Category Archives: Innovation Spotlight

Interview with 2024 Research Showcase “Best Poster Award” Winner

Posted on

We had the opportunity to speak with Swathi Malluru, a PhD candidate at Rowan University and recipient of the 2024 NJDOT Research Showcase Best Poster Award. Her research focuses on sustainable pavement rehabilitation, including the Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) and Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) processes that were the subject of the performance evaluation recognized with the Best Poster Award. In this interview, Ms. Malluru discusses her journey in transportation engineering, from her background in sustainable materials to her work optimizing stabilizers for FDR and CIR. She hopes that her research can provide economic and environmental benefits and shares how it could shape future NJDOT policies.

Q. Congratulations on receiving the Best Poster Award at the 2024 NJDOT Research Showcase. Could you tell us about your prior educational and research experience, and how you came to be a PhD student at Rowan University?

A. First of all, I would like to thank you for your time. I pursued my master’s in Transportation Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology. At the university, I learned about pavement materials, specifically pavement rehabilitation techniques and pavement design analysis. Then, I worked on a steel slag aggregates project. In this project, I completely replaced the conventional natural aggregates with steel slag aggregates in hot mix asphalt mixture and evaluated the performance to understand if slag could function as an alternative to the conventional natural aggregates. This motivated me to do further work in sustainability and that’s how my research journey started.

What drew me to Rowan University was the Center for Research and Education in Advanced Transportation Engineering Systems (CREATES), which deals with diverse research projects, and has a lot of facilities for conducting research on pavement materials. CREATES provides facilities where we can conduct our laboratory tests and evaluate the performance of various mixes. In the laboratory, we do everything in controlled conditions that may not exactly simulate field conditions but provide a good opportunity for a researcher to understand the behavior of a particular material and mix under different circumstances. CREATES also facilitates test sections and conducts Accelerated Pavement Testing (APT) using the Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) to evaluate the field performance of the asphalt mixtures.

Q. What sparked your interest in sustainability related to pavement materials and rehabilitation?

A. I come from an industry background. After my master’s, I worked in construction for Larsen & Toubro and later as a highway designer for Jacobs. I worked on the geometric design of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) projects. Based on my experience, I found that, especially in developed countries, roads have mostly been constructed. The future is in widening, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the existing roads. Additionally, we see that transportation is the largest global contributor to carbon emissions. These factors convinced me to focus on researching environmentally friendly and cost-effective pavement materials for sustainable development.

Q. The research in your poster focused on Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) and Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR). Can you describe some of the environmental or economic benefits that these processes provide?

Asphalt Milling Machine.

A. This project was funded by NJDOT Pavement Support Program (PSP) and led by Dr. Ahmed Saidi from CREATES, Rowan University. Cold In Place Recycling and Full Depth Reclamation are two rehabilitation techniques of deteriorated asphalt pavements. In the conventional process, whenever the pavement is highly distressed, we completely remove the materials and lay a new pavement stretch in that particular location. This process utilizes a Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) mixture that requires asphalt, high mixing temperatures and large amounts of energy consumption, producing emissions. Production of HMA also involves a lot of volatile organic compounds, which can significantly impact the environment.

By replacing the process with a FDR or CIR, we can conserve the materials and reduce emissions. In FDR, the existing pavement is milled up to the unbound soil layers (at a depth up to 14 inches) and then laid into a single layer through pulverization and stabilization with additives. CIR involves reclamation of asphalt layer (at a depth up to 4 inches) and stabilization with additives. In this scenario, we see very little emissions, and it is also very quick. In our few trial stretches, which included some NJDOT projects, we observed that we could save $10,000 to $50,000 per mile. This is a huge achievement in cost savings and time savings, and is environmentally friendly. These are the benefits we get from implementing FDR and CIR.

Q. For the first two tasks in the research project, you conducted a literature review and a survey of different state DOTs. What did you find through these two tasks, and how did it prepare you for the lab tests?

A. We went through the various guidelines of different state DOTs and other state agencies. From this literature review, we observed that early on, state guidelines mentioned only the usage of cement for the FDR. But some states like Pennsylvania and Illinois started implementing the use of bituminous stabilizers to improve the performance of FDR. Through the state DOT literature review and the survey questionnaire, we learned more about the properties of emulsions and cement, the properties of RAP gradation, the types of cement that we have to select, and also how to cure and compact samples. We learned all these aspects of FDR and CIR from the literature review and the survey questionnaires, and then we tried to incorporate all these elements.

Q. You concluded with the research that 5 percent cement, or 3 percent emulsion, 1 percent cement and 3 percent water worked best for FDR, and 2 percent emulsion, or 1.5 percent foamed bitumen for CIR. How many different combinations did you try and how significantly did these combinations outperform the alternatives?

A. Based on the performance criteria from the literature review, we tried to understand what the optimum dosage should be. We considered three different stabilizer material types for FDR: a section with only cement varying from 4 to 5 percent with a 0.5 increment; a mix consisting of emulsion varying from 3 to 5 percent; and foamed bitumen varying from 3 to 5 percent. We decided to utilize these dosages based on the literature review. From the laboratory test, we observed that the 3 percent emulsion gave less rut depth and better fatigue performance compared to alternatives. Similarly, when we added 5 percent cement or 3 percent emulsion, we found it gave an equal performance.

Q. Did you experience any challenges during the lab tests?

A. Based on what we learned in the literature review, we were able to match the results and confirm it. Emulsions, and the inclusion of bituminous additives, can improve the performance of these mixtures. The challenges were during the mixing and compaction, but we managed to rectify those challenges over time.

Q. What additional research do you think should be conducted based on your findings from this project?

A. We have to conduct further work on the impact and performance of FDR and CIR and also evaluate any other alternatives that can be used as stabilizers. Currently, we are proposing FDR and CIR guidelines for minor roads, but maybe, if we try to improve and enhance its performance, we can extend it to the interstate highways and roads of higher priority. That is a major area for future research.

Q. What kind of impact do you hope this research will have on NJDOT construction and design policy moving forward?

A. I hope it helps NJDOT optimize cost savings, reduce labor, and construction time and, especially, aid in NJDOT becoming more environmentally friendly. This will help reduce emissions compared to using the conventional overlay method and help NJDOT achieve its sustainability goals.

Q. Moving toward your personal research, is there any kind of research that you specifically want to focus on going forward, or would it be something similar to this as you progress through your doctoral path?

A. After this, I want to try to conduct a test trial to evaluate the performance of FDR and conduct a life cycle assessment. And try to test the impact of low temperatures on the performance of FDR. Will there be a low temperature cracking effect from freezing? I would also like to work on developing design guidelines for the implementation of FDR and CIR throughout NJDOT.

Q. What are your career goals and aspirations for after you complete your PhD?

A. After my PhD, I would like to work in the industry, so I can implement my research and work to find solutions for major problems.

Interview with 2024 Research Showcase “Outstanding University Student in Transportation Research Award” Winner

Posted on

Traffic safety and mobility, two critical areas in transportation engineering, both require the collection and analysis of large data sets to produce proactive and comprehensive solutions. Transportation engineers have started to increasingly focus on using innovative technologies to efficiently and effectively process this data.

We had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Deep Patel, a former Ph.D. candidate and research fellow at Rowan University, whose work is at the forefront of this mission. Recently, Patel received the NJDOT Outstanding University Student Research Award for his contributions to transportation research. In this interview, Patel shares insights from his research journey, including his work on the Real-Time Traffic Signal Performance Measurement Study and the development and implementation of machine learning tools to predict high-risk intersections. His dedication to improving traffic operations and safety, along with his new industry role as a Traffic Safety and Mobility Specialist, highlights the significant impact of combining academic research with practical industry applications.

Q. Could you tell us about your educational and research experience and how you became a PhD candidate and research fellow at Rowan University?

A. First of all, thank you for your time and for considering me for the opportunity to be interviewed about my recent NJDOT award. I would also like to thank the NJDOT review committee members and my Ph.D. advisor Dr. Mohammad Jalayer, who supported me in receiving this award.

I started my master’s study in 2018 as a civil engineering student without a research focus. Then, during my first semester, I took a course called Transportation Engineering with Dr. Mohammad Jalayer. When he sought traffic counting assistance for a traffic analysis project, I eagerly joined him, becoming his first research student.

Deep Patel conducting roadside research. Courtesy of Deep Patel.

Through that experience, I started thinking about what could streamline the traffic counting process and the various uses for the data we collected. I went on to work on several research projects with Dr. Jalayer, both funded and non-funded, where we had frequent discussions, and I would present my ideas to him. Eventually, he asked me to join him as a researcher and to continue my master’s work with a research focus, which I did for two years. When he suggested I continue my studies to earn a Ph.D., I was initially surprised, but I decided to go for it since I had a lot of ideas for future research projects.

At the end of my master’s study, I began Phase One work for a Real-Time Traffic System Performance Measure Study led by Dr. Peter Jin, Dr. Thomas Brennan, and Dr. Jalayer. This project connected me with a team from Rutgers, TCNJ, and a few professionals from NJDOT and other industry folks. I represented Rowan’s end for this project, where our focus was on understanding the safety aspects including safety parameters and performance and how we could assist NJDOT transform this new technology to help save lives. For the first phase of the project, we worked on understanding the traffic signal system performance measures, and what had been adopted by other DOTs. My experience on this project drove me to pursue more research and to expand my knowledge in traffic safety.

Q. You worked on Phase One through Three of this Real-Time Traffic Signal Performance Measurement Study. What part of this project interested you the most?

A. My main takeaway from this project focused on learning more about how the transportation industry looks towards the research outputs and outcomes from the university teams. It is very interesting to understand how university-based research is being adapted for industry acceptance. Additionally, I learned what problem-solving features the industry looks for from the research component.

From a technical aspect, I learned how New Jersey signals can be enhanced and how we can optimize the performance of these signals and achieve cost savings. Let’s say you have a scenario where there is no vehicle at an intersection; how can we provide recommendations to change the signal to a red light and give the other side of the intersection a green light? So, we gathered several components in terms of mobility, safety, and economic parameters from the study that can help enhance our traffic signals in New Jersey, sharing this information with the NJDOT team.

Figure 1: An Example real-time performance monitoring on County Road 541 and Irwick Road, Burlington County, NJ
Example of real-time performance monitoring on County Road 541 and Irwick Road, Burlington County, NJ

Q. How did you see your role on the research project develop as you moved from the earlier phases to the latest phase?

A. In the first phase, we completed a comprehensive literature review to understand what is happening across the nation, which systems are being adapted, what are the best systems for providing traffic signal safety performance measures, and what are the kind of performance measures that can be adapted in an industry setting. In Phase Two, the team focused on developing mechanisms and performance measures aligned with NJDOT’s existing data, including deploying the Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) system to enhance traffic signal monitoring and optimization. To guide these efforts, an adaptability checklist was created to benchmark practices from other states and identify strategies that could be adapted to benefit NJDOT’s operations. Building on this foundation, Phase Three advanced to the demonstration and application of dashboards and performance measures, providing actionable recommendations to NJDOT on enhancing mobility and safety across various regions and corridors. These efforts aimed to save time and lives, while the integration of connected vehicle (CV) technologies remains a key focus for future work, ensuring NJDOT’s leadership in traffic management innovation.

Q. What were the specific corridors that you worked on?

A. We started with seven/eight intersections on U.S. 1. Then, we explored the whole corridor of U.S. 1 as part of Phase Three, and we also brought in Route 18, Route 130, and other intersections during this phase.

Q. Did you discover any particular surprising or noteworthy findings from this research?

A. This was a long project, extending from 2019-2024. As a result, each year we discovered new findings, and new components were often added to the project. For example, we added a CV systems component as part of the Phase Two and Phase Three projects to start planning for the future and understand what kind of data could be received and sent from CV technologies. The main benefit from this project is that it not only established current problem-solving measures but also looked into the future, helping to better understand what’s coming and how we can best face anticipated challenges that we need to start integrating at this moment. I find the combination of the present and future integration of systems and technologies interesting and important from the findings.

Q. What kind of impact do you think you and your research will have on NJDOT traffic operations and traffic safety, especially with your role now working in the industry?

A. With my previous experience as part of a university-led research team and now as a Traffic Safety and Specialist in the private sector, I am better positioned to facilitate the efficient and effective implementation of research findings.  A key factor enabling this transition is that Kelly McVeigh, who supervised the original research project, also oversees the current work that our firm is doing for NJDOT. Being on the industry side allows me to introduce and operationalize new ideas more rapidly, compared to the academic research side. This streamlined approach ensures that innovative performance measures can be deployed more quickly, and even a small modification has the potential to save lives, underscoring the value of this work.

Q. Moving to a different topic, your research frequently incorporates Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) aspects. In your experience, what benefits does AI contribute to transportation research?

A. Over the past few years, AI and ML have undergone drastic modifications and growing levels of industry acceptance. Additionally, in research outcomes, AI and ML have played a key role in enhancing and providing new methodologies and new ways of problem-solving. As an engineer, the first thing we have to do is understand how we can solve an existing problem, and how fast, effectively, and efficiently we can do it.

Transportation is now highly reliant on big data and intensive analysis, so AI and ML back up the processing of this data, coming up with meaningful outcomes and enhancing solution measures much quickly than previous methods. In 2012 or 2013, a standard engineer would need to sit down to do a traffic study and go through manual counting, then process the data, then come up with solutions, which takes much longer to solve a problem. The problem may even change during the months-long process of developing a solution.

In traffic safety, we cannot wait for the four to five months it could take to solve a problem due to the pressing safety implications of doing so. Thus, we must start implementing countermeasures swiftly, and AI and ML components help us to quickly process data with more effective and efficient results.

During my early days as a student researcher, I would stand on the roadside, manually counting the vehicles and pedestrians to collect data for traffic studies. However. during my doctoral research, I developed my AI-driven tools that utilize advanced video systems for detection and analysis. This proactive approach enables the identification of intersections prone to high-crash scenarios well before crashes occur, allowing for timely interventions. By integrating AI and ML, my research introduced innovative methodologies for crash prediction and prevention, showcasing the feasibility of data-driven solutions to enhance roadway safety.

There is a certain chaos in human beings’ lives and surroundings that requires transportation to be a multidisciplinary field, which includes human-focused aspects. For some parts, AI is definitely required, but with other parts, we need to go through different approaches.

Q. Do you think that because of AI’s data collection and analysis possibilities, almost all engineers in the near future will need to start incorporating AI into their research?

A. It really depends. For our part of traffic engineering, very specifically, I would say yes, it would be one of the major requirements that an engineer would need to adopt. But if I was a traffic engineer working on policy or equity measures there might be some concerns related to data sharing or data privacy issues that might restrict them.

It depends on what side you are focusing on. When it comes to data collection, I would say AI incorporation is a must to collect and process data faster and more efficiently. But in terms of developing policies, rules, or statutes, there are certain psychological aspects that need to be in the thought process. Knowing human concerns and people’s approaches requires an emotional touch, which AI still lacks.

Transportation is a field connected with multiple disciplines; it touches on people’s emotions. For example, on a day when traffic does not work well when you’re returning home, you can get frustrated, and that frustration can end up in a fatal crash. There is a certain chaos in human beings’ lives and surroundings that requires transportation to be a multidisciplinary field, which includes human-focused aspects. For some parts, AI is definitely required, but with other parts, we need to go through different approaches.

Q. Congratulations on your recently approved dissertation. Could you give us some quick highlights of the research methods that went into producing your dissertation, “A Comprehensive ML and AI Framework for Intersection Safety”? What are the most important takeaways from your dissertation?

Deep Patel presenting his poster at the 2022 NJDOT Research Showcase Poster Session. Click image for PDF of the poster.

A. New Jersey is home to some of the most dangerous intersections in the United States, with four intersections ranked among the top 15 most dangerous, including the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd positions. Since 2019, there has been a trend of steadily increasing intersection-related crashes and correlated crashes within intersection boundaries. This prompted me to ask, “Why do we need to wait for crashes to happen to address the problem?”

To tackle this issue, I developed a proactive approach inspired by my work on the NJDOT research project. The approach focuses on analyzing near-miss incidents and traffic violations, using the concept of surrogate safety measures to identify potential risks before crashes occur. Surrogate safety measures help us detect near-miss events and violations, offering a predictive understanding of high-risk scenarios at intersections.

Using AI and ML, we developed tools that analyze vehicle and pedestrian trajectories in detail. These tools detect and classify conflicts, such as left-turn conflicts or yielding conflicts, enabling us to predict potential crash scenarios based on behavioral patterns at intersections. This proactive analysis allows us to recommend design changes and interventions before crashes occur.

Then, we explored the noncompliance component in a certain area, like red light violations or jaywalking. For instance, our analysis revealed that one in every four pedestrians does not use crosswalks. By integrating historical crash data, proactive trajectory analysis, and noncompliance trends, we developed a tool that ranks intersections based on multiple criteria. These include potential high-crash scenarios, contributing factors, and the economic impact of injury severity at specific locations.

Determining Key Factors Linked to Injury Severity in Intersection-Related Crashes in NJ. Deep Patel, Rowan University (2023 Research Showcase). Click image for slides.

Additionally, the research explored how emerging technologies, such as connected and autonomous vehicles, could be adapted to enhance intersection safety. By conducting trajectory analyses, we assessed how data from these technologies could inform future safety measures and interventions.

Overall, my research focused on identifying key factors within intersection boundaries to reduce crashes, improve mobility, and do so in a cost-effective manner. This comprehensive approach combines proactive analysis, advanced technologies, and human behavior insights to deliver practical and impactful solutions for roadway safety.

Q. So this tool seems to be one of the most important takeaways. Is the tool ready for NJDOT use to identify potential high crash risk intersections? Is that the main intent of the tool?

A. Yes, exactly. The tool is ready but not yet publicly available. We tested it on several intersections. It is currently a proprietary tool of my professor and myself at Rowan University. Anyone interested in using the tool can connect with us, but it is not yet publicly available and certain permissions are required.

Q. Is NJDOT using it or can they use it?

A. No, the department is not using it because this was part of my recent defense. They are aware of the tool’s capabilities because it was part of an innovative showcase. The tool’s documentation has been published through the University Transportation Center (UTC). Hopefully, in the near future, it could be applied by NJDOT.

Q. Looking ahead, you have your new position in an industry role. Would you like to continue with this sort of focus on transportation research, or are you anticipating a different career direction?

A. With my new position as a Traffic Safety and Mobility Specialist, I will be focused on transportation research, conducting high-quality industry research where I would help develop safety and mobility performance measures on certain corridors designed to move traffic more effectively and enhance safety on the roadways. My work will also include industry deployment and understanding the agencies’ concerns regarding the challenges they face.

Looking ahead, I see my career direction as a blend of research and practical implementation, ensuring that innovative solutions are not just developed but also applied to make a real-world impact. Ultimately, if my work can contribute to saving even a single life, I will consider it a meaningful and worthwhile achievement.

Resources

Jin, P. J., Zhang, T., Brennan Jr, T. M., & Jalayer, M. (2019). Real-Time Signal Performance Measurement (RT-SPM) (No. FHWA NJ-2019-002).  Retrieved at: https://www.njdottechtransfer.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/FHWA-NJ-2019-002.pdf

Jin, P. J., Zhang, T., Brennan Jr, T. M., & Jalayer, M. (2019). Real-Time Signal Performance Measurement Phase II. Retrieved at:  https://www.njdottechtransfer.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FHWA-NJ-2022-002-Volume-I-.pdf

Patel, D., P. Hosseini, and M. Jalayer. (2024). A framework for proactive safety evaluation of intersection using surrogate safety measures and non-compliance behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 192. https://trid.trb.org/View/2242428

Patel, D. (2024). “A Comprehensive ML and AI Framework for Intersection Safety: Assessing Contributing Factors, Surrogate Safety Measures, Non-Compliance Behaviors, and Cost-Inclusive Methodology.” Theses and Dissertations. 3305. https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/3305

For more information about the 26th annual NJDOT Research Showcase, visit: Recap: 26th Annual NJDOT Research Showcase

Wildlife Corridors and Crossings in NJ’s Road Network: A Conversation with NJDEP & NJDOT

Posted on

Wildlife crossings help to bridge greenspaces divided by roads, streets, and highways through the creation of safe alternative pathways for wildlife. For the past forty years, wildlife crossings have been a part of New Jersey’s transportation network. The state’s first known crossing, a terrestrial overpass, was created during construction of Interstate 78. Since that time, the number of wildlife crossings has increased, and continues to do so with the support of the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

With myriad benefits for both nature and humans, wildlife crossings establish essential connections within a sustainable, resilient, and safe ground transportation network. To learn more about NJDOT and NJDEP’s effort to increase and improve wildlife crossings in New Jersey, we spoke with several staff members during a group interview.

From NJDOT:

  • Domenica Mousa, Environmental Specialist, North Environmental Team, Office of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Solutions
  • Rachel Dekovitch, Supervisor, North Environmental Team, Office of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Solutions 
  • Amber Cheney, Section Chief, North Environmental Teams, Office of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Solutions

From NJDEP Fish and Wildlife, Endangered & Nongame Species Program:

  • Gretchen Fowles, GIS specialist and wildlife biologist, , Co-lead of Connecting Habitat Across New Jersey (CHANJ)
  • Brian Zarate, wildlife biologist, CHANJ Co-lead
  • Mackenzie Hall, wildlife biologist, CHANJ Co-lead

The following Q&A is a summary of the conversation which has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Q.  It is estimated that there are over one million annual wildlife vehicle collisions nationwide involving large wildlife. The need for, and related benefits from, wildlife crossings vary but can include benefits to both human safety and wildlife survival, as well as cost savings. What other potential benefits come to mind when you think of roadway wildlife crossings?

NJDOT:  New Jersey is a densely populated state with an intricate network of roadways, often cutting between greenspaces. These greenspaces, including forests, fields and streams are home to a variety of species, many of which travel and explore. Unfortunately, these two realities cause a significant amount of traffic collisions; the most serious of which are caused by deer. These collisions can be very unsafe for drivers, passengers, and wildlife. Fortunately, wildlife crossings can be implemented to keep fauna away from the roadway. The result? Safer drivers, passengers, and wildlife.

A figure from the CHANJ Guidance Document (page 64) that illustrates key design elements of effective wildlife crossings.

NJDEP:  From the Department of Environmental Protection’s perspective, wildlife crossings provide important environmental benefits in addition to reducing wildlife fatalities. The division of greenspaces by roads and highways is considered habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation worsens the conditions of endangered species, affects ecosystem function, and reduces the ecosystem’s resiliency. In short, it keeps species from moving, mating, and finding food. The implementation of wildlife crossings helps to reduce habitat fragmentation and improve connectivity. Often this improved connectivity creates healthy ecosystems where populations can behave and survive naturally and move about as they wish. Connectivity also contributes to the maintenance or restoration of ecosystem function and ensures rare species have a chance to recover. Even non-rare species can help maintain their health and population with improved connectivity. The NJDEP team wants to build all these redundancies into the ecosystem to allow the more imperiled species to have opportunity to recover, while also maintaining populations of existing species that are seemingly doing well.

Q. Many New Jersey highways and roadways fragment wildlife habitats and challenge migratory paths. With one of the densest road networks in the country, how does your department address concerns of biodiversity and habitat connectivity within the context of road and bridge development?

NJDOT: Each bridge or road project goes through an environmental review to identify any environmental issues or constraints within that project area. As a part of the analysis, we screen for federally and state-listed threatened or endangered species. If such species are found, restrictions or guidelines are specified. For example, if the proposed area has birds that are listed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or has endangered or threatened bats, we put a time restriction on when tree clearing may take place. These efforts help to preserve the habitat by limiting tree cutting to periods when animals are less present, typically from November 16h to March 31st.  

The NJDOT Office of Landscape Architecture (OLA) started a Pollinator Program in 2020 to help promote biodiverse connectivity throughout the State along our appropriate right of way while considering alternate mowing opportunities. Our Capital Program projects seek to enhance the native species of the specific location, and we use our Pollinator Program to supplement and create more locations. Each year OLA applies for funding through State funds for these plantings. Many times, these locations are chosen based on the best management practices (BMP) of the Maintenance yards that reach out to us for consideration of locations. These created sites help offset and maintain assurances of our Department’s compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 

NJDOT is increasing the number of pollinator habitats along roadways. Recognized benefits include more pollinators (bees, birds, butterflies, etc.), roadside beautification, increased carbon intake, less mowing and herbicide maintenance, and soil erosion prevention. Source: NJDOT.

In 2023 we became more proactive in establishing habitat for the Monarch Butterfly and created the 100,000 Milkweed Initiative.  With the funding set aside for pollinators we planted over 100,000 of 3 types of Milkweed species throughout the State.  To date we have created over 11 Acres of Milkweed Specific habitat and over 40 Acres of additional Pollinator and reduced mowing areas through the Pollinator Program.  NJDOT Lands are significant in creating a linear and ideal habitat for Pollinator activities which is also why we address Pollinator Habitat through Capital Program Projects.

Q. In a recent “Lunch and Learn” presentation, it was noted that changes to the NJ Flood Hazard Control Act Regulations require that NJDOT evaluate new and existing bridges, culverts, or roadways for fragmentation of habitat for threatened and endangered and/or any species of special concern and provide a wildlife species passage if a project is determined to cause fragmentation of habitat. How has this requirement affected your work program? Has this change heightened interest in wildlife connectivity?

NJDEP: The NJDEP Flood Hazard Area Act regulation has led to a significant increase in the number of permitted and implemented terrestrial wildlife crossings. It has also fostered more projects and collaborations across NJDOT, other NJDEP divisions, as well as with counties and municipalities, and non-profit organizations.

However, the regulation can sometimes create challenges. For example, while habitat fragmentation might be occurring, the feasibility of installing a wildlife crossing might be difficult because of other infrastructure in the area or the stream’s hydrology. In such cases, NJDEP and NJDOT work together to determine the best course of action.

Q. As noted, this topic is of interest nationwide. The FHWA Wildlife Crossing Pilot Program (WCPP) has $350 million in federal aid funding available through 2026 for state DOTs and others. FHWA plans to release the next NOFO shortly. Has NJDOT considered pursuing one of these grants for a construction or non-construction wildlife corridor project?

NJDOT has pursued this competitive grant, unsuccessfully. The FHWA grant focuses on human and driver safety and projects where large mammal collisions are occurring, making projects for smaller wildlife species, less likely to be awarded a grant, and most of our projects focus on smaller animals. Losing smaller animals poses a risk to the health of the ecosystem, and future justifications will consider this.

The Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program grant is just one of many options within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which offers historic support to tackle habitat fragmentation and wildlife mortality. Other opportunities within the law may be more helpful to pursue, such as eligible formula allocations, rather than competitive grants. That said, NJDEP Fish and Wildlife successfully applied for a Transportation Alternatives Program grant that is resulting in the construction of an amphibian crossing in northern New Jersey, but it took ten years of work to get to this stage. The crossing has not yet been constructed but anticipated in the next year or so.

Q. Can you tell us a little bit about the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative?  How does NJDOT participate with NAAAC?

We are participating with the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative (NAAAC) program to survey current culverts and bridges and evaluate possible wildlife passages. Once surveyed, this information becomes available on the Connecting Habitat Across New Jersey (CHANJ) online mapping tools and via online or downloadable GIS services. The use of these maps can help to identify when there is an existing barrier for terrestrial or aquatic species. We also use other GIS layers, such as the NJDEP Landscape Project and CHANJ, that is also included on the map to determine if there are any terrestrial species of concern and suitable habitat on either side of the culvert/bridge or in the area. For each project that requires an NJDEP Flood Hazard Area permit and involves a bridge or a culvert, we use this map to write up a brief analysis, which we then send to NJDEP.

CHANJ Web Viewer is used to determine habitat fragmentation. Source: NJDEP

Q. According to research, the evaluation and development of road crossing projects are mostly being led by several organizations including the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Network, and other localized, environmentally-focused organizations. What role does NJDOT have with these organizations and projects?

NJDOT works with NJDEP to prioritize and list culvert and/or bridge sites that need to be surveyed for NAACC. This year, NJDOT employees will join in the analysis, conducting site surveys to enhance the online dataset for future projects that may require crossings. By collaborating with NJDEP Fish and Wildlife and various watershed groups across the state, NJDOT and its NAACC partners have assessed about 700 culverts so far. Each has been mapped on the CHANJ web tool, which identifies wildlife habitats, cores, and the corridors that connect them.

NJDEP and NJDOT use the CHANJ mapping tool and NAACC generated layers to understand connectivity for both land use and transportation projects, including NJDOT projects.

“By collaborating with NJDEP Fish and Wildlife and various watershed groups across the state, NJDOT and its NAACC partners have assessed about 700 culverts so far.”

Regulatory officials evaluate the map when assessing Flood Hazard Area permits. The map also helps provide a general sense of connectivity within the state, aiding in targeting areas for road improvements, land acquisition, and habitat restoration. These actions are crucial for creating a functionally connected network of land. The CHANJ mapping of habitat cores and corridors, along with all NAACC culvert data, help prioritize sites.

NAACC culvert analysis is often conducted by trained watershed groups and NJDEP Fish and Wildlife seasonal employees. Montclair State University serves as the state lead and coordinator, offering training for interested parties. Free training and resources are also available online from the University of Massachusetts.

The NAACC collaboration spans 13 states in the Northeast region. The NJ NAACC map allows users to select squares on the map (which indicate a culvert) in order to access the regional database. Once the user is redirected to the regional database, they are able to access the corresponding pictures of the culvert, if it has been surveyed, as well as the culvert’s dimensions. This innovation helps users understand what lies under specific road stretches simply by the click of a mouse.

Q.  The Connectivity Habitat Across New Jersey (CHANJ) interactive mapping tool catalogues current and completed projects, the passability of road culverts for aquatic and terrestrial species and other details. This map is partly a product of the NAACC 13 state map that aims to compile wildlife connectivity information into one database, and relies on culvert assessments using the NAACC culvert inventory. The map does not include information about roadkill or auto collisions with wildlife, which limits the basis on which a project could be installed. Are there plans or current processes to collect data on wildlife collisions and roadkill? 

Screenshot of CHANJ Web Viewer. Source: NJDEP

NJDOT maintains crash records based on police reports that may refer to wildlife collision. However, NJDOT does not currently collect any data regarding roadkill.  NJDEP Fish and Wildlife collects roadkill location data, but only for select species like bobcats, bears, coyotes, otters, and beavers. Those data are combined into a roadkill dataset.  For some species, like the state listed bobcat, biologists collect the carcass, and sample it to glean as much information as possible that contributes to their understanding of the health of the population.

Q. Maine Audubon worked with Maine DOT and UC Davis Road Ecology Center to build a crowdsourcing tool that drivers could use to report the location of roadkill. Is NJDOT currently using any type of crowdsourcing in this way? Are there plans to record more information about roadkill and collisions? 

The new NJ Wildlife Tracker tool expands NJDEP’s data by collecting resident reports of rare species sightings and observations. For instance, someone can report seeing a turtle by a stream using this mobile-friendly web application. Reporting is also open to all species, rare or not, that are on roads. This tool aims to increase awareness of roadkill, and to help identify roadkill ‘hot spots.’ 

CHANJ Web Viewer can be accessed on smart phones, a convenient application for those working in the field. Source: NJDEP

The NJ Wildlife Tracker and NJ Fish and Wildlife data mining help identify road mortality hotspots. Between the two we currently have around 7,000 roadkill records in our database.  We are developing a standardized roadkill collection tool, where individuals monitor important road segments bisecting habitat cores and corridors identified by the CHANJ map and report wildlife sightings. Regular commuters can report on specific road segments, providing detailed data for rigorous hotspot studies.

This data is useful for pursuing grants or projects. For example, the upcoming Waterloo Road Amphibian Crossing Project in Byram Township, Sussex County, was justified by years of collected data.

Beyond data collection, we use other tools to interpret and analyze findings. Animal data points require careful interpretation due to their constant movement. One key tool is the NJDEP Landscape Project mapping, which uses wildlife observation location data to infer valuable habitats.

However, there are concerns about crowdsourcing and public data access, particularly regarding the illegal wildlife trade. Detailed mapping tools can be exploited by poachers. At this time, this information is only accessible by NJDEP.

Q. Are there any technologies that have been useful in designing and modifying infrastructure to better suit wildlife? 

Sometimes simple modifications to infrastructure can ensure effective wildlife crossings. For instance, adding a ledge to a culvert can allow animals who avoid water to cross. Bobcats are one species that benefit from this inclusion. The ledge is ideally a natural stream bank within the bridge or culvert, but can also be constructed of concrete or gravel, and  can be tailored to the species present and their needs. All design modifications require hydrology and hydraulics analysis to determine if the modification is feasible.

Through CHANJ, there are two main tools: a map and a guidance document. The guidance document includes best management practices for designing wildlife passages across different taxa. While not high-tech, these practices significantly improve the effectiveness of crossings.

Q.  The NJ Pilot Road/Stream Crossing Assessment focuses on culverts to improve connectivity for aquatic wildlife; however, NJ is also home to terrestrial wildlife that require special crossings. How do you approach this divide in your work, and what are some ways that transportation agencies can design passages that are suitable for both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife? 

Designing wildlife crossings can be complex, especially when dealing with driveways and land use constraints. Studies have shown that incorporating effective fencing is crucial for directing animals towards crossings and preventing wildlife from accessing the roadway. Innovative designs include using flexible recycled plastic fencing directly attached to structures, which helps prevent animals from breaching gaps. Some designs feature a protective lip to deter animals from climbing over.

Advancements in monitoring technology, such as infrared cameras, are proving invaluable. NJDOT is initiating a project to monitor several highway underpasses not originally designed for wildlife but identified as potential crossings. Infrared motion detection captures warm-blooded animals, while specialized setups capture cold-blooded animals. These technologies provide crucial data on wildlife usage of these crossings.

Resources

  • Connecting Habitat Across New Jersey (CHANJ). (u.d.). NJDEP Fish & Wildlife. [Website]. Guidance Document and Mapping Web Viewer Tool. Accessed here.
  • Connecting Habitat Across New Jersey (CHANJ). (u.d.). NJDEP Fish & Wildlife. NJ Wildlife Tracker Public Survey. Report sightings of (1) Rare Species and (2) Wildlife on Roads/Roadkill. [Tool]. Accessed here.
  • Crowdsourcing for Wildlife Road. (2019). Maine Audobon. [Presentation]. FHWA Local Aid Support Exchange Webinar. Retrieved here.
  • Flood Hazard Areas. (u.d.). NJ Department of Environmental Protection. [Website]. Accessed here.
  • Fowles, G., Zarate, B., and Hall, M. (2023). Connecting Habitat Across New Jersey (CHANJ) Assessments. Final Report for September 1, 2017–August 31, 2022. Project Number: W-78-R-1. 1. NJDEP Fish & Wildlife. Retrieved here.
  • North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaboration (NAACC). (u.d.). [Presentation]. NJDOT Lunch and Learn. Retrieved here.
  • North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaboration (NAACC). (u.d.). [Website]. Retrieved here.
  • North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaboration (NAACC). (2019). Culvert Condition Assessment Manual. [Report]. Prepared in association with UMASS-Amherst Engineering, UMASS-Amherst The Center for Agriculture, Food and the Environment and The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved here.
  • Wildlife Crossings Program. (u.d.). [Website]. Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved here.
  • Weber-Leaf, Pamela. “New Jersey’s Animal Crossings Protect Our Wildlife from Dangerous Traffic”. (October 9, 2024). New Jersey Monthly. [Article]. Retrieved here.

Innovative Solutions for Enhanced Road Durability: NJDOT’s Use of High-Performance Thin Overlays Is Recognized

Posted on

During Every Day Counts round (EDC-6), FHWA promoted Targeted Overlay Pavement Solutions (TOPS) to state departments of transportation (DOTs) and local agencies as a way to maximize their highway repair investments by improving on conventional overlay methods and including new overlay materials and techniques. Case studies and research presented as part of FHWA’s EDC outreach efforts to states and local agencies included New Jersey DOT’s use of highly modified asphalt (HiMA), among other proven but underutilized overlay options.  

In a recent Innovator Newsletter, FHWA highlighted NJDOT’s use of HiMA to effectively improve the quality and extend the lifespan of roadways.

Overview

NJDOT’s use of HiMA was the subject of a detailed technical case study, one of five such case studies focused on Targeted Overlay Pavement Solutions (TOPS) produced for the FHWA. The case study report, High Performance Thin Overlays (HPTPO), notes that NJDOT has increasingly been using HPTO mixes for preventive maintenance projects statewide.

The case study shares NJDOT’s experience leading a team of design engineers, materials engineers, researchers and asphalt suppliers to devise and evaluate HPTO, a gap-graded mixture using polymer-modified asphalt binder. The case study offers incisive details and lessons learned on specifications, implementation, design, planning, construction, and performance considerations.

The case study explains that NJDOT defines HPTO as a fine-graded polymer-modified asphalt mixture that uses 100 percent high-quality crushed stone with a nominal maximum aggregate size of 3/8 inch. HPTO is designed using a modified Superpave (Superior Performing Asphalt Pavement System) design methodology that places restrictions on the use of reclaimed asphalt pavement and natural sands.

HPTO mixes are typically used in maintenance and pavement preservation applications but can also be used as a leveling course when extended staging times are expected for temporary pavements during construction. HPTO, a durable mixture, is designed for high resistance to rutting and cracking and is often placed at a thickness of 1 inch either on a milled or unmilled surface. HPTO has been used as a maintenance application on high-volume interstate projects and on heavy-duty parking lots. The product is typically performance-tested at design and during construction.

Boot on finished pavement.
HPTO surface upon completion.

NJDOT primarily uses HPTO as a preservation application on pavements in good to fair condition in need of minimal repairs (i.e., repairs account for less than 10 percent of the preservation project). However, HPTO can be combined with other preservation strategies such as microsurfacing, slurry seals, or micro-milling when project conditions warrant its use.

The FHWA case study report on NJDOT’s experience with HPTO offers several references that further detail various asphalt research studies, and analyses undertaken over more than a decade that advanced HPTO as product through testing, evaluation and institutionalization stages at NJDOT.

Lessons and Benefits

NJDOT has was able to increase the number of “good condition” lane miles from 12 percent to 40 percent statewide through prevention maintenance strategies including use of HiMA overlays.

NJDOT adopted a proactive approach to advancing pavement preservation in its asset management toolbox, particularly through HiMA, that has delivered several noteworthy benefits. NJDOT was able to increase the percentage of its network pavements in “good condition” while reducing pavements in “poor condition” through dedicated program funding for preventive maintenance. FHWA noted that NJDOT was able to increase the number of “good condition” lane miles from 12 percent to 40 percent over a decade in part through the contribution of HiMA overlay treatments.

Through research, NJDOT found that the timing of HPTO application is crucial for getting the maximum pavement life extension. HPTO, when applied to an existing pavement in “good condition” can more than double the service life compared to its application to “fair condition” pavement.

Utilizing HPTO, NJDOT has been able to extend pavement life along busy roadways by approximately 10 years and improve ride quality — depending on the pre-existing surface conditions, quality of pre-HPTO repairs, and thickness of the HPTO overlay. HPTO can also reduce noise and improve long-term skid resistance on projects. During construction, HPTO’s application causes relatively minimal traffic disruption as it requires only short duration road closures.

HPTO also offers flexible solutions to NJDOT’s design concerns by adding service life to a pavement without a significant change in profile grade. It can minimize changes to the vertical clearance at overpasses and match the elevation of infrastructures such as guardrails, curbs, and gutters.

Ongoing Efforts to Support Implementation

For the FHWA, EDC-6 outreach activities served as an opportunity to educate transportation agencies and stakeholders about various asphalt and concrete overlay products that demonstrably provide long-life performance under a wide range of traffic, environmental, and existing pavement conditions. The EDC-6 TOPS team sought to build greater awareness and encourage deployment of some 7 distinct asphalt products and 4 distinct concrete products during the EDC-6 Round.

Several application features and benefits of HPTO were described in the video, “Pavement Preservation Treatments at NJDOT.

In its final report for EDC-6, FHWA notes that forty-one States participated in the TOPS EDC-6 initiative, including 26 that were focused on asphalt overlays, 15 that sought to learn more about concrete, and 13 that participated in both. Further, FHWA recognized that EDC-6 was also a catalyst for advancing deployment; 22 States advanced to a new phase in the implementation process from “not implementing” to the development, demonstration, assessment, or institutionalized phases of deployment. In all, 19 States reported that they had institutionalized TOPS products by incorporating at least one overlay type as a standard fix option within the agency’s pavement management program.

While the formal EDC-6 innovation cycle ended in December 2022, FHWA continues to support TOPS implementation through training and technical assistance resources such as the lessons learned from NJDOT’s use of HPTO as well as noteworthy initiatives in several other states. Many resources are available on the TOPS webpage including webinars, articles, case studies, how-to reports, brochures, and one-pagers.

Resources

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. “Innovative Solutions for America’s Roads: Targeted Overlay Pavement Solutions (TOPS)”. (October/November 2024). Innovator [Article]. Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/innovator/issue103/page_03.html

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (u.d.). EDC-6: Targeted Overlay Pavement Solutions (TOPS). [Website]. Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/tops/?utm_source=innovator

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (April 2023). EDC-6 Final Report: Innovation for a Nation on the Move. Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/reports/edc6_finalreport.pdf?utm_source=innovator.

Gilliland, Amanda, Mohanraj, Kiran, and Taghavi Ghalesari Abbasali, Ph.D. (March 2022). High-Performance Thin Overlays. [Case Study Report].  FHWA-HIF-22-053. Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/tops/pubs/TOPS_HPTO_Case_Study_Report_508.pdf.

Gilliland, Amanda, Mohanraj, Kiran, and Taghavi Ghalesari Abbasali, Ph.D. (April 2022). High-Performance Thin Overlays: How-To Document. [Case Study Report].  FHWA-HIF-22-057. Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/tops/pubs/TOPS_HPTO_How_To_Report_508.pdf

NJDOT’s Pavement Support Program – Goals, Deliverables and the Future. (July 2021).  NJDOT Technology Transfer. [Webinar]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGhxphN1rOA&t=4057s.

NJDOT Pavement Preservation at NJDOT. (July 2020). NJDOT Technology Transfer. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wlnB8AQ-g.

FHWA Issued Its EDC-7 Progress Report #1

Posted on

The Every Day Counts Round 7 Progress Report #1 is now available here.  

Every Day Counts (EDC) is the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) program to advance a culture of innovation in the transportation community in partnership with public and private stakeholders. Through this State-based effort, FHWA coordinates rapid deployment of proven strategies and technologies to shorten the project delivery process, enhance roadway safety, reduce traffic congestion, and integrate automation.

The Progress Report describes the seven technologies and practices FHWA is promoting in EDC-7 and summarizes the deployment status of each innovation as of April 2024 and each innovation’s goal for adoption by 2025.

More information on the EDC-7 Round Innovations, including the initial Baseline Report can be found here.

NJDOT’s Research Librarian Recognized by the Special Libraries Association with 2024 Innovation Award for Work on the NJDOT Memorial Wall

Posted on

The Special Libraries Association (SLA) recently announced that its 2024 Innovation Award recipient was Eric Schwarz, NJDOT’s Research Librarian, for his archival research work on the New Jersey DOT Memorial Wall. The SLA Transportation Community Board unanimously approved the nomination and a plaque, sponsored by National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP), was provided in acknowledgement of the achievement. News of the award winners was announced via the National Transportation Knowledge Network (NTKN) Blog. The award will be officially announced at the SLA Annual Conference in Rhode Island later this month.

NJDOT Research Librarian, Eric Schwarz, with SLATRAN 2024 Innovation Award. Photo: Glenn Catana/NJDOT.

The SLA’s award announcement notes the following:

  • In 2000, the NJDOT erected an Employee Memorial wall with a plaque for each of the 32 employees known to have died under these circumstances. Over the years, four names were added, including those of employees who gave their lives in 2007 and 2010. This brought the pre-2023 total of known names to 36.
  • In early 2023, NJDOT Research Librarian Eric Schwarz found the names of five additional men who had sacrificed their lives, in an employee newspaper called The Highway, published from 1942 to 1950. These names were added to the wall during the NJDOT’s 23rd Annual Remembrance Ceremony and 22nd Anniversary of 9/11, held on September 11, 2023.
  • Using the accounts from The Highway, supplemented by research using the New Jersey State Library’s newspaper databases and draft registration cards from the military records database (Fold3), Eric pieced together the stories of these five men, their deaths, and their lives. He presented stories of these men, and of the archival and digitization work, as the keynote speaker at the NJDOT 2023 Remembrance Ceremony.
  • Then-New Jersey Transportation Commissioner Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti presented Eric Schwarz with a plaque for his research leading to the addition of five names on the memorial wall.
  • Based on this work, Eric presented a poster at the TRB Annual Meeting on Jan. 8, 2024, “Discoveries in the First Year of New Jersey DOT’s Digitization Project.”  He also presented the project to the Transportation Librarians Roundtable, Special Libraries Association Transportation Community Collection Showcase, and several other venues.
Eric presented “lessons learned” implementing Digitization Project during TRB poster session at Annual Meeting in Washington DC.

Earlier this year, Eric gave a “Lunch and Learn” presentation to NJDOT employees that provided information about NJDOT’s Digitization Project along with the poster presented at the 2024 TRB Annual Meeting,  

More information about the online resources and historical documents that have been compiled with support from about Transportation Research and Connectivity Pooled Fund Study Digitization Project (TPF-5(442)) study were shared during the presentation.

Resources

The NJ Transportation Ideas Portal is Open to Your Ideas!

Posted on

The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Research, Innovation and Information Transfer (BRIIT) invites you to share your research and innovation ideas on the NJ Transportation Ideas Portal.

We seek to fund RESEARCH IDEAS that lead to implementation – to the testing and adoption of new materials and technologies, to better specifications and to greater efficiency. We strive to discover and advance feasible solutions for more durable infrastructure, greater environmental protection and resilience, and improved mobility and safety for residents, workers and visitors.

We encourage you to suggest INNOVATION IDEAS that advance deployment of innovations and knowledge transfer in transportation. We work with the New Jersey State Transportation Innovation Council (NJ STIC) whose mission is to identify, evaluate, and where possible, rapidly deploy new technologies and process improvements that will accelerate project delivery and improve the quality of NJ’s transportation network. Innovation Ideas will be vetted for next steps which might include research or supporting an initiative to deploy a new technology or process improvement to accelerate innovation.

WHO CAN SUBMIT IDEAS? NJDOT’s research customers and other interested transportation practitioners are encouraged to submit a research or innovation idea. The portal should be of interest to NJDOT, NJ TRANSIT and MPOs, and county and local governments, and other transportation subject matter experts from university, industry and trade organizations and other NGOs. The portal is also open to the public.

WHO ARE RESEARCH CUSTOMERS? Subject matter experts from NJDOT, NJ TRANSIT, or the NJ Motor Vehicles Commission are often our research customers. Research ideas typically must have a champion among our research customers. Ideally, a “champion” is a responsible individual within a division, bureau or unit who is prepared to sponsor or advance a research idea from its inception to study completion.

COLLECTING IDEAS NOW! Our research and innovation teams review submitted ideas for possible funding and other actions throughout the year. The last day to submit research ideas for the next round of funded transportation research is December 31, 2024.

Our research and innovation teams review submitted ideas for possible funding and other actions throughout the year.

REGISTER TO PARTICIPATE AND SUBMIT AN IDEA.  Once you are registered, you may submit ideas at any time.  Click on the “+” button at the top of the page to submit an idea after registering. Only registered participants may submit a new idea or vote on other ideas to show your support. Register at the NJ Transportation Ideas here:  https://njdottechtransfer.ideascale.com/

QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO REGISTER?
Email: ideas@njdottechtransfer.net

For more information about NJDOT Bureau of Research, Innovation, and Information Transfer, visit our website: https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/research/

Or contact us:  research.bureau@dot.nj.gov or (609) 963-2242

Interview with “Best Poster Award” Winner at 2023 Research Showcase: “Properties of Cementitious Materials with Reclaimed Cement”

Posted on

Concrete production is energy intensive, and requires materials that are both challenging, and expensive to acquire. Material engineers are seeking alternative materials that are more cost-effective and carbon-friendly, but also operate successfully as road and building material.  

We spoke with Alyssa Yvette Sunga, a graduate researcher at Rowan University who won the Best Student Poster Award at NJDOT’s 2023 Research Showcase. Her research, “Properties of Cementitious Materials with Reclaimed Cement,” evaluated the characteristics of cementitious materials mixed with varying percentages of reclaimed cement. Sunga and her fellow researchers examined each mixture’s initial setting time, heat of hydration and compressive strength and compared it against ordinary Portland cement. The purpose: to determine if adding reclaimed cement has any effect on the durability and use of cementitious materials. If there is little to no adverse effect, reclaimed cement may help reduce the need for new materials and can reduce the carbon bi-product of concrete. Dr. Shahriar Abubakri (Shah), Ms. Sunga’s supervisor at Rowan University, also joined us for the interview. 

Q. Could you tell us a little bit about your educational and research experience and how you got where you are now as a graduate research fellow at Rowan? 

A. I’m an international student from the Philippines. I graduated from the University of the Philippines – Los Banos in 2017 with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. After that, I worked in industry from 2018 to 2022. My former undergraduate professors, who were graduate students here [at Rowan], reached out to me asking if I was interested in pursuing graduate studies. I applied and began my Master’s in Civil Engineering in January 2023. 

Q. What interested you about researching the properties of reclaimed cement? Do you hope to continue research in pavement materiality? 

A. The environmental impact of reclaimed materials like cement is interesting to me. Cement production is a significant contributor to carbon emissions, so finding ways to reuse it is essential. Additionally, reclaimed cement presents unique challenges and opportunities in terms of material properties, durability, and performance. 

So, in a way, we’re helping produce less carbon emissions; that’s what interested me about this study. 

I’m currently working on a lot of different concrete projects. We’re hoping to develop more efficient construction approaches, but I also aim to contribute to the development of innovative techniques and solutions that will optimize reclaimed materials in construction projects. We also aspire to collaborate with industry partners and government organizations, so that we can implement these sustainable practices on a full-scale project in the future. 

Alyssa Sunga received the Best Poster Award for Student Research At the 25th Annual NJDOT Research Showcase in October 2023.

Q. Was there anything particularly noteworthy or surprising to you discovered from this research? 

A. Yes, there’s potential for reclaimed cement and enhancing the performance of unsustainable construction materials. We did not expect that we could use it as a replacement cement or as a supplementary cementitious material. Through various experiments, we found that using this reclaimed cement or incorporating it in cementitious mixtures resulted in comparable properties such as durability, strength, and workability. 

Q. Your research looked at cement paste and mortar specimens incorporated with up to 20% Reclaimed Cement and found no significant difference for the flow measurement and setting time. Should further research be done with higher percentages of reclaimed cement? Why did your research cap it at 20%? 

A. We’re planning to do further research on larger amounts of reclaimed cement. We just used 20% as a cap to get a general idea of the effect of partially replacing ordinary Portland cement with reclaimed cement. Now that our research with 20% is showing good results, we plan on doing tests with higher percentages in the future. 

Q. Your research found that cement paste specimens with up to 20% Reclaimed Cement (RC) saw a 4% reduction in compressive strength after 90 days. What does this mean for applicability (i.e. is 4% a significant reduction? does this make cement paste with 20% RC not suitable for pavement?) 

A. A 4% reduction may seem small, but it must still be taken into consideration. However, as long as the strength is within a recommended range, then it is suitable for pavement applications. 

Q. Is there a percentage of reclaimed cement that is most likely not suitable for pavement? 

A. Alyssa: My advisor would like to jump in to answer that. 

Shah: The acceptable percentage of reduction in concrete strength depends on the specific application and the assumptions made by the designer. For instance, practical standards like the American Concrete Institute (ACI 301.1.6.6) typically require that the average strength of three samples meets or exceeds the specified compressive strength. Additionally, each individual sample within this set should not fall below 500 psi of the designed strength. It’s important to note that concrete’s compressive strength can vary widely, ranging from 2500 psi to 5000 psi, and even higher in residential and commercial structures. Some applications may require strengths exceeding 10,000 psi. So, in cases where the required strength aligns with the design strength, even higher reductions may be acceptable. 

Q. Mortar specimens with 20% RC had a different result and surpassed the strength after 28 days. Why do you think this was a different result from cement paste specimens? What does this mean for applicability? 

A. This difference in result may be due to different factors, but mortar differs from cement paste due to the additional materials like sand. So, this can influence the hydration and the strength development, but we still need to do further research to understand the long-term performance and durability or the effect of adding different materials to the cementitious materials.  

We still must do further research to see the effects of adding different materials like sand and gravel to cement paste. If we’re going to use it in concrete, that’s another additional material like an aggregate. It’s just a matter of the specific materials. There are a lot of factors — like the temperature where you make your specimens. So, it’s always just trial and error. There’s no trend to it really. 

Q. Your poster suggests that incorporating up to 20% RC has some promising benefits including reducing carbon emissions. What are some of the other benefits?  

A. Incorporating the 20% RC will help mitigate supply shortages because we’re able to provide an alternative source of material instead of just using cement. It also promotes eco-friendly construction practices, contributing to sustainable transportation infrastructure, and research on reclaimed cement enables ongoing enhancements in material performance and construction methods. 

Q. You have mentioned throughout this interview where there’s a need for more research. Can you describe some specific things that you would really like to research about incorporating reclaimed cement into cementitious materials? 

A. The most important part of this research is determining what is the optimal mix proportions to use and then studying the effects on fresh properties and assessing the long-term durability like compressive strength, the tensile strength. These investigations are crucial for understanding the full potential of reclaimed cement in construction. Personally, I’m deeply interested in exploring these research areas further. 

Q. What kind of impact do you hope this research will have on material selection by transportation agencies? 

A. I hope this research convinces transportation agencies to use reclaimed cement in pavements. It’s sustainable, cost effective and performs well — aligning with transportation agencies’ goals and standards. This could lead to a greener and more resilient transportation infrastructure. 

Resources

Sunga, A., Abubakri, S., Lomboy, G., Mantawy, I. (2023). “Properties of Cementitious Materials with Reclaimed Cement”. Rowan University Center for Research & Education in Advanced Transportation Engineering Systems. Poster.

Yvette Sunga, A., Abubakri, S., Lomboy, G., & Mantawy, I.M. (2024). Properties of Cementitious Materials with Reclaimed Cement. Presented at IABSE Symposium: Construction’s Role for a World in Emergency, Manchester, United Kingdom, 10-14 April 2024, published in IABSE Symposium Manchester 2024, pp. 428-434. Retrieved at: https://structurae.net/en/literature/conference-paper/properties-of-cementitious-materials-with-reclaimed-cement

For more information about the 25th Annual NJDOT Research Showcase, and to see other award-winning posters, visit: Recap: 25th Annual NJDOT Research Showcase – NJDOT Technology Transfer (njdottechtransfer.net)

Testing Biometric Sensors for Use in Micromobility Safety

Posted on

Biometric sensors have long been used in cognitive psychology to measure the stress-level of individuals. These sensors can measure a variety of human behaviors that translate as stress: the movement of eyes, stress-induced sweat, and heart rate variability. Recently, this research strategy has moved beyond psychology and into disciplines like transportation planning, to provide an alternative approach to researching micromobility and stress.  

We spoke with Dr. Wenwen Zhang, associate professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, about her experience learning about and using biometrics for a micromobility study. Dr. Zhang’s research, “Rider-Centric Approach to Micromobility Safety” examines the stress levels of micromobility users as they transverse a varied path through an urban space.  

Q. How is your research funded? 

A. Funding comes from multiple sources. The first source is a seed grant from the Rutgers Research Council which supports an interdisciplinary pilot project. Through this grant, we purchased biometric sensors and hired students to conduct a literature review and develop a research design. We also processed the collected pilot data and paid for participation incentives under this funding. I presented preliminary findings from this study, Rider-Centric Approach to Micromobility Safety, at the 2023 NJDOT Research Showcase. At the time that I presented it, I had 24 samples. The presentation ended up inspiring several people who attended the Research Showcase to volunteer as participants—which increased the sample size to 30.

Our other source of funding came from an external grant from the C2Smart University Transportation Center (UTC) at NYU. We used this resource to support obtaining additional stress sensors, data analysis, cleaning, preprocessing, and modeling, as well as collecting more sample data for the E-scooter and bicycle experiments.

Q. How did you get interested in using biometrics sensors (e.g., eye tracking glasses, galvanic skin sensor, heart rate monitors) to study micromobility safety? How does this research differ from your past work? 

A. Before I used biometric sensors, most of my work used passive travel behavior data. For example, to determine the revealed preferences of mode and route choices and risk factors, we used travel trajectory or existing crash big data to develop statistical models. I have found that the entire process is very passive, especially since we only explore risk factors after traffic accidents. It’s surprising that in the research field today we know so little about how human beings actually navigate urban environments while using different travel modes and how it relates to perceived safety. I wanted to explore questions like what is their gaze behavior? How do they feel while they travel using different modes? How do they feel traveling on roads with different design features and how is that going to influence their travel satisfaction or experience overall? 

Dr. Robert Noland, Distinguished Professor at the Rutgers Bloustein School, suggested I investigate the use of biometrics in planning studies. As I dug more into the literature, I realized that biometrics in transportation is a very fascinating topic that I wanted to get into. Once I did experiments in the field, I realized that I really enjoyed talking with different people about how they perceive the built environment while they travel. Biometrics provide richer data compared with revealed preference data that I used to work with.

Q. In your research, you noticed that some corridors were more stress-inducing (according to biometric sensors) than expected, despite properly designed safety infrastructure. How do you think this discovery may affect how planners and engineers look at urban road design and micromobility safety? 

 A. This study collected one-time cross-sectional data. We asked people to walk around an area and tell us whether they feel stressed or not. If they are feeling stress, even in the presence of a safety improvement, it does not necessarily mean that the implemented safety design is not working. For example, in New Brunswick, we observed that a lot of people found it stress-inducing to cross Livingston Avenue, although it has been the subject of a road diet and has several pedestrian safety features incorporated into the new design. While outside our scope of research, one way to understand the impact of the safety infrastructure would be to conduct a “before” and “after” study. This leaves an opportunity for more research, to see how effective the pedestrian-only infrastructure is in reducing stress level. Potentially, it can provide evidence to support pedestrian-only design. Biometric sensors used in a “before and after” study can help us to answer which infrastructure is more preferred. 

Q. You are in the process of collecting data for cyclists and e-scooters using the same method, what are your principal objectives in addressing this segment? Do you expect the results to be different?

Dr. Zhang conducted one pilot e-scooter experiment at Asbury Park, NJ in 2022 to test out the devices and examine how to set up research experiments. She equipped the e-scooter rider, Dr. Hannah Younes, post-doc researcher at the Rutgers Bloustein School, with an eye tracking glass, a GSR sensor on the hand, and a 360-degree camera on top of the helmet.

A. Yes, absolutely, different travel modes will likely alter a person’s expectation for a safe travel environment. For example, we noticed a big difference in the enjoyment of pedestrians and e-scooters on the same path through a park. We had thought that the e-scooter users would enjoy the ride as the pedestrians had, however, the pavement was too rough for the small wheels of the e-scooters. Although the park was walking-friendly, it was not friendly for e-scooters. This shows that each of these micromobility modes needs different kinds of support to feel safe and comfortable.

Q. What are the limitations to this study? Do you have plans for future research to address this? How would you like to expand your research in this topic?

A. Each of the biometric sensors has limitations. For example, eye trackers face some difficulty when identifying the pupils of a participant in direct sunlight. As a result, the eye tracker renders a low eye tracking rate. Eye trackers also work better with darker eyes as the eye movements are more readily recognized. The eye trackers, kept on glasses, also restrict individuals who wear glasses from participating. The unfortunate result of this is that it often excludes a lot of senior people from the experiment. This issue may be alleviated as we are obtaining additional funding to obtain prescription lenses for eye trackers.

GSR sensors use low voltage on skin to measure skin conductivity, which may interfere with electric health devices. This limits individuals from participating if they have an electric health device like a pacemaker on or in their body. We purposefully excluded this population from participating to align with IRB (Institutional Review Board) protocol and to mitigate any risks.

Another limitation of the study is that we must collect sample data one by one, which is a time-consuming process. We can only collect a very small sample compared to a traditional statistical model kind of study, which may have access to thousands of records in the sample. From our literature review, biometrics sensor studies typically involve 20 to 30 participants, but for each participant we have a very rich dataset. For each participating volunteer, we end up with over one gigabyte of data. The limited number of participants may make it harder to generalize results to the entire population, and people may question the results applicability. In some ways this data is similar to the results of qualitative studies, where we have richer information but small sample size, rendering some generalizability issues. 

Feelings of safety were measured using the traditional self-report survey as well as biometric trackers like Heart Rate Trackers, Eye trackers and GSR (pictured above).

Q. What challenges have you found in working with biometrics sensors, or in the interpretation of output measures?

A. The eye tracker and heart rate measures are reliable, but some biometrics have posed challenges. The GSR (galvanic skin response sensor), which tests your sweat level, is very sensitive to humidity and time of the day. The sensor also picks up on sweat resulting from physical exertion, making it difficult to distinguish between stress-induced sweat and physical sweat.

Interpretation of output measures for this metric requires data cleaning and processing to eliminate the effect of sweating from physical exertion. We try to decompose the data to separate the emotional peak from the sweating caused by physical activity using various algorithms. We are still underway testing out different algorithms to clean up the data. So far, we have found that GSR data are very real-time in nature and a good indicator for stress level but are very noisy data and requires some manual processing. This means we spend a lot of time preprocessing the collected data before conducting data analysis. 

Q. How do you expect this research to inform transportation agencies in New Jersey and elsewhere?

A. This type of research captures such rich data on travel behavior itself. Most of the literature using biometrics has been focused on driving, so this research expands the perspective. Here we’re focusing on slow mobility, like active travel and micromobility. Individuals who participate in slow mobility are more vulnerable road users, and we want to see how they behave in different travel environments. This can help agencies gain more insights into how to design safety infrastructure. Beyond that I can also envision the technology being used to evaluate whether certain improvements or infrastructure designs help to improve travel satisfaction or improve people’s experience at the same location by doing “before and after” studies. This type of study also allows you to measure and quantify the effect of the improvement. 

The use of biometric sensors in the field can also be used to foster meaningful public engagement processes to show the lived experience of different people in a neighborhood or traveling through a different corridor, which can be very powerful.

Q. Do you feel the research methods are at a stage where they are “ripe” for use on other demonstration projects, planning or project development studies?

A. After one year of experimentation, our project team can readily work with biometrics. We have a good understanding of sensor limitations and how to set up the sensors to correctly reduce noise as much as possible. Our experience has also helped determine what kind of metrics can be extracted successfully and reliably through the sensors.  

The most useful case for those sensors is to evaluate before and after, so that we can quantify how much people appreciate those implementations in a more accurate way. Beyond that, the sensors can also be effective infrastructure assessment tools. For example, imagine that you ask people to wear biometric sensors and do a bicycle infrastructure evaluation; the agencies can get more realistic and rich data compared with a more traditional survey approach. This rich data can help determine the most effective improvement. It ends up being more inclusive that way.

The tools can be very useful for fostering community engagement with vulnerable populations. For example, if agencies want to improve the accessibility for wheelchair users, they can ask individuals in wheelchairs to wear the sensors and move about an area. Recording and reviewing how they experience a journey is more powerful compared with just asking individuals with needs about their travel patterns. It’s going to be a more straightforward way to show the world how we can make the streets more inclusive for those vulnerable populations. 

Q. Do you think local governments and non-governmental organizations could make use of biometrics sensors as a strategy to promote community engagement and outreach to local communities, or to address specific community safety or livability issues?  Would it be cost-prohibitive to employ such tools for such community-based planning issues at this time?  

A.  From my point of view, the most effective way would be for the agencies to identify where there are needs and promising projects and then work with skilled researchers or practitioners who have these sensors already and have begun to climb the learning curve in the use of sensors and interpretation — for example, they could work with us. They would need to pay for the researchers’ time and participation incentives, or if they were to collaborate with a UTC (University Transportation Center) to conduct such research collaboratively.  

The sensors are not the most expensive part of the study. The most expensive item is the researcher’s time to collect and analyze the data. The data are very complicated to analyze in the first place because it’s a large amount of data with noises. The researchers need to put in a lot of time to get it to the state where you can extract the relevant variables out and start to interpret them.

Q. How would you characterize the “state-of-training” in using biometrics for students or early career or mid-career professionals in transportation?    

A. The biometric sensor itself is not very new, but new to the transportation field, especially for slow modes. It has been widely used in cognitive psychology, where there are classes to interpret those as well. Generally, I don’t think the current transportation and urban planning curriculum for students includes enough classes to cover those sensors. We probably need to teach not only biometric sensors, but urban sensing in general. 

In an ideal course, students could get their hands dirty by putting those sensors in the field and then once the data are collected, they can learn how to preprocess and analyze the data. It would have to be a one-year kind of curriculum design to get people involved and ready for it. Of course, instruction on the use of sensors will differ by topic. For example, if you are working in the air quality field, then there are many different air quality sensors and each of them come with different data formats and require different experiment design and analytic skills.

Regarding the mid-career transportation professional, at this moment I believe the research is more in the academic field and focusing on testing and evaluation. I wouldn’t suggest that the research is so ripe that a mid-career transportation or urban planner professional should need to invest their time in learning how to use biosensors unless they have a research project that may benefit substantially from using the sensors.  

Resources

To learn more about the use of biometrics in the field of active transportation, see:

Ryerson, M., Long, C., Fichman, M., Davidson, J.H., Scudder, K.N., Kim, M., Katti, R., Poon, G. & Harris, M., (2021). Evaluating Cyclist Biometrics to Develop Urban Transportation Safety Metrics. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 159, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457521003183?via%3Dihub

Fitch, D.T., Sharpnack, J. & Handy, S. (2020). Psychological Stress of Bicycling with Traffic: Examining Heart Rate Variability of Bicyclists in Natural Urban Environments. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, Volume 70, 2020, Pages 81-97. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847819304073?via%3Dihub.

To read more on Dr. Zhang’s work, see:

Zhang, W. (2023). Rider-centric Approach to Micromobility Safety. 25th Annual NJDOT Research Showcase. Presentation. Retrieved from https://www.njdottechtransfer.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Zhang-Safety-2nd-Presentation.pdf.

Zhang. W. 25th Annual NJDOT Research Showcase. Recording starts at: 59:00. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/D_rQP-Dv8gU

Zhang, W., Buehler, R., Broaddus, A. & Sweeney, T. (2021). What Type of Infrastructures do E-scooter Riders Prefer? A Route Choice Model. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 94, 2021. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920921000651.

For more information about the use of biometrics in the broader transportation field, see NYU’s C2SMART’s research project on Work Zone Safety:

STIC Incentive Program Funds are Available!

Posted on

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) offers STIC Incentive Funding, as well as technical assistance, to support the standardization and advancement of innovative practices. The NJ STIC receives $125,000 each year and state and local public agencies in transportation are eligible to apply.

To be eligible, a project or activity must have a statewide impact in fostering a culture for innovation or in making an innovation a standard practice, and must align with FHWA’s Technology Innovation Deployment Program goals.  The NJ STIC will consider projects and activities that advance innovations such as the Every Day Counts (EDC) innovations that are being promoted by FHWA.  

Proposed STIC project ideas are prioritized by the NJ STIC for each federal fiscal year. Selected projects are then submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for approval. The request submittal does not guarantee funding nor award of funding.

The NJDOT Bureau of Research, Innovation and Information Transfer is ready to answer your questions and assist applicants. For more information on eligibility, proposal requirements, past funded projects, and more, please visit: the New Jersey STIC Incentive Fund Requests webpage.