November 21, 2017 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR System …mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA51465.pdf · avoidance technologies (CAT(s)) may utilize detection, operator alerts,

TRANSIT COLLISION AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGY – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

P a g e 1

November 21, 2017

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR

Scope of Services for SFMTA’s Transit Collision Avoidance System

SFMTA 2018-35

CONTACT: Geoffrey Diggs: 415.701.2477 or [email protected]

December 14, 2017 Pre-Submission Conference

Location-One South Van Ness, San Francisco, Western Addition,Conference Room (8104), Eight Floor

1. Introduction

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is issuing this request for information (RFI) to seek

feedback from the transit technology industry about existing, developing, and hypothetical technologies that may

be used to avoid or mitigate common collision scenarios involving the agency’s transit vehicles. These collision

avoidance technologies (CAT(s)) may utilize detection, operator alerts, adaptive responses and/or other novel

methods. SFMTA is also seeking high-level estimates for the cost to implement and manage the life cycle of these

CATs. SFMTA may use the information obtained through this RFI to develop the technical requirements to support

a scope of services for a potential, future request for proposals (RFP) for a pilot program or full deployment of a

CAT system or systems for SFMTA’s fleet of transit and other vehicles.

SFMTA is committed to San Francisco’s Vision Zero policy to eliminate all roadway fatalities and reduce severe

injuries occurring on city streets. CAT offers new avenues to progress towards this goal. With this in mind,

SFMTA is asking firms interested in responding to this RFI (Respondents) what a “Transit First” approach to CAT

would entail. That is, how would the design of these systems be affected when considering them from the ground-

up with transit in mind?

This RFI provides some suggested CAT solutions (i.e., strategies and technologies) for various common collision

scenarios. These suggested solutions reflect the SFMTA’s current understanding of available systems and

technology. Respondents should not regard these suggested solutions as prescriptive or all-inclusive, nor view the

suggested solutions as the only ones that SFMTA will consider. For example, while many of the scenarios

described in this RFI address camera vision based technology, there are also LiDAR (Light Imaging, Detection,

And Ranging), sonic and radar technologies that are being used by the automotive industry in collision avoidance

systems and automated vehicles that could potentially be retrofit into our fleets.

The SFMTA is interested in hearing comments, ideas, feedback, etc., regarding the current state of CAT and

whether it can be adapted to address transit conditions; or, if new systems should be developed, explicitly for the

transit vehicle. The SFMTA is also interested in understanding how warnings and alerts would be provided to our

operators in a way that would not generate too many false positives, but rather would give operators better

situational awareness on their driving environment. These warnings or alerts must also not cause a distraction but

integrate in a way that is contextual to the operator’s view of the roadway and controls.

The SFMTA is also interested in information pertaining to systems integration. For example, the SFMTA’s typical

fleet vehicle comes equipped with technologies not available on most cars, including multiple camera systems,

network systems, telematics, radio and CAD/AVL (Computer-Aided Dispatch/Automated Vehicle Locator)

technologies. Adding CAT to the mix adds further complexity to the fleet maintenance program and takes up space

on the vehicle that may already be occupied by other vital computing/processing or camera systems. Yet these

systems also provide network capabilities that most passenger cars are incapable of.

The SFMTA is interested in hearing comments, ideas, feedback, etc., on how CAT can be incorporated into these

other systems and processes in order to avoid redundancy and avoid complicating the maintenance of the vehicles

mailto:[email protected]


P a g e 2

or obstructing other safety features. If any of these existing systems can be multi-utilized, this could provide long-

term benefits to the taxpayers who pay for these buses and the workers who must maintain them.

2. Instructions to Respondents

The SFMTA is issuing this RFI to firms that have experience providing, developing, and/or testing CATs for the

public transit industry or other fleets of large size vehicles. These CAT systems may be radar, LIDAR, camera-

based, or employ other novel methods for avoiding collisions, such as V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) or V2I (vehicle-to-

infrastructure) systems.

The SFMTA recognizes that CAT is evolving rapidly. The agency would like Respondents to advise on what

technology they would offer and how that technology would contribute to reducing the number and severity of

collisions, eliminating traffic related fatalities, and improve system reliability. Additionally, SFMTA welcomes

suggestions for other features or scenarios to include in a potential, future RFP for CAT.

While the SFMTA recognizes that non-technical approaches to collision avoidance may be possible (e.g.,

awareness marketing campaigns, vehicle specifications or infrastructure redesigns), responses to this RFI should be

limited to technical systems, either vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure, or on-board technologies that

utilize advancements in computer processing, communications, and/or other technical systems.

The SFMTA will not pay Respondents any compensation for responding to this RFI, and no contract is

offered by this RFI. The SFMTA will use the information it gains through this RFI process to further refine the

scope of services and to estimate the cost associated with a potential, subsequent RFP.

Please review the background information and common collision scenarios described in this RFI and then complete

the attached questionnaire. If you have any questions or require clarification regarding this RFI, please contact

Geoffrey Diggs (415)701.2477 or [email protected]) by Friday, December 15, 2017. We will strive to

respond within two business days. Please submit your completed questionnaire to Geoffrey Diggs by Friday,

January 31, 2018.

mailto:[email protected]


P a g e 3

3. Background

3.1 Collision Avoidance Technology

CAT systems use sensors, radar, cameras, lasers and other devices to prevent or reduce the severity of vehicle

collisions. These systems can provide warnings to the vehicle’s operator, such as alerting the operator that it is

following another vehicle too closely, or can force the vehicle to take specific actions, such as emergency braking.

Over the past decade, CAT has developed rapidly within the passenger automobile market, with many of the

technology’s newest safety features slated to become standard by 2022. CAT technology, however, has been

primarily engineered for the passenger auto market and designed for conditions that most transit vehicles never

experience. For instance, many forward-collision-avoidance systems in passenger vehicles are not even activated

until the vehicle exceeds 35 MPH, whereas the average speed of an SFMTA transit vehicle is 8 MPH, and

‘Forward Collisions’ are reported in less than 6% of incidents (see Table 2: Collision Type - Front). Other CAT

features, such as ‘lane departure warning,’ have been dismissed by transit agencies currently testing CAT systems

as inappropriate for city driving conditions. This tells us that there is currently a gap between the products

developed for CAT and the needs of the public transit system.

Passenger Vehicle CAT has been designed to handle vehicles traveling at high speeds with relative space around

them. Existing technology shows a bias towards ‘looking forward’ into the space where the vehicle is headed at a

high rate of speed (see Illustration 1). Whereas, transit vehicle incidents occur at low-speeds and often involve

misestimating turn-radius and side clearances, or unpredictable cars, pedestrians and bicycles that engage the

transit vehicle from the sides or rear of the transit vehicle, not from the direction in which the transit vehicle is

headed.

Illustration 1: Example of existing CAT sensor array applied to transit vehicle (blue shapes indicate camera

sensor direction):

Recent tests to apply CAT to transit vehicles have been performed by the Washington State Transit Insurance Pool,

New York’s MTA, and San Jose’s VTA (among others). Despite the vast differences between passenger auto and

public transit operating conditions, the aforementioned test programs have been slated for expansion, indicating

that CAT can be successfully applied to transit vehicles.


P a g e 4

Many fleet vehicles operate within conditions that could offer designers of CAT some benefits compared to what

the standard passenger vehicle experiences. For instance, light rail vehicles and streetcars operate along a highly

fixed route (the rail); trolley coaches, similar to rail vehicles, operate primarily when attached to overhead lines;

and the SFMTA also has many dedicated lanes (dedicated Right of Way) for transit vehicles on some of their most

heavily travelled routes. In all of these cases, the infrastructure is far more ‘fixed’ for transit vehicles than it is for

passenger vehicles. This infrastructure is also often under the jurisdiction of the transit or other city agencies. The

data collected by street cameras or other sensors placed on infrastructure (see Illustrations 2 & 3 for ‘transit first’

computer vision concepts) could add more beneficial results to those obtained with existing camera vision systems.

Illustration 2: Example of a ‘Transit First’ sensor array (cameras are oriented around the bus with a

symmetrical view of surroundings).


P a g e 5

Illustration 3: Example of a ‘Transit First’ sensor array with Infrastructure added (network connectivity

allows bus to ‘see’ what infrastructure ‘sees,’ too).

3.2 SFMTA’s Vehicle Safety Performance

SFMTA owns, maintains, and operates more than 2,400 vehicles, including more than 1,000 transit vehicles.

SFMTA’s vehicle operators navigate through the second densest city in the United States, with some

neighborhoods exceeding the density of New York City’s Manhattan. Nearly half a million San Francisco and Bay

Area residents commute in and out of San Francisco each day, sharing the roads with an estimated 82,000 daily

bicycle commuters.

SFMTA rigorously trains its vehicle operators to anticipate and avoid collisions. Minimum training includes a 35-

hour classroom safety course prior to operating a revenue vehicle, and an eight-hour refresher course each year

thereafter as required by California state law. SFMTA also has a driver monitoring safety-training program that

uses onboard cameras and an onboard accelerometer to record events (e.g., collisions and near misses). SFMTA’s

transit managers and trainers use these recording to tailor trainings to the needs of individual operators.

Despite SFMTA’s commitment to safety training and monitoring, collisions occur at a rate of six to seven

collisions per 100,000 miles travelled, with an average annual number of collisions ranging between 1,600 and

2,000. Reflecting the complexity of reducing transit-related collisions within this dense urban environment, over

60% of these collisions have been deemed “non-preventable” by the Accident Review Board (ARB) (see Table 1).

According to the Guide to Determine Motor Vehicle Accident Preventability published by the National Safety

Council, a preventable incident is one in which the driver failed to do everything that reasonably could have been

done to avoid a collision. Examples of non-preventable incidents are:

• Struck in rear by another vehicle:

– While proceeding in proper lane of traffic at a safe and legal speed

– While waiting to make a turn from a proper lane

– While stopped in traffic due to existing conditions or in compliance with a traffic sign, signal or officer

• Struck while legally and properly parked


P a g e 6

Table 1. Percent of Total Muni Collisions as determined by the Accident Review Board (2012-2017)

Accident Review Board Decision Percent of Total Collisions

Non-preventable 61%

Preventable 30%

Non Chargeable 4.1%

(No Charge Stated) 4.9%

Source: SFMTA – Transit Safe Database

As mentioned previously, one of the earliest approaches to CAT was focused on forward collision avoidance. As

shown in Table 2 below, less than 6% of Muni collisions are forward facing, whereas over 60 percent are from the

side. The SFMTA’s goal is to reduce and eliminate all collisions, but the technologies used to help the agency

achieve this goal may be different than what has been applied to passenger vehicles.

Table 2. Percent of Total Muni Collisions by Type (2012-2017)

Collision Type Percent

Left Sideswipe 31.7

Right Sideswipe 30.6

(none stated) 19.3

Back 9.5

Front 5.6

Other 3.1


As Table 3 below shows, the majority of Muni collisions are with automobiles or trucks. It should also be noted the

large number of collisions with pedestrians and people on bicycles. Table 4 shows the similar data but focused on

collisions that result in injury. The SFMTA is focused on making San Francisco’s streets safe for people to walk

and bicycle, so systems that could reduce collisions with these more vulnerable road users is of particular interest.

Table 3. Muni Collisions (2012-2017): ARB Charge X Collision With



P a g e 7

Table 4. Muni Collisions (2012-2017): ARB Charge X Collision with (Injury = YES)


While the majority of Muni collisions occur during daylight hours, as shown in Table 5 below, lighting conditions

can be a contributing factor in collisions. Low natural light or dark conditions may require different approaches

than for daylight conditions.

Table 5: Muni Collisions (2012-2017): ARB Charge X Lighting Conditions


Any collision is detrimental to the flow of traffic, to fleet equipment, to the finances of those involved, and in some

cases, the life and well-being of those involved in the collision. Added to any human injury are the casualty and

liability costs which are defined as “the cost elements covering protection of the transit agency from loss through

insurance programs, compensation of others for their losses due to acts for which the transit agency is liable, and

recognition of the cost of corporate losses” -- Federal Transit Administration (FTA). According to the FTA’s 2015

Annual Operating Expense report, SFMTA’s bus and trolley vehicles averaged ~$25,000 in casualty and liability

costs per vehicle per year, totaling almost $25 million per year in liability costs to the taxpayer and constituting

roughly ~14% of the annual operating expenses. Total Casualty and Liability costs for transit agencies nationwide

are estimated at $5.7 billion.

If CAT can reduce the number of collisions then the increase in safety and decrease in casualty and liability claims

would be a double-win for the residents of San Francisco.

3.3 Overview of SFMTA’s Vehicle Fleet

The SFMTA owns, maintains and operates over 2,400 vehicles, including more than 1,000 transit vehicles. When

considering the potential market for CAT, in the United States there are over 75,000 transit buses (including trolley

coaches), over 20,000 rail vehicles, and over 55,000 vehicles for paratransit services. These transit vehicles come

in different shapes, sizes, and with different capabilities. The SFMTA is interested in testing and implementing

CAT on SFMTA bus, trolley coach, and light rail vehicles. Though some of the fleet vehicles here are slated for

retirement, the overall size of the fleet will remain consistent. Retired fleet vehicles may be useful when piloting

CAT.


P a g e 8

Table 6: SFMTA Transit Fleet 2017

Mode Type Person Capacity Mode of

Power

Number of

Vehicles

Notes

30-foot motor

coach

45 LF Hybrid 30 Will be retired by 2019.

Replacement vehicle TBD.

40-foot motor

coach

56-63 Diesel/LF

Hybrid

323 All diesel will be retired by 2018.

Will be replaced with New Flyer

Low Floor Hybrid.

60-foot articulated

motor coach

79-94 Diesel/LF

Hybrid

124 All diesel will be retired by 2018.


Low Floor Hybrid.

40-foot trolley

coach

63 Electric 240 All models will be retired by 2020.


Low Floor Trolley Coach.

60-foot articulated

trolley coach

48-79 Electric 93 Will be replaced with New Flyer

Low Floor Trolley Coach.

Light rail vehicle

(LRV)

119 Electric 149 Will be retired between 2021-2027

and replaced with Siemens LRV 4.

Cable Car 63 Electric 40 Based on technical limitations,

Cable Cars are not-included in the

scope of this RFI

Historic Streetcars 23-60 Electric Based on technical limitations,

Cable Cars are not-included in the

scope of this RFI

3.4 Overview of SFMTA’s On-board Bus Technology

SFMTA seeks to avoid duplicating systems on its vehicles, and as part of this RFI would like to understand the

integration opportunities or challenges with proposed CAT solutions given existing on-board systems. Each transit

vehicle comes equipped with a host of technology, making the transit vehicle a veritable floating network. This

technology includes:

a. Camera Systems

i. Accelerometer-triggered forward-facing and driver-facing cameras

ii. Occupancy Camera System (11 cameras on the 40’ coach)

iii. Transit-Lane Violation Camera (forward facing, into traffic lane)

b. CAD/AVL (Computer Aided Dispatch/Automated Vehicle Locator)

i. Onboard computer that uses a Radio based communication protocol to transmit vehicle

location and events (telematics) in real time.

c. Wi-Fi

i. Each bus is Wi-Fi capable

d. Transit Network Communication

i. Each bus is configured to communicate with the transit network system, specifically the

stop lights, which prioritize the flow of transit vehicles through intersections.


P a g e 9

4. Common Collision Scenarios

The information provided within this RFI is based on an analysis of common collision scenarios faced by SFMTA

vehicles/operators. These scenarios were gathered via a combination of qualitative and quantitative data analysis,

reviewing collision incident data and interviewing transit and safety personnel. Though the following scenarios are

not comprehensive of all collision types experienced by transit vehicles, they do describe the most common

situations experienced by transit operators within San Francisco’s dense urban transit network.

4.1 Left Turn conflict with Right of Way (ROW) vehicle

Collision Type: Front

Collision With: Auto

Collision While: Moving Forward

Vehicle Type: LRV and Dedicated ROW Bus

A very frequent collision scenario for LRVs, the left turn conflict occurs when vehicles in a dedicated

ROW or on a rail, heading straight, encounter a car that attempts to turn left across the dedicated lane or

rail.

In many of these cases, both vehicles are within one another’s blind spot. One possible solution for this

scenario is a system that warns the passenger vehicle, perhaps with an automated horn blast, while

simultaneously triggering the brakes on the transit vehicle; or signs that flash in the intersection when

trains have the right-of-way.


P a g e 10

4.2 Vehicle Does Not Fit

Collision Type: Left and Right Sideswipe

Collision With: Fixed Object, Parked Car


Vehicle Types: LRV, Trolley, Bus

This collision scenario is one of our most frequent. Though rarely causing any injury or physical harm, it

causes frequent delays within the transit network as the vehicle must stop and the passengers must depart

and find other modes of transportation while the operator makes their report and waits for an inspector to

arrive and make their report before entering back into service. This collision scenario also incurs costs via

liability claims for property damage or damage to SFMTA vehicles. A common cause of this incident are

vehicles partially blocking lanes while illegally double parked or stopping at intersections while partially

in the other lane.

While in many cases transit operators can successfully navigate cars in these situations, a device that

knows the transit vehicle’s dynamic envelope and can help calculate clearances would be incredibly

useful.


P a g e 11

4.3 Car swerves into bus’s lane

Collision Type: Left, Right and Forward

Collision With: Auto/Truck


Vehicle Types: Bus, Trolley, LRV

In this collision scenario, the bus is moving forward, usually in traffic. A vehicle (auto/truck) attempts to

merge into the lane that the bus is travelling in. In many cases, the merging vehicle is coming from two or

more lanes over. Sometimes the vehicle strikes the bus on the corner, failing to find enough space in front

of the bus. In other cases, the vehicle moves into too-tight of a space within the traffic, leaving not enough

space for the bus to stop in time, leading to a rear-end collision.

Reviewing training video footage of these collision scenarios shows that the vehicle in question often

originates from the far side of the bus, often more than one lane over. In most CAT systems, these

vehicles are unlikely to be seen by the camera until moments before impact. A system that is pointed

toward the sides of the bus is likely to catch these vehicles and indicate to the driver that vehicles are

approaching from the side.


P a g e 12

4.4 Exiting bus zone (pick-up/drop-off spot), a vehicle attempts to pass the bus on the side.

Collision Type: Left Sideswipe

Collision With: Auto/Truck/Bicycle

Collision While: Moving away from curb

Vehicle Types: Bus, Trolley

This collision scenario has two versions. In both versions, the bus has entered into a bus stop immediately

after passing through an intersection and unloads/loads passengers.

In version one, a vehicle traveling in the direction of the bus attempts to pass the bus while it is in the bus

stop.

In version two, a vehicle is traveling perpendicular to the direction of the bus and makes a turn either

behind the bus or from the other lane and also attempts to pass the bus while it is stopped.

The collision scenario occurs when the bus exits the bus stop, intending to continue down the road, not

seeing the vehicle that is attempting to pass.


P a g e 13

4.5 Exiting Bus Stop – Tail Sweep

Collision Type: Right Sideswipe

Collision With: Pedestrian

Collision While: Moving away from curb


Every bus has a different tail sweep profile, but most busses, when pulling from a curb, are capable of

sweeping their tail bumper over the curb. A typical incident involving this collision scenario happens

when a pedestrian has exited the bus but decides to return to the bus in order to board again, or is running

to the bus trying to catch it before it leaves. The pedestrian unknowingly enters the ‘tail spin’ zone where

the back of the bus strikes them as it pulls away.


P a g e 14

4.6 Left Hook – Pedestrian and Cyclist

Collision Type: Forward

Collision With: Pedestrian/Cyclist

Collision While: Turning Left

Vehicle types: Bus, Trolley, LRV

In this collision scenario, the bus is turning left across traffic when a cyclist or pedestrian, moving forward

in their lane or right-of-way enters the intersection into the path of the turning vehicle. This scenario often

occurs because the pedestrian or cyclist is obscured behind a row of parked cars or traffic.


P a g e 15

4.7 Pedestrian or Cyclist moves in front of vehicle

Collision Type: Forward

Collision With: Pedestrian


Vehicle types: Bus, Trolley, LRV

Similar to the left hook, but in this collision scenario, both vehicle and pedestrian/cyclist are moving in

forward directions. In many cases involving pedestrians, the pedestrian emerges from the side of a

building/alley and steps across the sidewalk into traffic before looking. The time it takes from when the

pedestrian is visible to when they are in the street can be just a second. Exacerbating this problem, electric

trolley and hybrid buses can be exceptionally quiet while heading down streets, such that pedestrians

believe the street ahead of them is empty. A CAT built into the intersection could see both the oncoming

pedestrian/cyclist and vehicle and pose a warning to the intersection.

4.8 Bike comes alongside bus at a flag stop

Collision Type: Right Sideswipe

Collision With: Bicycle

Collision While: Stopped


In this collision scenario, a bus or trolley is making a flag stop. A ‘flag stop’ is specific to San Francisco,

where buses are not required to pull to the curb to make all stops. In some cases, especially in more

residential neighborhoods, the bus or trolley coach stops in the lane. Flag stops are minimally marked,

often by just a small yellow marking on the road and/or a small sign planted on the curb. In these cases,

cyclists may not know that passengers are about to exit the bus, thinking it has simply stopped. The cyclist

attempts to pass alongside the right side of the bus, between the bus and curb, when the doors open. The

door or the exiting passenger impacts the cyclist. This can cause harm to the cyclist, the passenger, and/or

the vehicle.

4.9 Bus does not make stop

In this scenario, the bus may not be involved in a collision, but may have to hit the brakes too hard,

causing a fall on board. This often occurs while heading downhill. A system that alerts the operator when

a failed stop is probable could reduce these incidents.

4.10 Following too closely

In this scenario, the bus is following too close to the vehicle in front of it. This causes the driver to hit the

brakes ‘hard’ when the car in front suddenly stops or slows. This can cause falls on board or rear-end

collisions.

One complication to this scenario is that when buses provide too much following space between the bus

and the car ahead, this is often an invitation for cars in other lanes to merge in front of the bus, leading to

an incident described previously (c).

4.11 Low-Light Environments

Low-light environments, either due to the time of day (or night) or tunnel operating conditions (i.e.,

subway) are a factor in ~20% of MUNI collision incidents. Any technology that aids in collision

avoidance or detection must be capable of operating in low-light environs.


P a g e 16

5. Public Records Act/Sunshine Ordinance

Responses to this RFI become the exclusive property of the SFMTA and subject to the California Public Records

Act and the City's Sunshine Ordinance. Those elements in each response which are trade secrets as that term is

defined in Civil Code section 3426.1(d) or otherwise exempt by law from disclosure and which are prominently

marked as “TRADE SECRET,” “CONFIDENTIAL,” OR “PROPRIETARY” may not be subject to disclosure.

SFMTA shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such records including, without

limitation, those so marked if disclosure is deemed to be required by law or by an order of the court. Respondents

who indiscriminately identify all or most of their submittal as exempt from disclosure without justification may be

deemed non-responsive.

In the event the SFMTA is required to defend an action on a Public Records Act or Sunshine Ordinance request for

any of the contents of a response marked “confidential,” “proprietary,” or “trade secret,” Respondent agrees, upon

submission of its response to this RFI for SFMTA consideration, to defend and indemnify the SFMTA and the City

from all costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, in any action or liability arising under the Public Records

Act.

Documents

November 21, 2017 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR System …mission.sfgov.org/OCA_BID_ATTACHMENTS/FA51465.pdf · avoidance technologies (CAT(s)) may utilize detection, operator alerts,