These comments are prepared from the perspective of a relative newcomer to SVID, having become aware of the concept through the TRB planning process for this workshop. My task is to provide observations about the SVID concept, to consider applications where this methodology might be an improvement over current practice and to discuss possible institutional arrangements that would assure its implementation. The background material provided a perspective on the initial SVID concept and its evolution. Of particular value was the initial paper by David P. Albright presented in September 1995 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory titled: "Simultaneous Vehicle Infrastructure Design, A Transportation Systems Issue, A National Science and Technology Challenge." This paper, served as an "opportunity to share preliminary thoughts about the SVID." It also served as the basis for an invitational workshop on SVID held in March 1996. The proceedings of this workshop are a second important resource which assisted in understanding the SVID concept. In that workshop, Albright explained that the concept of SVID had changed and cited three areas reflecting his revised thinking. The first concerns the need to explicitly add the user or customer in the design process. The second recognizes the need to follow an established system engineering problem-solving process that begins with a statement of the problem and understanding its context, generating potential solutions, evaluation of each alternative based on various criteria, selection of one alternative for simultaneous design, assessment and implementation. The third change in concept addresses the technical challenges presented by SVID to the science and technology base. According to Albright, "Simultaneous design provides an opportunity to hone our science and technology skills, enhancing them for other applications."

My remarks are from the viewpoint of an academic who has spent the better part of his working life devoted to the task of preparing young people for professional careers in the field of transportation planning, design, and operations. I am the coauthor of a popular undergraduate textbook titled Traffic and Highway Engineering and the coeditor of a text titled Public Transportation: Planning, Operations and Management. I am particularly concerned that our students are taught to appreciate the concept of transportation as an integrated system of modes and that they learn to understand the important relationships among the three basic elements that comprise a transport mode, namely, the vehicle, the guideway and its component parts, and the operator.

To illustrate, let me use the example of the geometric design of a highway. (A similar example was cited by Tom Larson in the SVID Workshop). The geometric design of a highway involves the determination of the parameters to be used to establish the vertical and horizontal alignment of the facility. Among the elements required is the length of vertical curves, the radius of horizontal curves, type and amount of superelevation, lengths of acceleration and deceleration ramps, location of information signs, warning devices, clearances, lane widths and other cross-section elements, and interchange configurations. Our students are taught that in order to produce a harmonious design they must consider the characteristics of the vehicle, roadway and driver. Knowledge about the user includes how the driver responds to stimuli (such as the need to decelerate when approaching a work zone), knowledge about the vehicle, including its dimensions, acceleration characteristics and power requirements, and knowledge about the roadway including grade and friction characteristics (which also depend on vehicle speed and tire design). Only after integrating these characteristics for every roadway design alternative can we proceed to the design phase which involves computation of stopping sight distance, curve radii, and curve length. These are the design principles that we consider as an essential element in the education of young engineers. We stress that the transportation design process must involve the relationship between the vehicle-the guideway- and the user. Unfortunately, as pointed out by Tom Larson at the SVID workshop, "the process of matching vehicles and roadways has lurched along, driven by technical and political forces." Accordingly, the "academic" approach to the design of highways which we leave with our students is thwarted when they enter into the "real world" of design. The SVID process begins with the same premise as described for the highway design process, in that is seeks to observe the interrelationships between the vehicle and infrastructure performance and the behavior of the transportation user. To quote David Albright from his paper:

"SVID begins with observing the necessary relationship between vehicle and infrastructure performance. SVID is the process by which highway transportation can be designed as a system."

Moreover, the SVID process goes beyond present practice which compartmentalizes responsibilities for vehicle and infrastructure design. It calls for the creation of a new design paradigm that incorporates both functions simultaneously. Another quotation in Albright’s paper makes a pointed analogy. Tom Miree of the Ford Motor Company explained SVID as follows:

"Today we have doctors treating half a patient, either vehicles or highways. SVID treats the whole patient."

SVID is an exciting concept for highway engineering as we approach the 21st century. In the past, vehicle manufacturers produced automobiles and trucks to meet consumer demand while the highway community attempted to produce the necessary infrastructure that would accommodate a wide variety of vehicle types with a broad range of static and dynamic characteristics. In fact, AASHTO, in an attempt to respond to the bewildering array of vehicles on the road, has provided designers with ten basic vehicle types from which to choose. Designers are typically uncertain of the traffic mix (an important variable in the design process that is dependent on economic and land use factors). They also require data on static and dynamic characteristics of the vehicles themselves, including axle loadings and horsepower, as necessary inputs for computing highway capacity and level of service as well as for the structural design of pavements. Furthermore, the capabilities of the highway user and the impact of the highway system on the nonuser (human factors) in terms of driver age, visual acuity, noise profiles and other human response characteristics must be considered in the design process. One could cite many complex highway design problems that might have benefitted had there been an SVID process in place, for example, the design of air bags for automobiles and the design of interstate highways in urban areas.

The concept of SVID is an appealing one and its timing is propitious, coming at an opportune moment coincident with developments in telecommunications, advances in the understanding of human responses to transportation stimulus, and advances in vehicle and infrastructure design techniques. As we have heard, a wide variety of problems are potential candidates that could benefit from the SVID process that involves the evaluation of alternative designs from the perspective of safety, community impact and the environment. Not every transportation problem will require SVID and some problems will result in higher payoffs than others. None of the sources cited earlier discuss the costs of an SVID although this issue may be imbedded within the five criteria for selecting SVID projects: (1) the project addresses a problem of interest to vehicle and infrastructure designers, (2) the potential exists for benefit to private industry and public agencies, (3) the project adds value to the persons involved, (4) the project increases the understanding of the general concept and its wider application, and (5) the project is of general public interest.

The SVID workshop identified four categories of problems that appear to meet the SVID criteria: (1) compatibility of vehicle/ roadway/occupants, (2) pavement noise efficiency, (3) pavement and vehicle performance, and (4) harmonizing of standards. These topics have been on the minds of highway designers and researchers for many years and while significant progress has been made in many of these areas the work is by no means complete. If SVID is a breakthrough in design methodology over current practice that will result in significant reductions in highway crashes, longer lived pavements, and increased compatibility with the environment, then cost savings could be significant. What appears to be lacking in the various papers and reports about SVID are specific examples that illustrate the SVID process. Without some form of validation that produce additional details regarding how SVID would actually function, acceptance of the concept becomes a "leap of faith." Absent a set of case studies that result in an appraisal of the concept that includes costs, benefits, advantages and disadvantages, the claims made for the process and the promised results are based on assumptions, speculation, promises, and best guesses. The input from other "stakeholders" such as the design community, the states, FHWA and universities, will be essential. These observations are intended to strengthen a concept that appears to be visionary. Explorations into the issues regarding implementation and results to be achieved provide the means to certify the validity of the process and identify areas of application.

Speakers at this workshop have been asked to explain the potential opportunities and benefits of SVID from the perspective of the total system, highway infrastructure, vehicle manufacture, and user/human factors. The question that I have been assigned relates to potential issues that may arise with regard to practicality, payoff and productivity. If we begin with the assumption that the potential benefits from adopting the SVID process could be significant and that the process will produce a substantial improvement in the safety and efficiency of the highway system that would not have occurred with a design process other than SVID, then the results would speak for themselves. Over time, SVID would replace outmoded methods thus establishing a new standard design methodology. Under this scenario the key issue will be how to transfer this new design technology so that it is integrated into current practice. Highway design occurs at many levels and it is decentralized as the industry in general with design specialists working for state DOTs, cities, counties, consulting firms, and federal agencies.

In recent years, state highway departments have revamped their design processes to incorporate computer aided design (CAD) and to recognize new design aids such as expert systems and GIS. The results of research produced by the strategic highway research program (SHRP), such as superpave, are being incorporated into design specifications and the results of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) demonstrations, such as real-time traffic control, automated toll collection and driver information systems, are becoming standard practice in many states. The transfer of the SVID process into practice will require education and training regarding appropriate classes of design problems and the computer tools for evaluating alternatives. Some states will be leaders in adapting this new design technology, others will (as they have in the past) assume a "wait and see attitude." However, if SVID delivers on its promises, the highway design community can be expected to embrace the concept. Other institutional issues may arise including liability, proprietary uses of design tools, and relationship to highway design standards. In addition to the need to retrain highway design engineers to use SVID, changes in transportation education will be required as well. Modern transportation engineering curricula are based on a "systems approach" that incorporates many of the features described for SVID. Accordingly, the simultaneous integration of vehicle technology and highway elements into the curricula will be a natural extension of the evolution of transportation education.

One of my assignments for this workshop is to comment on the specific Sandia proposal for the creation of a Systems Engineering for Transportation (SET) test facility which has been presented earlier. To place the proposal in context it is helpful to understand how the U.S. transportation system has evolved and the likely forces that will affect change in the future. It will also be of value to review the contributions of systems engineering and the application of the "systems approach" to the field of transportation. This context will then provide a basis for identifying issues raised regarding the proposal and a point of departure for discussions.

The transportation system in a developed nation is an aggregation of vehicles, guideways, terminal facilities, and control systems that move passengers and freight. These systems usually are operated according to established procedures and schedules in the air, on land and on water. The set of physical facilities, control systems and operating procedures referred to as the nation’s transportation system is not a system in the sense that each of its components is part of a grand plan or was developed in a conscious manner to meet a set of specified regional or national goals or objectives. Rather the system has evolved over time and is the result of many independent actions taken by the public and private sectors, acting in their own or in the public’s interest. Each day, decisions are made that affect the way transportation services are used. The decision of a firm to ship its freight by truck or rail, of an investor to start a new airline, of a consumer to purchase an automobile, of a state or municipality to build a highway or airport, of Congress to deny support to a new aircraft and of a federal agency to approve safety regulations for trucking are just a few examples of how the transportation system takes shape.

Thus, it is not surprising that the transportation system that has evolved may not be as economically efficient as one that had been developed in a more analytic or systematic fashion. Nevertheless, the system is one in which modes usually complement each other. For example, a business trip across country may involve travel by taxi, airplane and auto and the transportation of freight often requires trucks for pick up and delivery and railroads for long distance hauling. Each mode has inherent advantages of cost, time, convenience and flexibility that make it "right for the job" under a particular set of circumstances. It is not surprising that trucking, rail, air, waterways and pipelines are all viable modes, since they have unique advantages and are competitive under different circumstances. Thus the transportation system that exists at any point in time is the product of the state of the economy, which produces the demand for transportation and the extent and quality of the system that is currently in place, which constitutes the supply of transportation facilities and services. For example, in periods of high unemployment or rising fuel costs, the demand for transportation will decrease. If a new transportation mode is introduced that is provides higher service than existing modes, the demand for the new mode will increase with existing modes losing market share.

The premise supporting the concepts presented at this workshop appear to be based on the need to address transportation problems from a "systems" perspective. The paper by Albright proposes an SVID process which considers the vehicle, roadway and user as a system. Roehrig expands this concept to include the entire U.S. transportation system, which he characterizes as in a state of fragmentation. A recent issue of the ASEE Journal was devoted to explaining the emerging field of systems engineering and referred to systems engineers as "Technology’s Maestros" who bridge the gap between engineering specialists, integrate system components and assure that the system operates as desired. According to experts interviewed for the article, "systems engineering focuses on what is best for the overall system even if that requires engineering specialists to design less than optimal subsystems." "For the good of the whole, systems engineers must analyze alternatives and make tradeoffs. In doing so they must consider not only a system’s technical performance but business realities-such as cost and schedules- and relevant social, political, environmental, legal and ethical issues." The article notes that systems engineers are problem definers, not just problem solvers and supports this notion with the quotation that "An elegant solution to the wrong problem is less than worthless." A similar statement that I have used over the years conveys the same idea: "It’s more important to do the right thing than to do thing right." The article also points out that systems engineers are involved with a system throughout its life cycle including problem definition, requirements specification, system design and development, system integration, system testing, production and/or construction, distribution, operation, maintenance and support, phase out and disposal and ultimately replacement.

An interesting example is presented to illustrate how poorly defined system requirements (in this case air bag design) resulted in unexpected deaths particularly children and small women. Among the findings: only a single safety scenario was used, failure to recognize a variety of driver actions, no recognition of injury caused by the air bag itself, failure to require that air bags not deploy at low speeds and failure to reexamine system requirements which had been established in the 1970's. Hindsight suggests that had a systems engineering approach been used, the disastrous side effects of this safety device could have been eliminated.

I believe that a strong case has been made for the use of system engineering in the design, operations and maintenance of transportation facilities. My concern with the Sandia proposal is with its scope and complexity. There are a number of issues that the proposal generates, which are listed for consideration by this workshop. Others will no doubt emerge in the discussions. Before listing these I would suggest a useful set of three questions that should be posed when considering a new undertaking. They are: Why do it at all? Why do it now? Why do it this way?

My list of issues is as follows:

1) Feasibility of modeling the entire transportation system of the United States

2) Characterizing the problem and system requirements.

3) Availability of models to simulate system performance.

4) Recognition of market driven decision making by freight and passenger users and suppliers in the private and public sector.

5) Outcomes of the process, how are results incorporated into decision- making and financing.

6) Recognition of political considerations.

7) Global interactions and influence on the U.S. transportation system.

8) Acquisition of passenger and freight data.

9) Time and cost factors

10) Other

Finally, we examine the question: if not SVID, then what? It appears that a strong case has been made for SVID. Criteria have been made for its application and potential projects have been identified. The option of simultaneously considering design features of vehicles and highway elements under a wide range of human factor scenarios is indeed appealing. The potential to improve upon current practice appears strong. There also appears to be a willingness on the part of the public and private sector to partner in this effort.

The next step will be to identify the institutional options for implementing an SVID program. There are a variety of models available for comparison each with its advantages and disadvantages. Since the Systems Engineering for Transportation Test Facility embraces a wider scope than SVID it has been treated separately. The organizational arrangements discussed in this section assume that they are focused on dealing with a variety of transportation design problems for which the SVID process is appropriate.

As mentioned earlier, a convincing case has been made for the SVID process. The literature supports the use of the systems approach for problems as varied as designing a lawnmower, the Hubble Space Telescope System, air bags, and the space shuttle. One could argue that the system engineering approach is so essential that the process should be adapted by every organization. What is needed are new ways of thinking within organizations rather than the creation of new ones. For example, each organization could create a systems engineering group or "SVID division" with responsibility to assist in problem definition and recognition and to bring the appropriate parties together in the design process. However, as pointed out earlier, we are still in the infancy of this concept and thus guidance, direction and case study examples of good practice are needed. Fortunately, considerable talent and expertise exist nationwide to address the issue of implementation of SVID demonstration projects and the reeducation of transportation designers. There is no compelling reason why one organization or group should have a preemptive claim to develop the concept. To succeed, the SVID program effort will require the cooperative effort of many parties as well as financial support. For example, the highway industry often has combined resources when situations arise where a project is of general interest and promises to provide benefits to several states.

Among the organizational options that could implement an SVID process are the following. These and others can be developed further in the discussions to follow.

1) A university-based model that has many precedents, would be the creation of a Center for Simultaneous Vehicle and Infrastructure Design. The purpose of the Center would be to validate the SVID concept by investigating transportation problems from the perspective of the vehicle, highway and the user. The Center would also assure technology transfer of the results.

2) The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has undertaken "pooled funded" projects that address common problems. The NCHRP program, which is administered through the TRB has been an effective means of managing highway research and this or a similar mechanism could be used to administer specific short term SVID demonstration projects or case studies. The SHRP program is another successful example of the administration of a focused research program with a limited lifespan which could be emulated.

3) The U.S. Department of Transportation has research facilities that could be engaged in the SVID process. Each modal administration has a stake in improving the design process, including the Federal Administrations for Air, Highways, Rail, Safety, Transit, Maritime and an Office of Intermodalism. These efforts could be spearheaded through the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, a unit within the Research and Special Projects Administration.

4) Various consortia could be formed for SVID studies. These might include the U.S. DOT, States and Industry or it could involve a single state noted for its leadership in transportation technology and systems (i.e., California, Texas, etc.), in partnership with an industry group. Other organizational formats could be envisioned that involve the support of AASHTO, U.S. DOT, manufacturers’ associations, and professional groups such as the SAE.

5) A "think tank" ( such as the MITRE Corporation) could be contracted to coordinate and develop the SVID process.

There are many organizations and individuals that might come forward in response to an SVID program. These include universities, private-sector "think tanks," consultants, and industry. The potential for national participation suggests that in addition to validating the SVID concept, this workshop could address alternate mechanisms for its implementation that will produce the results desired by harnessing the best talents that this nation has to offer.

In summary, the SVID concept has appeared on the scene at an exciting time in transportation history. As we close out the 20th century, our transportation infrastructure is largely in place. We have devoted the past 200 years to the construction of a vast network of railroads, pipelines, waterways, airports and highways. The challenge for the 21st century will be to manage this system to produce seamless transportation service in which the vehicle, guideway and the user are integrated and compatible.

References

David P. Albright "Simultaneous Vehicle/Structure Design" Los Alamos National Laboratory, September 19, 1995

Proceedings of the First Invitational Simultaneous Vehicle and Infrastructure Design Workshop, USCAR, Dearborn Michigan, Prepared by The Alliance for Transportation Research, March 1996

Stephen C. Roehrig, "Systems Engineering for Transportation (SET) Development of Science Based Transportation System Decision Support Tools" Sandia National Laboratories December 1997.

Beth Panitz, "Training Technology’s Maestros" PRISM American Society for Engineering Education, November 1997