200 approaches to
intersections). In addition, participants noted an evolutionary approach
that could start at Concept 1, and then proceeds through Concept 3 to
Concept 5. The state map is being examined, as some entity in the system
must have a picture of what is happening at an intersection.

**State DOT Perspective**

Morris Oliver, FHWA, Office of Safety

Following Oliver's presentation there was extensive discussion between
the States and CAMP, and with Jim Wright, the AASHTO representative.
CAMP asked: How do the States see themselves in getting organized in
dealing with CICAS? Are we talking about all 50 States or just the five
involved with IDS?

AASHTO replied that the States have much experience in working together,
e.g., VII and DSRC. There are no specifics yet with respect to CICAS.
AASHTO is working on this issue with the CICAS Program Manager, Mike
Schagrin, and will have an answer in next few months. The intent is that
there will be one single point of contact for all of the States.

Schagrin says that he intends to use a model similar to CAMP to bring
the States together. One unified, endorsed position will come out of the
model and USDOT will facilitate discussions among the States to come to
a consensus position.

CALTRANS mentioned two additional challenges:

1.  Supporting legacy systems: Signal controllers have been deployed for
    decades and it is unlikely that they will be replaced en masse to
    support CICAS infrastructure needs

2.  Local governments: Most intersections are owned and operated by
    local governments, not States, although CALTRANS issues standard
    plans and specifications to local governments. Local agencies need a
    voice in CICAS.

States present at the workshop emphasized that the intersection is only
one component of VII. Other components are important to DOT as well, not
just this component.

AASHTO is making a commitment to educate and spread the word about the
value opportunities of these programs. What will be the
design-build-deployment process? What is the overall business model?
AASHTO will work at the executive level with the automobile industry and
USDOT.

VDOT stated the state's case for a key role for infrastructure-based
systems. The state DOTs have a daunting task in terms of safety and they
have long history of working together. The state perspective agrees with
CAMP on the need for an incremental rollout. However, the infrastructure
has to be the first phase (in the near term), and has to be a
significant part of the intermediate solutions. This is because the
States cannot wait for the market penetration of DSRC. The "near term"
is defined as the take-up time for DSRC and the deployment of I2V
systems.

VTTI stated that there is a need for a common vision of an evolutionary
deployment. An infrastructure-only system to start gives car companies a
foundation against which to design their vehicle-based systems. The
States will see immediate safety benefits from the infrastructure-based
systems, because they will be deployed at the most problematic
intersections. However, the maximum benefit will not be attained, until
there is a cooperative system, which will need to be recognized in the
requirements for earlier implementation phases.

A consensus emerged among the States about developing an infrastructure
solution that merges with other solutions sometime in the future. In the
near term, before DSRC-equipped vehicles are a significant portion of
the U.S. fleet, States could focus on infrastructure deployment of major
components. The challenge is to work closely together. Infrastructure is
a significant part of the incremental solution and States may not be
able to afford to wait for DSRC-equipped vehicles. The infrastructure
approach is critical to getting to cooperative intersection collision
avoidance systems. The progression could be as follows:

-   Build Concept 1

-   Develop Concept 3

-   Hold Concept 5 as a vision

Further discussion included the following points:

-   Infrastructure vs. in-vehicle warning conflict: this is a research
    issue; it may be that both together are beneficial. One alternative
    is that the infrastructure generates the warning for both the DII
    and the DVI, so that there will be no conflict.

-   Benefits: From a public sector point of view, there needs to be an
    immediate benefit. Otherwise, the States won't pay for the
    capability.

-   Human factors: Private sector data on user acceptance is needed.

-   DSRC transmitter deployment: The VII group is addressing deployment.

-   What is the difference between "signal violation," which CAMP's
    Concept 3 addresses, and "gap assistance," which CAMP addresses in
    its Concepts 5 and 6? Signal violation countermeasures provide a
    warning about a potential collision and gap assistance
    countermeasures help a person to make a good decision.

-   Why are rear-end collision warnings not being addressed by CICAS?
    Neglecting rear-end collisions is a mistake and giving motorists
    CICAS warnings could increase the number of conflicts leading to
    rear-end collisions.

-   What is the cost-benefit for these systems? The cost-benefit
    calculation is not clear at this point, but one participant asserted
    that it should be easier to determine for the infrastructure
    approach. In seven to ten years it should be easier to predict the
    status of infrastructure deployment. Another participant asked
    whether the overall incidence of crashes at signalized intersections
    justifies the cost of the program. (Although this question was
    raised, most did not believe this was an impediment to continuing
    with the CICAS program.)

-   Radar and Lidar are expensive technologies and there are associated
    risks for the OEMs. The vehicle equipment for DSRC will need to be
    multipurpose in order to provide an adequate ROI.

-   How will signal software version upgrades be handled? Upgrades will
    be easy for integrated systems. VII is integrated; therefore,
    software upgrades should be easy. Centralized signal systems need to
    be able to verify that the system is functioning. User expectations
    combined with infrastructure and vehicle system failures could be a
    problem when CICAS is operating.

-   What is the possibility that vehicle systems can learn driver
    behavior and set tailored gap acceptance algorithms? One response
    was that this would be too much liability for OEMs to take on.

**CICAS Vision**

Mike Schagrin, ITS JPO

The U. S. DOT vision for the CICAS program includes the following:

-   Conduct a research, systems integration and development program

-   Establish a cooperative system addressing all four problem areas by
    2009

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Establish the violation countermeasure first, but develop the gap
    acceptance countermeasure in parallel

-   Employ technology that is close to being production ready

-   Work in cooperation with the Vehicle Integration Initiative (VII),
    especially for field testing

-   Push the full range of countermeasures

Attendees believe that there needs to be a mechanism to share ideas and
keep track of developments in the infrastructure and vehicle groups.
Attendees also believe that there is a need to know what the program is
deploying and what the work program will look like. Are we talking about
a stopgap measure or are we talking about systems that can be deployed
down the road? Attendees also believe that the CICAS program needs to
coordinate with VII so it doesn't overlap their efforts. This raised the
question: Should VII drive CICAS? There was no consensus on this
question; however, the CICAS Program Manager sees the CICAS initiative
as an important stand-alone program as well as one that shares resources
with the VII initiative.

Questions and comments on the CICAS vision included the following:

-   *Question*: Why do you say that an infrastructure system offers
    limited benefits? In order to gauge the effectiveness of a
    vehicle-based system, one needs to factor in the percentage of cars
    equipped with the technology. *Answer:* We will only be able to
    equip a limited number of intersections, so there is a limit to
    effectiveness for infrastructure-based systems as well. *Response*:
    States argue these are high-risk intersections and that this is an
    interim solution that their politicians can buy.

-   *Question:* Clarify that signal violation is done in parallel with
    gap acceptance, not before it

-   *Comment:* There has not been enough of an emphasis in understanding
    the benefits of CICAS; we need to build the case.

-   *Comment:* Cooperative may not necessarily mean DSRC. *Answer:* DSRC
    is a key technology, we have a limited time frame and there has been
    a lot of investment; other technologies cannot support our tough
    latency requirements.

-   *Question:* What is the evaluation portion of the roadmap? *Answer:*
    the evaluation component is represented in the diagram of the CICAS
    Vision.

-   *Comment:* Violations and gap acceptance have parallel paths; these
    are two fundamental problems.

**Breakout Session #1**

**The CICAS Vision and Evolutionary Path**

The participants were divided into six breakout groups. The groups were
asked to use the high-level vision presented by the U. S. DOT and "fill
in the blanks." The groups were asked to answer the question: "What does
the system look like and when?" They were asked to note the status of
development of the system and its components for each of four problem
areas. The problem areas were:

-   Stop-sign violation

-   Signal-violation

-   Stop-sign assist

-   Left-turn against path/opposite direction (LTAP/OD)

The milestones from the present state in 2005 through intermediate
points in 2006 and 2007 to the pre-deployment endpoint of 2009 were
timed to coincide with major tests being held for VII. Participants were
instructed that by 2009, CICAS should have undergone a field operational
test and should be deployment-ready. The components suggested for the
discussion were:

-   Sensors

-   Communications

-   Driver interface

-   Processing/controllers

-   Other

The U.S. DOT vision sets parallel development paths for the two problem
area types that CICAS addresses: violations (signal and stop sign) and
gap acceptance (stop sign assist and LTAP/OD). Workshop participants
agreed with this approach and noted that the two problem area types
require different types of countermeasures, and that the gap problem
area involves more difficult driver behavior issues.

Participants reached a consensus that the U.S. DOT vision for CICAS has
merit. Reasons for this judgment include the immediate availability of
U.S. DOT resources for CICAS, the efficacy of an evolutionary approach,
and the utility of a total systems approach. Arguments against the
vision were that the research program may be overly ambitious, may raise
false expectations, and is somewhat artificially confined to
intersections.

Driver behavior and human factors, in general, were highlighted in the
discussion as a research area that should be emphasized, particularly
using naturalistic research designs. Participants cautioned that the
promotion of CICAS needs to account for issues such as:

-   The unintended consequences of CICAS

-   The feasibility of the five-year timeline

-   The relationship of CICAS to the VII program

-   The role of the infrastructure or vehicle, respectively, in the
    cooperative system and the appropriateness of an infrastructure- or
    vehicle-based system for solving each of the problem areas

-   The measurement of costs and benefits

Most groups discussed the evolutionary path in terms of the CAMP model
presented by automobile manufacturers. Much discussion focused on having
the evolution start with an infrastructure-only solution and then follow
the path that CAMP presented from Concept 3 to Concept 5[^2], but with
more functionality resident in the infrastructure than indicated in the
CAMP model. Workshop participants judged the 2009 milestone for a
post-FOT, deployable CICAS as achievable.

A detailed narrative of the results of the discussions for Breakout
Session #1 is given in Appendix A1. A tabular summary of the vision and
evolutionary path by milestone and component is in Appendix A2.

**Day One Wrap-up Discussion**

-   The breakout sessions were valuable.

-   The follow-up task is to take the CAMP model, add infrastructure to
    it and discuss the result in the next workshop

-   One example of the functionality that infrastructure-based systems
    add (i.e., vision-based systems) is pedestrian detection.

**DAY TWO -- 12/09/2004**

**CAMP Review**

CAMP reviewed the seven models (also called concepts or scenarios) in
more detail. CAMP said that the major technology gap areas were the
following:

-   Positioning

-   Sensing

-   Computing

-   Driver Interface

-   Communication

The discussion revolved around understanding the relationship of the
CAMP concepts to each other, to the problem areas, and to
infrastructure-based CICAS components and solutions. CAMP has focused on
vehicle-based systems and has not addressed the infrastructure side in
detail. Participants asked: Why not look at the CAMP evolutionary path
and overlay the infrastructure evolutionary path?

-   **Relationships Among the Scenarios and the Problem Areas:** Were
    the seven scenarios scoped out before the problem areas were
    addressed? CAMP replied that all problem areas were taken into
    account when the scenarios were created. Concept 1 covers all
    problem areas.

-   **Concept 2 Light:** In this scenario in-vehicle signing to vehicles
    within some radius of the intersection would not require access to
    vehicle services. It was suggested that an aftermarket device could
    potentially deliver the message to the driver -- e.g., a PDA
    connected by Bluetooth to the vehicle.

-   **Definitions of Warning, Driver Alert, and Advisory:** There was
    discussion on the nature of the information delivered to the driver
    so that the driver can make the right decision. The DII will tell
    the driver that it is not safe to go. What happens when the system
    is not working? Terms are defined in the MUTCD.

-   **Concepts 2, 3, and 4:** Concept 3 is a lower cost measure, which
    only requires an RSU DGPS, DSRC and some processing; there is some
    concern regarding channel capacity. Concept 3 does not have the
    capacity problem. Concepts 2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive.
    Concept 3 assumes no sensors in the infrastructure; the sensing
    would be done through RSUs. Concept 3 does not take care of the
    "stop-sign-assist" problem. Stop-sign-assist is really a Concept 4
    and 5 problem. Concept 3 is actually a lower cost equipment measure
    involving the RSUs providing DGPS, DSRC, and processing power.

-   **Concept numbering:** The numbering of the concepts implies a
    unidirectional flow of development, but there is a need to define
    parallel lines of development. One suggestion was to reverse
    Concepts 3 and 4.

-   **Relationship Between CAMP and Infrastructure- based Systems:** The
    non-CAMP researchers expressed a need to understand what the CAMP
    concepts are from the infrastructure point of view. PATH suggested
    that from the intersection point of view the vehicle is just another
    sensor and vice versa. VTTI asked: In a mature system what does CAMP
    need from the infrastructure, i.e., in the vehicle-to-vehicle
    scenario what is needed from the infrastructure? CAMP replied that
    they need the geometry of the intersection (precise navigational
    map, including stop bar locations, and characterization of the
    individual lanes, such as the left turn lane). A state map (which
    will provide vehicle ID, lane-mapped position, distance from
    intersection and speed) would also need to include vehicle type --
    which can only be precisely determined by vehicle-based systems. The
    V2V message set Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard is
    currently in draft. Schagrin stated that we know what we need, but
    we don't know the precision. Another comment to CAMP was that stop
    sign assistance requires a heavy investment in infrastructure
    sensors.

-   **Weather Information:** There are not currently very many road
    weather sensors, so we don't expect to get needed weather
    information from Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS).

-   **Maintenance Requirements:** A comment from the States was that we
    need to take into account during system design the maintenance load
    for state and local highway departments that would be increased by
    the additional capabilities in the RSU. This is an integration
    issue.

-   **Definition of Traffic Control Device:** The University of
    Minnesota noted that we should enlarge definition of traffic control
    device to be an intersection control system.

-   **Liability and Other Policy Issues:** The policy committee of
    AASHTO and the automobile manufacturers are looking at liability
    issues. These policy issues may be outside the scope of this CICAS
    group. There is overlap with issues that VII is addressing, e.g.,
    liability and RSU rollout.

-   **Research questions to be answered:**

    -   What are human factors issues? There is a conflict if the
        warning comes from both the infrastructure and the vehicle;
        there may be unintended consequences of the warning;
        naturalistic data are needed.

    -   We are assuming DSRC will be effective, but how will it perform
        in urban areas, around corners, etc.?

    -   What will drive DSRC OBU deployments? We expect non-safety
        applications to accelerate deployments. One project, recently
        ended, implemented standard SAE messages. The system was never
        prototyped, but it is now ready. We need sensors on the SAE bus.
        There is storage on the RSU and it is needed also on the
        vehicle.

    -   What type and quality of information do drivers need to make
        safe intersection decisions?

    -   How will our systems account for pedestrians (50 percent of
        crashes involving pedestrians occurred at intersections) and
        bicycles (70 percent of crashes involving bicyclists occurred at
        intersections)?

    -   We need models of safe gaps and driver intent.

    -   What are the consequences of system failure?

    -   What are the requirements for signal controller interfaces?

    -   We need system-level requirements.

    -   How can we achieve accurate lane-level positioning?

    -   We need to refine and validate the algorithms.

    -   What level of control is needed for various situations? Levels
        of capability include:

        -   Advise

        -   Warn

        -   Control

        -   Enforce

**Breakout Session #2**

**Research Needs and Priorities**

The six Breakout Groups discussed the research needs that must be met in
order to achieve the U. S. DOT vision for CICAS and beyond that, a
mature operational system. Participants were asked to evaluate the level
of priority (high, medium, or low), start dates, and dependencies of
identified research needs. Workshop participants determined that the
highest priority needs were to:

-   Characterize normal and non-normal driver maneuvers at intersections
    in varied, real-world test conditions.

-   Determine alert timing parameters

-   Determine effectiveness of various interface approaches and their
    interaction with varied timing approaches

-   Develop design guidelines and performance specifications for DII

-   Measure effectiveness of DII

-   Determine preferred modality (combination of auditory, visual, and
    haptic alerts) of DVI

-   Refine message content and timing

-   Add CICAS capabilities or add CICAS interfaces to legacy and
    advanced traffic controllers

-   Determine requirements for accuracy of vehicle position

-   Determine requirements for accuracy of vehicle speed, acceleration,
    braking status, heading angle by in-vehicle sensors, by positioning
    systems

-   Specify infrastructure-vehicle communications

-   Design CICAS protocols to be run over DSRC; design DSRC MAC layer
    protocols for high density traffic conditions

-   Improve methods to fuse data from multiple sensors on vehicle
    position

-   Develop understanding of false alarm rate, miss rate, driver
    acceptance of computations

A summary of the high, medium and low research priorities that emerged
from Breakout Session #2 is in Appendix B1. A tabular summary of the
discussion is given in Appendix B2.

**Brainstorming Session**

**Environmental Scan**

As a final discussion activity, workshop participants discussed the
environmental factors that will affect CICAS development, both
positively and negatively. Factors were grouped into four cells
depending on whether they derived from the public or private sectors,
and whether the issues were systems/technical or
environmental/institutional. Figure 1 shows the results of the
environmental scan.

**Next steps:**

-   Next workshop: February 17-18, 2005

-   The Infrastructure Consortium will craft an infrastructure
    evolutionary path, reach consensus, and work with CAMP to
    consolidate into a unified, comprehensive evolutionary path. Gary
    Allen and VDOT have agreed to lead this effort.

-   The vehicle/infrastructure combined evolutionary path will be purely
    conceptual at this time.

-   The ITS JPO requires a first draft high-level concept of operations
    and functional requirements, as well as system architecture.

[^1]: Table 2 was abstracted from the materials prepared by CAMP.

[^2]: Concept 3 is where the infrastructure provides data to the
    vehicle, which makes the threat assessment and delivers a warning
    through a DVI. In Concept 5 both the vehicle and the infrastructure
    provide data to the vehicle's threat assessment processing and
    delivers the warning through both a DVI and DII.