Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.1 Disruptive Technologies, Platforms and Services / Connected and Automated Vehicle Technology Location: Room P6 CAV TRIALS – RECENT LEARNINGS AND GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE Rita Excell and Dickson Leow, ADVI, Australia **Not Supplied** Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.1 Disruptive Technologies, Platforms and Services / Connected and Automated Vehicle Technology Location: Room P6 UNDERSTANDING USER PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES WITH COOPERATIVE AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES Clare Murray, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Australia The Department of Transport and Main Roads is delivering the Cooperative and Automated Vehicle Initiative (CAVI), with the purpose of preparing the department for the emergence of advanced vehicle technologies with safety, mobility and environmental benefits on Queensland roads. The Initiative incorporates four components, including the largest on-road testing trial in Australia of cooperative vehicles and infrastructure (C-ITS Pilot, around 500 participants), and the testing of a small number of cooperative and automated vehicles on public and private roads (CHAD Pilot). Both pilots will involve members of the public interacting with these new technologies. Cost-benefit ratio modelling suggests the introduction of cooperative and automated vehicles will reduce road crashes, reduce deaths and serious injuries and enable road users to travel in a safer and more efficient manner. It is also assumed people will take to the new vehicle technologies easily and readily. But do roads users truly understand what each of these technologies mean to themselves, others and the environment? Are they willing to use and pay for the new technologies, and trust vehicles and road users to remain safe. This paper will provide an overview of the results of a customer experience study, focusing on the perceptions, understanding and acceptability of cooperative and autonomous vehicles of Queensland road users. Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.1 Disruptive Technologies, Platforms and Services / Connected and Automated Vehicle Technology Location: Room P6 COMMUNITY FEARS ABOUT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES Professor Simone Pettigrew, Zenobia Talati, Richard Norman and Lin Fritschi, Curtin University, Australia To facilitate rapid uptake of autonomous vehicles (AVs) across the population, it will be important to overcome the main concerns of those expressing the strongest resistance. The aim of this study was to identify the key concerns among those who report being strongly opposed to vehicle autonomy. An online survey was administered to 2,452 Australian adults to assess receptiveness to AVs. A small minority (n = 135; 5.5%) reported that they felt “very negative” about “fully autonomous vehicles being widely used in the future”. The reasons given for negative feelings fell into the three primary categories of physical, economic, and affective outcomes. Concerns relating to physical outcomes were by far the most commonly mentioned and related to perceptions of increased risk of death or injury resulting from malfunctioning machines. Concerns relating to economic outcomes related to the large-scale job losses that were expected to result from the advent of AVs. The anticipated adverse affective outcome was the loss of the enjoyment obtained from driving. The results (i) highlight the importance of disseminating accurate information about the relative likelihood of crashes under varying vehicle control systems and (ii) suggest a number of avenues for public education to increase acceptance of AVs. Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.1 Disruptive Technologies, Platforms and Services / Connected and Automated Vehicle Technology Location: Room P6 INTERNATIONAL CAV COLLABORATION Andrew Beecroft, ARRB, Australia **Not Supplied** Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.2 Smart Journeys / Traffic Management and Control Location: Room P7 ROBUST NETWORK PERIMETER CONTROL Dr Reza Mohajerpoor, ARRB, Australia **Not Supplied** Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.2 Smart Journeys / Traffic Management and Control Location: Room P7 COMPARING COMMON CONTROL GROUP TREATMENT AND COORDINATION OF SEPARATE SIGNAL CONTROLLERS. Mark Besley, Sidra Solutions, Australia Common Control Group is a term used for a group of signalised intersections controlled by a single controller as relevant to closely-spaced intersections including staggered T intersections, freeway interchanges, intersections with controlled median area, fully-signalised roundabouts, and alternative intersection and interchange types such as a diverging diamond interchange and continuous flow intersection. Timing analysis involving critical movement identification, cycle time and green time calculations for a Common Control Group is carried out using a single phase sequence that incorporates all movements at the facility. Facilities such as early cut-off and late start are used for improved efficiency. This contrasts with treating such facilities as a network of separate intersections with signal coordination involving signal offset calculations. In this case, signal timing analysis is carried out for each intersection separately, a network cycle time is applied to all intersections, and signal offsets are calculated for efficient signal coordination between intersections. This paper will discuss the difference in signal timings and traffic performance of these two treatments to explore possible efficiency gains by the use of appropriate control method, and explain the reason for difference in network performances resulting from the two methods of control using a simple example. Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.2 Smart Journeys / Traffic Management and Control Location: Room P7 PRINCIPLES AND FRAMEWORK FOR ROAD TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT Dr Auttapone Karndacharuk, Asif Hassan, Dr Charles Karl, ARRB, Australia Acknowledging inconsistency that the Australasian transport sector is facing in planning, designing and managing road transport infrastructure and initiatives, a framework was developed to harmonise jurisdictional approaches to road transport management (RTM). With an overarching goal of enabling a safe, efficient, reliable and sustainable road transport system, the framework is underpinned by 15 interrelated principles and five areas of consideration (mobility, safety, assets, technology and triple bottom line). Based on the Austroads research report (AP-R552-17), this paper presents the framework that provides an insight into the interconnectivities of RTM approaches as well as the underlying principles of managing road transport activities. The relevance of the RTM principles can be considered in the context of integrated system planning within an infrastructure development life cycle (from strategic and solution planning to design, construction, operation and maintenance). The later part of the paper discusses the outcome of a review of jurisdictional documents and a stakeholder consultation (via survey questionnaire and follow-up interviews) to understand how and the extent to which road transport agencies in Australasian practice each of the RTM principles. Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.2 Smart Journeys / Traffic Management and Control Location: Room P7 MELBOURNE MANAGED MOTORWAYS - TRAFFIC SCIENCE FOR OPTIMISATION Matthew Hall and John Gaffney, VicRoads, Australia The concept of Capacity needs to be understood for geometric and generalised operational design of motorways. A refined methodology to determine urban motorway capacity was utilised and critical findings have emerged to inform decisions at various stages of a motorway asset’s life cycle. Real-time control requires an understanding of the dynamic nature of traffic at small time intervals. Detailed data demonstrates the dynamic nature of motorways, which should be expected given the uninterrupted flow environment with many degrees of freedom for individual drivers. VicRoads findings indicate that traffic flows around capacity values are inherently unstable – relatively high probability of flow breakdown over extended peak periods. Controlling a motorway to achieve maximum throughput can produce sub-optimal reliability, increased travel times, potentially unsafe operating conditions and may yield sub-optimal vehicles kilometre travelled. Capacity values determined from extended data sets represent historical and statistical outcomes. Therefore the capacity determination process masks the fine grain variations that are inherent in motorway operations that are representative of the true dynamics of traffic flow. A revised approach to optimising urban motorway operations is emerging based on optimisation of productivity. A deep understanding of the fundamental traffic relationships is required to determine the unique tuning points for every site in a controlled motorway network. Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.3 Future of Asset Management/ Various Applications of Bitumen in Pavement Construction Location: Room P8 SAFER FOAMING AGENTS FOR BITUMEN Dr Hossein Jafari, ARRB, Australia Sameera Pitawala, Monash University, Australia **Not Supplied** Monday 30 April 1.30 pm – 3.00 pm Session 2.3 Future of Asset Management/ Various Applications of Bitumen in Pavement Construction Location: Room P8 FOAMED BITUMEN BASE FOR AIRPORT PAVEMENTS Dr Gregory White, University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia Foamed bitumen base (FBB) is bitumen stabilised base course material that relies on the foaming of a stream of hot