eSafety Compendium 2010

Table of Contents - Compendium Executive Summary CHAPTER I - ESAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS 1.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS AS OF 2010

CHAPTER II - EUROPEAN COMMISSION ESAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND MATERIAL 1. 2. 3.

ITS Directive ITS Action Plan eCall related 3.1 eCall communication: Time for deployment 2009 3.2 Public consultation results 2010

CHAPTER III - ESAFETY FORUM PLENARY MEETINGS MINUTES AND CONCLUSIONS 1. 2.

12th eSafety Forum Plenary meeting (29 October 2009) th 13 eSafety Forum Plenary meeting (12-13 October 2010)

CHAPTER IV - ESAFETY WORKING GROUPS HISTORY AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

NDF WG final report eSecurity WG final report SOA WG final report II WG final report IRM Monitoring report Strategic Research Agenda of the eRTD Working Group eSafety Forum Task Force report ELSA in Transport Task Force report: Towards a Transport-ICT ELSA

CHAPTER V - OTHER ESAFETY EVENTS 1. 2.

eSafety Observers Network Group (minutes of the first meeting, ToR, list of members) European eCall Implementation Platform activities

2.1 3rd Meeting minutes (1st October 2009) 2.2 4th Meeting minutes (25th February 2010) 2.3 5th Meeting minutes (19th October 2010)

CHAPTER VI - ANNEXES ANNEX I – Compendium previous versions (on usb)

Note: Online references included for all documents.

In line with the new eSafety Forum focus, the new recommendations address not only safety but also smart and clean mobility in Europe

Topic

N. 1

2 Accident Causation Data

Recommendation

Consolidate analyses from the existing EU, Member State and industry road accident data which give information on the cause and circumstances of the accidents, for allowing the determination of the most effective countermeasures, starting from the most frequent accident types. Define a common format and structure for recording accident data in the EU countries, which should include information on Intelligent Vehicles Safety systems and their status of work at the moment of the accident. Develop jointly a European Accident Causation Database covering all EU and enlargement countries, and provide open access to industry and public agencies. Harmonisation of VIN number enabling the identification of vehicle safety systems installed and inclusion of VIN number or other safety system existence information in accident registration processes

a) Consolidate and refine methodologies for an integrated approach to assess the potential impact of safe, smart and clean mobility. b) Consolidate and refine a coordinated validation framework for operational tests in the Member States addressing safe, smart and clean mobility

Impact Assessment

c) Promote and carry out dedicated evaluation and validation of priority safe, smart and clean mobility systems through Fields Operations Tests, in order to define future deployment actions 4

a) The 2008 ESoP should now be updated according to the consensus recommendations published in Oct. 2009 b) Development should be monitored such that the ESoP can be re-visited periodically (at least every 3 years) providing a balance between current relevance and stability

Human-Machine Interaction

c) ) Develop robust assessment procedures and safety-relevant criteria where practicable starting with safe fixing (including field of view) for Nomadic Devices 5 Implementation Road Maps

a) Update regularly Road Maps (including the monitoring of implementation of intelligent integrated systems) with technical steps and economic implications for the introduction of safe, smart and clean systems in Europe. b) The public sector Road Maps should indicate the investments required for improvements in the road networks and information infrastructure

Identify requirements for specifications and implementation guidelines for standards-based interfaces and communications protocols needed to ensure pan-European compatibility and interoperability for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure communications supporting interactive, co-operative mobility systems and services.

7 Move forward international co-operation in the development and deployment of cooperative mobility systems and services,.

Cooperative Mobility systems and services 8

Based on results from European Research Programmes and the eSafety Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group, establish mechanisms and processes to agree on pathway towards deployment of cooperative systems to achieve minimum level of market penetration to start the services as well as to achieve maximum sustainable interoperability and ease the provision of new services in line with market demand 9

Digital Map Database

Based on existing research results, define requirements for European digital road map data. This should contain, in addition to road network data, agreed road attributes for private and professional driver-support for information and warning purposes, such as speed information, eco driving, road configuration data. Special focus should be given to Location Referencing Create suitable partnerships and mechanisms to produce, update, maintain, certify and distribute this digital road map data. They should be made available for all users at affordable prices (where possible free of charge). National, local and regional authorities and operators should provide the above data on road configurations within their networks, with target dates for implementation.

11 In vehicle 112 emergency calls (eCall) 12 Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information

Set up a framework for strategic long term cooperation in the field of cooperative mobility systems and services to enable and promote their early deployment.

a) Further support EU wide 112 eCall service deployment, e.g. through the EeIP b) Explore the potential of nomadic devices for eCall for existing and future vehicle fleet Support the wider use of the pan-European RDS/TMC network and further development and deployment of TPEG services. Improve the data quality of traffic and travel information with regard to accuracy and reliability

Legal issues for testing and deployment

b) Develop a methodology for risk benefit assessment, achieve an industrial and societal consensus on a European Code of Practice, and establish guidelines for facilitating the market introduction of safe, smart and clean systems. 14

Standardisation and certification

a) Analyse the specific needs and priorities for standardisation in European Standardisation Organisations for ICT for mobility systems and services. b) Follow-up, liaise and contribute to the standardisation work in this area in CEN, ETSI and ISO, in particular regarding the activities carried out in the framework of the Mandate /453 to support the interoperability of cooperative systems for intelligent transport, and promote global harmonisation when appropriate

15 European large scale actions

16 Spectrum allocations

Work towards ICT deployment in transport through partnerships on European large scale actions by organizing large scale test-beds in cooperation with demand and supply stakeholders and in line with the ITS Directive, in which solutions to existing societal challenges are taken through the innovation chain in a continuous programmatic approach of a sufficient scale and duration a) Identify spectrum allocations needs and take necessary actions for a sufficient spectrum allocations for safe, smart and clean systems and services b) Support the worldwide harmonisation of spectrum allocations. Increase active participation in worldwide fora in order to support multi-modal transport related interests and requirements in spectrum

Stimulate demand and use

a) Assess the need of adapting the relevant legal frameworks (e.g. Vienna convention) to deal with the road mobility improvements obtainable with safe, smart and clean systems in vehicles.

a) Design and execute awareness campaigns which explain the benefits, functioning and use of safe, smart and clean mobility systems and services to the stakeholders. b) Investigate the possibility to use marketing as well as fiscal/financial incentives to stimulate and support consumers’ demand of intelligent road applications and use of safe, smart and clean mobility services. This support should target especially the buyers who choose to equip their vehicles with co-operative systems, thus helping to create an initial market demand for safe, smart and clean mobility services advanced co-operative systems in particular.

a) Identification and development of business models for co-mobility services and combination of co-mobility services. These business models should include both the service definition, the organisational structure/value chain, the financial framework and technology harmonisation (consider the use of SOA based architecture for business related ITS/ICT communication). b) Stimulate the interaction (or harmonisation) via roadmaps between the market developments of the different stakeholders of the value chain in intelligent infrastructure, in-car systems and nomadic device. Investments done by the different stakeholders for specific market developments having different time horizons should result in harmonised cooperative developments

Business Model

c) Investigate how to share future societal benefits and financial savings with those stakeholders who need to invest in providing mobility service without generating an acceptable/appropriate immediate return on investment 19

Investigate, facilitate and support the usage of after market/nomadic devices for large scale deployment of safe, smart and clean mobility applications and services

With the support of the mayor stakeholders, analyse the specific needs and define the priorities for RTD actions on ICT for Intelligent Mobility in particular on: Sustainable Road Transport; Sustainable Urban Mobility: Road Transport Safety (including the VRU); ICT and the Decarbonisation of Transport; Deployment; and the Horizontal Issues.

a) Initiate, follow-up and promote deployment of ICT for energy efficiency (e.g. eco-mobility) and ICT for electric vehicles (EV)

Nomadic/after market devices Preparation and updating of the Strategic Research Agenda on ICT for Safe, Smart and Clean Mobility

ICT for EE in transport

b) Identify, investigate and develop the relationship between electric vehicles and their related requirements for the intelligent infrastructure, namely which special applications/services are required. 22

Vulnerable Road Users

Investigate the most suitable safe, smart and clean mobility services and applications for the VRU

This version is the last one after the meeting of 12.01.2011.

6.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

L 207/1

I (Legislative acts)

DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE 2010/40/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(3)

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) are advanced appli cations which without embodying intelligence as such aim to provide innovative services relating to different modes of transport and traffic management and enable various users to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated and ‘smarter’ use of transport networks.

(4)

ITS integrate telecommunications, electronics and information technologies with transport engineering in order to plan, design, operate, maintain and manage transport systems. The application of information and communication technologies to the road transport sector and its interfaces with other modes of transport will make a significant contribution to improving envi ronmental performance, efficiency, including energy effi ciency, safety and security of road transport, including the transport of dangerous goods, public security and passenger and freight mobility, whilst at the same time ensuring the functioning of the internal market as well as increased levels of competitiveness and employment. However, ITS applications should be without prejudice to matters concerning national security or which are necessary in the interest of defence.

(5)

Advances in the field of the application of information and communication technologies to other modes of transport should now be reflected in developments in the road transport sector, in particular with a view to ensuring higher levels of integration between road transport and other modes of transport.

(6)

In some Member States national applications of these technologies are already being deployed in the road transport sector. However, such deployment remains fragmented and uncoordinated and cannot provide geographical continuity of ITS services throughout the Union and at its external borders.

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (1),

Having consulted the Committee of the Regions,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

The increase in the volume of road transport in the Union associated with the growth of the European economy and mobility requirements of citizens is the primary cause of increasing congestion of road infra structure and rising energy consumption, as well as a source of environmental and social problems.

The response to those major challenges cannot be limited to traditional measures, inter alia the expansion of the existing road transport infrastructure. Innovation will have a major role to play in finding appropriate solutions for the Union.

(1) OJ C 277, 17.11.2009, p. 85. (2) Position of the European Parliament of 23 April 2009 (not yet published in the Official Journal), position of the Council of 10 May 2010 (not yet published in the Official Journal), position of the European Parliament of 6 July 2010 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

L 207/2

(7)

(8)

(9)

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2010

processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (2), inter alia, the principles of purpose limitation and data minimisation should be applied to ITS applications.

To ensure a coordinated and effective deployment of ITS within the Union as a whole, specifications, including, where appropriate, standards, defining further detailed provisions and procedures should be introduced. Before adopting any specifications, the Commission should assess their compliance with certain defined principles set out in Annex II. Priority should be given in the first instance to the four main areas of ITS development and deployment. Within those four areas, priority actions should be established for the development and use of specifications and standards. During further implemen tation of ITS the existing ITS infrastructure deployed by a particular Member State should be taken into account in terms of technological progress and financial efforts made.

(13)

Anonymisation as one of the principles of enhancing individuals' privacy should be encouraged. As far as data protection and privacy related issues in the field of ITS applications and services deployment are concerned, the Commission should, as appropriate, further consult the European Data Protection Supervisor and request an opinion of the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data established by Article 29 of Directive 95/46/EC.

When a legislative act is adopted as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) of this Directive, the second sentence of Article 5(1) should be amended accordingly.

(14)

The deployment and use of ITS applications and services, and notably traffic and travel information services, will entail the processing and use of road, traffic and travel data forming part of documents held by public sector bodies of the Member States. Such processing and use should be carried out in accordance with Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (3).

(15)

In appropriate cases, the specifications should include detailed provisions laying down the procedure governing assessment of conformity or suitability for use of constituents. Those provisions should be based on Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (4), in particular concerning the modules for the various phases of the conformity assessment procedures. Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) already establishes a framework for the type approval of motor vehicles and their parts or related equipment, and Directive 2002/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) and Directive 2003/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (7) lay down rules on the type approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, and agricultural or forestry tractors and their parts or related equipment. Therefore, it would be a duplication of work to provide for conformity assessment of equipment and applications falling within the scope of those Directives. At the same time, although those Directives apply to ITSrelated equipment installed in vehicles, they do not apply to external road infrastructure ITS equipment and software. In such cases, the specifications could provide for conformity assessment procedures. Such procedures should be limited to what would be necessary in each separate case.

The specifications should, inter alia take into account and build upon the experience and results already obtained in the field of ITS, notably in the context of the eSafety initiative, launched by the Commission in April 2002. The eSafety Forum was established by the Commission under that initiative to promote and further implement recommendations to support the development, deployment and use of eSafety systems.

(10)

Vehicles which are operated mainly for their historical interest and were originally registered and/or typeapproved and/or put into service before the entry into force of this Directive and of its implementing measures should not be affected by the rules and procedures laid down in this Directive.

(11)

ITS should build on interoperable systems which are based on open and public standards and available on a non-discriminatory basis to all application and service suppliers and users.

(12)

The deployment and use of ITS applications and services will entail the processing of personal data. Such processing should be carried out in accordance with Union law, as set out, in particular, in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of indi viduals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1) and in Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.

(2) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37. (3) OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 90. (4) OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 82. (5) OJ L 263, 9.10.2007, p. 1. (6) OJ L 124, 9.5.2002, p. 1. (7) OJ L 171, 9.7.2003, p. 1.

6.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

(16)

For ITS applications and services for which accurate and guaranteed timing and positioning services are required, satellite-based infrastructures or any technology providing an equivalent level of precisions should be used, such as those provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations (1) and Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navi gation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (2).

(17)

Innovative technologies such as Radio Frequency Identi fication Devices (RFID) or EGNOS/Galileo should be used for the realisation of ITS applications, notably for the tracking and tracing of freight along its journey and across modes of transport.

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

Major stakeholders such as ITS service providers, associations of ITS users, transport and facilities operators, representatives of the manufacturing industry, social partners, professional associations and local authorities should have the possibility to advise the Commission on the commercial and technical aspects of the deployment of ITS within the Union. For this purpose the Commission, ensuring close cooperation with stakeholders and Member States, should set up an ITS advisory group. The work of the advisory group should be carried out in a transparent manner and the result should be made available to the Committee estab lished by this Directive. Uniform conditions of implementation should be ensured for the adoption of guidelines and non-binding measures to facilitate Member States cooperation in respect of priority areas on ITS as well as in respect of guidelines for reporting by the Member States and of a working programme. According to Article 291 of the Treaty on the Func tioning of the European Union (TFEU), rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for the control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers shall be laid down in advance by a regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. Pending the adoption of that new regulation, Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (3) continues to apply, with the exception of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which is not applicable. The Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU in respect of the adoption of specifications. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

(1) OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1. (2) OJ L 196, 24.7.2008, p. 1. (3) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

L 207/3

(22)

In order to guarantee a coordinated approach, the Commission should ensure coherence between the activities of the Committee established by this Directive and those of the Committee established by Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of elec tronic road toll systems in the Community (4), the Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (5), the Committee established by Directive 2007/46/EC and the Committee established by Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (6).

(23)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure the coordinated and coherent deployment of interoperable Intelligent Transport Systems throughout the Union cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and/or the private sector and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(24)

In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Union, their own tables, which will, as far as possible, illustrate the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1 Subject matter and scope 1. This Directive establishes a framework in support of the coordinated and coherent deployment and use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) within the Union, in particular across the borders between the Member States, and sets out the general conditions necessary for that purpose. 2. This Directive provides for the development of specifi cations for actions within the priority areas referred to in Article 2, as well as for the development, where appropriate, of necessary standards. 3. This Directive shall apply to ITS applications and services in the field of road transport and to their interfaces with other modes of transport without prejudice to matters concerning national security or necessary in the interest of defence. (4) OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 124. (5) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8. (6) OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1.

L 207/4

Official Journal of the European Union

Article 2 Priority areas 1. For the purpose of this Directive the following shall constitute priority areas for the development and use of spec ifications and standards: —

I. Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data,

— II. Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services,

6.8.2010

(2) ‘interoperability’ means the capacity of systems and the underlying business processes to exchange data and to share information and knowledge; (3) ‘ITS application’ means an operational instrument for the application of ITS; (4) ‘ITS service’ means the provision of an ITS application through a well-defined organisational and operational framework with the aim of contributing to user safety, efficiency, comfort and/or to facilitate or support transport and travel operations;

— III. ITS road safety and security applications, — IV. Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure. 2.

The scope of the priority areas is specified in Annex I. Article 3

(5) ‘ITS service provider’ means any provider of an ITS service, whether public or private; (6) ‘ITS user’ means any user of ITS applications or services including travellers, vulnerable road users, road transport infrastructure users and operators, fleet managers and operators of emergency services;

Priority actions Within the priority areas the following shall constitute priority actions for the development and use of specifications and standards, as set out in Annex I: (a) the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information services; (b) the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services; (c) data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users; (d) the harmonised provision for an interoperable EU-wide eCall; (e) the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles; (f) the provision of reservation services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles. Article 4 Definitions For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply: (1) ‘Intelligent Transport Systems’ or ‘ITS’ means systems in which information and communication technologies are applied in the field of road transport, including infra structure, vehicles and users, and in traffic management and mobility management, as well as for interfaces with other modes of transport;

(7) ‘vulnerable road users’ means non-motorised road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists as well as motor-cyclists and persons with disabilities or reduced mobility and orientation; (8) ‘nomadic device’ means a portable communication or information device that can be brought inside the vehicle to support the driving task and/or the transport operations; (9) ‘platform’ means an on-board or off-board unit enabling the deployment, provision, exploitation and integration of ITS applications and services; (10) ‘architecture’ means the conceptual design that defines the structure, behaviour and integration of a given system in its surrounding context; (11) ‘interface’ means a facility between systems which provides the media through which they can connect and interact; (12) ‘compatibility’ means the general ability of a device or system to work with another device or system without modification; (13) ‘continuity of services’ means the ability to ensure seamless services on transport networks across the Union; (14) ‘road data’ means data on road infrastructure char acteristics, including fixed traffic signs or their regulatory safety attributes; (15) ‘traffic data’ means historic and real-time data on road traffic characteristics;

6.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

(16) ‘travel data’ means basic data such as public transport timetables and tariffs, necessary to provide multi-modal travel information before and during the trip to facilitate travel planning, booking and adaptation;

(17) ‘specification’ means a binding measure laying down provisions containing requirements, procedures or any other relevant rules;

(18) ‘standard’ means standard as defined in Article 1(6) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1).

Article 5 Deployment of ITS 1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the specifications adopted by the Commission in accordance with Article 6 are applied to ITS applications and services, when these are deployed, in accordance with the prin ciples in Annex II. This is without prejudice to the right of each Member State to decide on its deployment of such applications and services on its territory. This right is without prejudice to any legislative act adopted under the second subparagraph of Article 6(2).

2. Member States shall also make efforts to cooperate in respect of the priority areas, insofar as no specifications have been adopted.

Article 6 Specifications 1. The Commission shall first adopt the specifications necessary to ensure the compatibility, interoperability and continuity for the deployment and operational use of ITS for the priority actions.

2. The Commission shall aim at adopting specifications for one or more of the priority actions by 27 February 2013.

At the latest 12 months after the adoption of the necessary specifications for a priority action, the Commission shall, where appropriate, after conducting an impact assessment including a cost-benefit analysis, present a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 294 of the TFEU on the deployment of that priority action.

3. Once the necessary specifications for the priority actions have been adopted, the Commission shall adopt specifications (1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

L 207/5

ensuring compatibility, interoperability and continuity for the deployment and operational use of ITS for other actions in the priority areas. 4. Where relevant, and depending on the area covered by the specification, the specification shall include one or more of the following types of provisions: (a) functional provisions that describe the roles of the various stakeholders and the information flow between them; (b) technical provisions that provide for the technical means to fulfil the functional provisions; (c) organisational provisions that describe the procedural obli gations of the various stakeholders; (d) service provisions that describe the various levels of services and their content for ITS applications and services. 5. Without prejudice to the procedures under Directive 98/34/EC the specifications shall, where appropriate, stipulate the conditions in which Member States may, after notification to the Commission, establish additional rules for the provision of ITS services on all or part of their territory, provided that those rules do not hinder interoperability. 6. The specifications shall, where appropriate, be based on any standards referred to in Article 8. The specifications shall, as appropriate, provide for conformity assessment in accordance with Decision No 768/2008/EC. The specifications shall comply with the principles set out in Annex II. 7. The Commission shall conduct an impact assessment including a cost-benefit analysis prior to the adoption of the specifications. Article 7 Delegated acts 1. The Commission may adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the TFEU as regards specifications. When adopting such delegated acts the Commission shall act in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Directive, in particular Article 6 and Annex II. 2. A separate delegated act shall be adopted for each of the priority actions. 3. For the delegated acts referred to in this Article, the procedure set out in Articles 12, 13 and 14 shall apply.

L 207/6

Official Journal of the European Union

Article 8

6.8.2010

Directive 2003/98/EC shall apply.

Standards 1. The necessary standards to provide for interoperability, compatibility and continuity for the deployment and oper ational use of ITS shall be developed in the priority areas and for the priority actions. To that effect, the Commission, after having consulted the Committee referred to in Article 15, shall request the relevant standardisation bodies in accordance with the procedure laid down in Directive 98/34/EC to make every necessary effort to adopt these standards rapidly.

2. When issuing a mandate to the standardisation bodies, the principles set out in Annex II shall be observed as well as any functional provision included in a specification adopted in accordance with Article 6.

Article 11 Rules on liability Member States shall ensure that issues related to liability, concerning the deployment and use of ITS applications and services set out in specifications adopted in accordance with Article 6, are addressed in accordance with Union law, including in particular Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (1) as well as relevant national legislation.

Article 12 Article 9 Non-binding measures The Commission may adopt guidelines and other non-binding measures to facilitate Member States' cooperation relating to the priority areas in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 15(2).

Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt the delegated acts referred to in Article 7 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of seven years following 27 August 2010. The Commission shall make a report in respect of the delegated powers no later than six months before the end of a five year period following 27 August 2010.

Rules on privacy, security and re-use of information

2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

1. Member States shall ensure that the processing of personal data in the context of the operation of ITS applications and services is carried out in accordance with Union rules protecting fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, in particular Directive 95/46/EC and Directive 2002/58/EC.

3. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 13 and 14.

Article 10

2. In particular, Member States shall ensure that personal data are protected against misuse, including unlawful access, alteration or loss.

Article 13 Revocation of the delegation 1. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 7 may be revoked by the European Parliament or by the Council.

3. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, in order to ensure privacy, the use of anonymous data shall be encouraged, where appropriate, for the performance of the ITS applications and services.

Without prejudice to Directive 95/46/EC personal data shall only be processed insofar as such processing is necessary for the performance of ITS applications and services.

4. With regard to the application of Directive 95/46/EC and in particular where special categories of personal data are involved, Member States shall also ensure that the provisions on consent to the processing of such personal data are respected.

2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of powers shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.

3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. (1) OJ L 210, 7.8.1985, p. 29.

6.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

L 207/7

Article 14

Article 17

Objections to delegated acts

Reporting

1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification.

1. Member States shall submit to the Commission by 27 August 2011 a report on their national activities and projects regarding the priority areas.

At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.

2. Member States shall provide the Commission by 27 August 2012 with information on national ITS actions envisaged over the following five year period.

2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force on the date stated therein.

The delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.

3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.

Article 15 Committee procedure

Guidelines for reporting by the Member States shall be adopted in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 15(2).

3. Following the initial report, Member States shall report every three years on the progress made in the deployment of the actions referred to in paragraph 1.

4. The Commission shall submit a report every three years to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress made for the implementation of this Directive. The report shall be accompanied by an analysis on the functioning and imple mentation, including the financial resources used and needed, of Articles 5 to 11 and Article 16, and shall assess the need to amend this Directive, where appropriate.

5. In accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 15(2), the Commission shall adopt a working program by 27 February 2011. The working program shall include objectives and dates for its implementation every year and if necessary shall propose the necessary adaptations.

1. The Commission shall be assisted by the European ITS Committee (EIC). Article 18 Transposition 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 3 and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

Article 16 European ITS Advisory Group The Commission shall establish a European ITS Advisory Group to advise it on business and technical aspects of the deployment and use of ITS in the Union. The group shall be composed of high level representatives from relevant ITS service providers, associations of users, transport and facilities operators, manu facturing industry, social partners, professional associations, local authorities and other relevant fora.

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 27 February 2012.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference, and its wording, shall be laid down by Member States.

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

L 207/8

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2010

Article 19 Entry into force This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 20 Addressees This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Strasbourg, 7 July 2010.

For the European Parliament The President

For the Council The President

J. BUZEK

O. CHASTEL

6.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

ANNEX I PRIORITY AREAS AND ACTIONS (as referred to in Articles 2 and 3) — Priority area I: Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data The specifications and standards for an optimal use of road, traffic and travel data shall include the following: 1.

Specifications for priority action (a) The definition of the necessary requirements to make EU-wide multimodal travel information services accurate and available across borders to ITS users, based on: — the availability and accessibility of existing and accurate road and real-time traffic data used for multimodal travel information to ITS service providers without prejudice to safety and transport management constraints, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between the relevant public authorities and stakeholders and the relevant ITS service providers, across borders, — the timely updating of available road and traffic data used for multimodal travel information by the relevant public authorities and stakeholders, — the timely updating of multimodal travel information by the ITS service providers.

Specifications for priority action (b) The definition of the necessary requirements to make EU-wide real-time traffic information services accurate and available across borders to ITS users, based on: — the availability and accessibility of existing and accurate road and real-time traffic data used for real-time traffic information to ITS service providers without prejudice to safety and transport management constraints, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between the relevant public authorities and stakeholders and the relevant ITS service providers, across borders, — the timely updating of available road and traffic data used for real-time traffic information by the relevant public authorities and stakeholders, — the timely updating of real-time traffic information by the ITS service providers.

Specifications for priority actions (a) and (b)

3.1. The definition of the necessary requirements for the collection by relevant public authorities and/or, where relevant, by the private sector of road and traffic data (i.e. traffic circulation plans, traffic regulations and recommended routes, notably for heavy goods vehicles) and for their provisioning to ITS service providers, based on: — the availability, to ITS service providers, of existing road and traffic data (i.e. traffic circulation plans, traffic regulations and recommended routes) collected by the relevant public authorities and/or the private sector, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between the relevant public authorities and the ITS service providers, — the timely updating, by the relevant public authorities and/or, where relevant, the private sector, of road and traffic data (i.e. traffic circulation plans, traffic regulations and recommended routes), — the timely updating, by the ITS service providers, of the ITS services and applications using these road and traffic data.

L 207/9

L 207/10

Official Journal of the European Union

3.2. The definition of the necessary requirements to make road, traffic and transport services data used for digital maps accurate and available, where possible, to digital map producers and service providers, based on: — the availability of existing road and traffic data used for digital maps to digital map producers and service providers, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between the relevant public authorities and stakeholders and the private digital map producers and service providers, — the timely updating of road and traffic data for digital maps by the relevant public authorities and stake holders, — the timely updating of the digital maps by the digital map producers and service providers. 4.

Specifications for priority action (c) The definition of minimum requirements, for road safety related ‘universal traffic information’ provided, where possible, free of charge to all users, as well as their minimum content, based on: — the identification and use of a standardised list of safety related traffic events (‘universal traffic messages’) which should be communicated to ITS users free of charge, — The compatibility and the integration of ‘universal traffic messages’ into ITS services for real-time traffic and multimodal travel information.

— Priority area II: Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services The specifications and standards for the continuity and interoperability of traffic and freight management services, in particular on the TEN-T network, shall include the following: 1.

Specifications for other actions

1.1. The definition of the necessary measures to develop an EU ITS Framework Architecture, addressing specifically ITS-related interoperability, continuity of services and multi-modality aspects, including for example multimodal interoperable ticketing, within which Member States and their competent authorities in cooperation with the private sector can develop their own ITS architecture for mobility at national, regional or local level. 1.2. The definition of the minimum necessary requirements for the continuity of ITS services, in particular for crossborder services, for the management of passenger transport across different modes of transport, based on: — the facilitation of the electronic exchange for traffic data and information across borders, and where appro priate, regions, or between urban and inter-urban areas between the relevant traffic information/control centres and different stakeholders, — the use of standardised information flows or traffic interfaces between the relevant traffic information/control centres and different stakeholders. 1.3. The definition of the minimum necessary requirements for the continuity of ITS services for the management of freight along transport corridors and across different modes of transport, based on: — the facilitation of the electronic exchange for traffic data and information across borders, and where appro priate, regions, or between urban and inter-urban areas between the relevant traffic information/control centres and different stakeholders, — the use of standardised information flows or traffic interfaces between the relevant traffic information/control centres and different stakeholders.

6.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

1.4. The definition of the necessary measures in the realisation of ITS applications (notably the tracking and tracing of freight along its journey and across modes of transport) for freight transport logistics (eFreight), based on: — the availability of relevant ITS technologies to and their use by ITS application developers, — the integration of positioning results in the traffic management tools and centres. 1.5. The definition of the necessary interfaces to ensure interoperability and compatibility between the urban ITS architecture and the European ITS architecture based on: — the availability of public transport, travel planning, transport demand, traffic data and parking data to urban control centres and service providers, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between the different urban control centres and service providers for public or private transport and through all possible modes of transport, — the integration of all relevant data and information in a single architecture.

— Priority area III: ITS road safety and security applications The specifications and standards for ITS road safety and security applications shall include the following: 1.

Specifications for priority action (d) The definition of the necessary measures for the harmonised provision of an interoperable EU-wide eCall, including: — the availability of the required in-vehicle ITS data to be exchanged, — the availability of the necessary equipment in the emergency call response centres receiving the data emitted from the vehicles, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between the vehicles and the emergency call response centres.

Specifications for priority action (e) The definition of the necessary measures to provide ITS based information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles, in particular in service and rest areas on roads, based on: — the availability of the road parking information to users, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between road parking sites, centres and vehicles.

Specifications for priority action (f) The definition of the necessary measures to provide ITS based reservation services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles based on: — the availability of the road parking information to users, — the facilitation of the electronic data exchange between road parking sites, centres and vehicles, — the integration of relevant ITS technologies in both vehicles and road parking facilities to update the information on available parking space for reservation purposes.

L 207/11

L 207/12

Official Journal of the European Union

Specifications for other actions

4.1. The definition of the necessary measures to support the safety of road users with respect to their on-board Human-Machine-Interface and the use of nomadic devices to support the driving task and/or the transport operation, as well as the security of the in-vehicle communications. 4.2. The definition of the necessary measures to improve the safety and comfort of vulnerable road users for all relevant ITS applications. 4.3. The definition of necessary measures to integrate advanced driver support information systems into vehicles and road infrastructure which fall outside the scope of Directives 2007/46/EC, 2002/24/EC and 2003/37/EC. — Priority area IV: Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure The specifications and standards for linking vehicles with the transport infrastructure shall include the following: 1.

Specifications for other actions

1.1. The definition of necessary measures to integrate different ITS applications on an open in-vehicle platform, based on: — the identification of functional requirements of existing or planned ITS applications, — the definition of an open-system architecture which defines the functionalities and interfaces necessary for the interoperability/interconnection with infrastructure systems and facilities, — the integration of future new or upgraded ITS applications in a ‘plug and play’ manner into an open invehicle platform, — the use of a standardisation process for the adoption of the architecture, and the open in-vehicle specifi cations. 1.2. The definition of necessary measures to further progress the development and implementation of cooperative (vehicle-vehicle, vehicle-infrastructure, infrastructure-infrastructure) systems, based on: — the facilitation of the exchange of data or information between vehicles, infrastructures and between vehicle and infrastructure, — the availability of the relevant data or information to be exchanged to the respective vehicle or road infra structure parties, — the use of a standardised message format for the exchange of data or information between the vehicle and the infrastructure, — the definition of a communication infrastructure for data or information exchange between vehicles, infra structures and between vehicle and infrastructure, — the use of standardisation processes to adopt the respective architectures.

6.8.2010

Official Journal of the European Union

ANNEX II PRINCIPLES FOR SPECIFICATIONS AND DEPLOYMENT OF ITS (as referred to in Articles 5, 6 and 8) The adoption of specifications, the issuing of mandates for standards and the selection and deployment of ITS appli cations and services shall be based upon an evaluation of needs involving all relevant stakeholders, and shall comply with the following principles. These measures shall: (a) Be effective – make a tangible contribution towards solving the key challenges affecting road transportation in Europe (e.g. reducing congestion, lowering of emissions, improving energy efficiency, attaining higher levels of safety and security including vulnerable road users); (b) Be cost-efficient – optimise the ratio of costs in relation to output with regard to meeting objectives; (c) Be proportionate – provide, where appropriate, for different levels of achievable service quality and deployment, taking into account the local, regional, national and European specificities; (d) Support continuity of services – ensure seamless services across the Union, in particular on the trans-European network, and where possible at its external borders, when ITS services are deployed. Continuity of services should be ensured at a level adapted to the characteristics of the transport networks linking countries with countries, and where appropriate, regions with regions and cities with rural areas; (e) Deliver interoperability – ensure that systems and the underlying business processes have the capacity to exchange data and to share information and knowledge to enable effective ITS service delivery; (f) Support backward compatibility – ensure, where appropriate, the capability for ITS systems to work with existing systems that share a common purpose, without hindering the development of new technologies; (g) Respect existing national infrastructure and network characteristics – take into account the inherent differences in the transport network characteristics, in particular in the sizes of the traffic volumes and in road weather conditions; (h) Promote equality of access – do not impede or discriminate against access to ITS applications and services by vulnerable road users; (i) Support maturity – demonstrate, after appropriate risk assessment, the robustness of innovative ITS systems, through a sufficient level of technical development and operational exploitation; (j) Deliver quality of timing and positioning – use of satellite-based infrastructures, or any technology providing equivalent levels of precision for the purposes of ITS applications and services that require global, continuous, accurate and guaranteed timing and positioning services; (k) Facilitate inter-modality – take into account the coordination of various modes of transport, where appropriate, when deploying ITS; (l) Respect coherence – take into account existing Union rules, policies and activities which are relevant in the field of ITS, in particular in the field of standardisation.

L 207/13

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels,16.12.2008 COM(2008) 886 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe

INTRODUCTION The renewed Lisbon agenda on growth and jobs1 aims at delivering stronger, lasting growth and creating more and better jobs. Furthermore, the mid-term review of the 2001 White Paper2 stresses the key role of innovation in ensuring sustainable, efficient and competitive mobility in Europe. Against this background several major challenges have to be overcome for Europe’s transport system to play its full role in satisfying the mobility needs of the European economy and society: – Road traffic congestion is estimated to affect 10 % of the road network, and yearly costs amount to 0.9-1.5 % of the EU GDP.3 – Road transport accounts for 72 % of all transport-related CO2 emissions, which increased by 32 % (1990-2005).4 – Whilst road fatalities are in regression (-24 % since 2000 in EU27) their number (42 953 fatalities in 2006) is still 6 000 above the intended target of a 50 % reduction in fatalities in the period 2001-2010.5 These challenges are even more pressing with forecasted growth rates of 50 % for freight transport and 35 % for passenger transport in the period from 2000 to 2020.6 The main policy objectives arising from these challenges are for transport and travel to become: • cleaner, • more efficient, including energy efficient7, • safer and more secure. It is however clear, that conventional approaches such as the development of new infrastructure, will not give the necessary results on the timescales required by the magnitude of these challenges. Innovative solutions are clearly needed if we are to

1 2 3

4 5 6 7

COM (2005) 24 COM(2006) 314 CEMT/ITF(2007): Congestion, a Global Challenge: The Extent of and Outlook for Congestion in Inland, Maritime and Air Transport DG TREN(2008): Energy and Transport in Figures 2007/08 Cf. footnote 4 Cf. footnote 2 COM(2006) 545

achieve the rapid progress demanded by the urgency of the problems at hand. It is high time for Intelligent Transport Systems to play their due role in enabling tangible results to emerge. 2.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS “Intelligent Transport Systems” mean applying Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to transport. These applications are being developed for different transport modes and for interaction between them (including interchange hubs). In air transport, SESAR8 will be the framework for the implementation of a new generation of air traffic management. Inland waterways are introducing River Information Services (RIS) to manage waterway utilisation and the transport of freight. The railway network is gradually introducing the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and Telematics Applications for Freight (TAF-TSI). Shipping has introduced SafeSeaNet and Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information Systems (VTMIS) and is progressing towards an Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Long-Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT). Examples of Intelligent Transport Systems applications in road transport include urban and motorway traffic management and control systems, electronic toll collection and route navigation. But until now there has been no similar coherent European framework for interconnection between road and the other transport modes.

SCOPE This Action Plan aims to accelerate and coordinate the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in road transport, including interfaces with other transport modes. The Action Plan outlines six priority areas for action. For each area a set of specific actions and a clear timetable are identified. Fulfilling them by setting a framework to define procedures and specification will call for the mobilisation of Member States and other stakeholders. Finally, this Action Plan will help to combine the resources and instruments available to deliver a substantial added value for the European Union.

WHY A EUROPEAN APPROACH FOR ITS? ITS can create clear benefits in terms of transport efficiency, sustainability, safety and security, whilst contributing to the EU Internal Market and competitiveness objectives. In Europe, there have been a number of activities in this domain since the 1980s. These activities have traditionally focused, albeit often in an uncoordinated and fragmented manner, on specific areas such as clean and energy-efficient transport,

SESAR: Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research

road congestion, traffic management, road safety, security of commercial transport operations or urban mobility. Despite these developments, some issues need to be addressed from a European perspective to avoid the emergence of a patchwork of ITS applications and services: geographical continuity, interoperability of services and systems and standardisation. They should facilitate pan-European applications, secure accurate and reliable realtime data and an adequate coverage of all travelling modes. 4.1.

Greening of transport ITS applications have an essential role to play in the greening of transport9. Differentiated charging of vehicles by Electronic Toll Collection systems for circulating on certain routes is a way to influence traffic demand. ITS applications for journey planning, dynamic in-vehicle navigation and ecodriving support also contribute to congestion relief, to greener mobility and to less energy consumption. The “Green transport corridors”10 are an EU initiative to promote the concept of integrated freight transport, with transport modes complementing each other to enable more environmentally friendly alternatives for long-distance transport between logistics hubs. Reliance on advanced ITS technology is essential for achieving this goal.

4.2.

Improving transport efficiency Production and distribution of goods rely on efficient and cost-effective multi-modal logistic chains to organise their transport across the EU and beyond, especially when just-in-time requirements are at stake. ITS tools constitute a core enabler for the management of such logistic chains, notably in maintaining a paperless information trail in the management of the physical flow of goods (eFreight). Real-time Traffic and Travel Information (RTTI) services, more and more combined with satellite navigation, are now being offered from both public and private sources to facilitate mobility. In many parts of Europe ITS are already underpinning effective inter-urban and urban traffic management, fostering modal interchange at major hubs and transfer points. In the longer term, cooperative systems based on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicleto-infrastructure (V2I) and infrastructure-to-infrastructure (I2I) communication and exchange of information and, when appropriate, a GNSS11 positioning and time, will demonstrate their full potential.

9 10 11

COM(2008) 433 — Communication on Greening Transport COM(2007) 607 Global Navigation Satellite System

4.3.

Improving road safety and security Research and initial deployment have shown the great potential for improving road safety of Driver Assistance Systems such as Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), Lateral Support (lane departure warning and lane change assistant), Collision Warning and Emergency Braking Systems and other applications such as eCall (emergency call), driver hypo-vigilance systems, “speed alert” and “alcohol-lock”. ESC and eCall alone12 could save up to 6 500 lives per year in the EU if fully deployed. Better use should be made of the newest active safety systems and advanced driver assistance systems with proven benefits in terms of in-vehicle safety for the vehicle occupants and other road users (including vulnerable road users). The European Statement of Principles on the Human Machine Interface (HMI)13 should be extended to allow for the proliferation of nomadic devices. Navigation and tracking and tracing systems can help in providing remote in-route monitoring of vehicles and cargo, e.g. for the transport of dangerous goods or living animals. They can guide truck drivers to secure parking areas, help to comply with existing regulations on driving times and rest periods, and should support a new generation of the digital tachograph.

4.4.

The EU added value in ITS deployment The potential of ITS can only be realised if its deployment in Europe is transformed from the limited and fragmented implementation that is observed today into an EUwide one. In this respect, the removal of existing barriers to ITS deployment will be pivotal. The EU has a clear role to play in creating the right framework conditions for accelerated and coordinated deployment of ITS: the policy priorities, the choice of generic ITS components to be shared or re-used, and agreement on a clear timetable. Common European action can directly contribute to: • addressing the complexity of ITS deployment, with the large number of stakeholders involved and the need to ensure synchronisation both geographically and between the various partners • supporting the market penetration of advanced mobility services for the citizens, whilst promoting public transport alternatives to private car use • enabling the generation of scale-effects for a more cost-effective, faster and less risky deployment of ITS • accelerating the current pace of ITS deployment in road transport, and assuring the continuity of services throughout the Community

12 13

COM(2007) 541 C(2008)1742

• enhancing the leading role of the European ITS industry in worldwide markets by fostering the supply of innovative products and services to vehicle manufacturers, transport operators, logistics providers and users To achieve these goals, the EU can make use of several instruments: financial support, standardisation initiatives, legislative and non-legislative measures. 5.

CONSULTATIONS This Action Plan was prepared on the basis of input provided by wide consultation of stakeholders. The input was collected via a fourfold approach: (i) interviews with high-level stakeholders from the private and public sector; (ii) workshops; (iii) an internet questionnaire; (iv) targeted discussions in existing stakeholder forums. The interviews identified some principal needs. ITS deployment should be policy-led and responsibilities need to be clearly identified including the role for public-private cooperation. For stakeholder coordination, a high-level cross-sector group is necessary. Most consulted stakeholders think that the European Union should take more responsibility for further deployment of ITS. Traffic management, congestion relief on freight corridors and in cities, promotion of co-modality, in-vehicle safety systems, real time traffic and travel information and an open in-vehicle platform to integrate applications were among the priority issues identified.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR ACTION AND RELATED MEASURES The six priority areas suggested build on input from public and private stakeholders and assume that ITS applications to be deployed in the short-to-medium term should be mature, sufficiently interoperable, and able to create a catalytic effect across Europe. The Action Plan draws on a series of ongoing European Commission initiatives such as the Action Plan on Freight Transport Logistics14, the Action Plan on Urban Mobility15, Galileo deployment16, the Greening Transport Package17, the i2010 initiative on Intelligent Cars18, eSafety19, the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development20, eCall21, European Technology Platforms22 and their strategic research agendas, CARS 2123.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

COM(2007) 607 To be adopted in December 2008 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/galileo COM(2008) 433 COM(2007) 541 www.esafetysupport.org http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7 www.esafetysupport.org/en/ecall_toolbox http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms COM(2007)22

The activities described here do not repeat or duplicate existing work but rather complement it, maximising synergies and focussing on outstanding priority issues in a concerted manner. 6.1.

Action Area 1: Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data Many state-of-the-art ITS applications rely on an accurate knowledge of both the characteristics of the road network and the traffic regulations applicable (e.g. oneway streets and speed limits). Whilst in the past the bulk of this knowledge was provided by authorities, there is a trend towards the utilisation of commercial sources. Where road safety is at stake it is essential that this information is validated and made available to all players on a fair and equitable basis, in view of ensuring a safe and orderly management of traffic. This applies, in particular, to digital mapping, including its inherent processes for data collection, validation and timely updating. Similar considerations apply to the provision of (real-time) traffic and travel information services. Specific issues include the notion of “universal traffic messages”, i.e. the type of messages to be provided free of charge to all road users as a public information service, the consistency of the information between the various sources, and the need to comply with prescriptions imposed by network management operations. The following actions are proposed:

1.1

Action

Target date

Definition of procedures for the provision of EU-wide realtime traffic and travel information services, addressing notably the following aspects:

2010

– provision of traffic information services by the private sector – provision of traffic regulation data by the transport authorities – guaranteed access by public authorities to safety-related information collected by private companies – guaranteed access by private companies to relevant public data 1.2

Optimisation of the collection and provision of road data and traffic circulation plans, traffic regulations and recommended routes (in particular for heavy goods vehicles)

2012

6.2.

Action

Target date

1.4

Definition of specifications for data and procedures for the free provision of minimum universal traffic information services (including definition of the repository of messages to be provided)

2012

1.5

Promotion of the development of national multimodal doorto-door journey planners, taking due account of public transport alternatives, and their interconnection across Europe

2009 to 2012

Action Area 2: Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services on European transport corridors and in conurbations The need to accommodate rising traffic volumes, notably on the major European transport corridors and in conurbations, while promoting environmental sustainability and energy efficiency, calls for innovative transport and traffic management solutions. In this respect, seamless and dynamic traffic and transport management are beneficial for long-distance and urban freight transport and at the same time improve co-modality. ITS technologies are essential for the introduction of eFreight24, whereby “en route” information on the location and condition of transported goods (especially dangerous goods and live animals) is made available on-line in a secure way. This concept can be extended to encompass other supply-chain activities such as the exchange of content-related data for regulatory or commercial purposes, using innovative technologies such as radio frequency identification (RFID)25 and building on applications of the EGNOS/Galileo satellite positioning system. In the future this may lead to a concept of “Intelligent Cargo”, meaning that goods become self-, context- and location-aware as well as connected to a wide range of information services. Charging vehicles to use certain routes or areas is increasingly based on a variety of parameters such as vehicle dimensions, emission levels, distance travelled or time of day. ITS solutions making use of satellite positioning and mobile communications offer new opportunities for implementing such types of infrastructure access and charging. The following actions are proposed:

24 25

COM(2007) 607: Communication from the Commission — Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan COM(2007) 96

6.3.

Action

Target Date

2.1

Definition of a set of common procedures and specifications to ensure the continuity of ITS services for passenger and freight in transport corridors and in urban/interurban regions. This work should include benchmarking and standardisation on door-to-door information flows, interfaces, traffic management and travel planning, and, in particular, event and emergency planning

2011

2.2

Identification of ITS services to be deployed in support of freight transport (eFreight) and development of appropriate measures to progress from concept to realisation. Particular attention will be given to applications for goods tracking and tracing using state-of-the-art technologies such as RFID and EGNOS/Galileo-based location devices

2010

2.3

Support for the wider deployment of an updated multimodal European ITS Framework architecture for intelligent transport systems and definition of an ITS framework architecture for urban transport mobility, including an integrated approach for travel planning, transport demand, traffic management, emergency management, road pricing, and the use of parking and public transport facilities

2010

2.4

Implementation of the interoperability of electronic road 2012/2014 toll systems26

Action Area 3: Road safety and security ITS-based road safety and security applications have proved their effectiveness, but the overall benefit for society depends on the scale of their deployment. Issues that require additional attention include designing a safe Human Machine Interface (HMI) (using the work done on the “European Statement of Principles”), integrating nomadic devices27 and ensuring the safety of vulnerable road users (such as the elderly). Efforts to promote best practices in these areas are therefore crucial to address these issues. Transport systems may also be under security threats. Transport security, especially the need to protect travellers and transport workers and to secure transport facilities

26 27

Directive 2004/52/EC Nomadic devices are pieces of communication and information equipment that can be brought inside the vehicle by the driver to be used while driving: mobile phone, navigation system, pocket PC, etc.

and assets, must be taken into account without jeopardising efficient and effective transport operations. The following actions are proposed:

6.4.

Action

Target Date

3.1

Promotion of deployment of advanced driver assistance systems and safety and security-related ITS systems, including their installation in new vehicles (via type approval) and, if relevant, their retrofitting in used ones

2009 to 2014

3.2

Support the Implementation Platform for the harmonised introduction of pan-European eCall28, including awareness campaigns, upgrading Public Service Access Points' infrastructures and an assessment of the need for regulation.

2009

3.3

Development of a regulatory framework on a safe on-board Human-Machine-Interface and the integration of nomadic devices, building on the European Statement of Principle29 on safe and efficient in-vehicle information and communication systems

2010

3.4

Development of appropriate measures including best practice guidelines concerning the impact of ITS applications and services on the safety and comfort of vulnerable road users

2014

3.5

Development of appropriate measures including best practice guidelines on secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles and on telematics-controlled parking and reservation systems

2010

Action Area 4: Integration of the vehicle into the transport infrastructure The use of ITS components or systems is stipulated in several existing or planned legal acts and voluntary agreements applicable to commercial or private vehicles. Examples include the provisions on the transport of dangerous goods and live animals, digital tachograph30, electronic toll collection and eCall. So far most of these acts and agreements have evolved independently of each other, so there has been little synergy even when needs are the same.

28 29 30

COM(2005) 431, COM(2003) 542 C(2006) 7125 Regulation (EC) 2135/98

A streamlining and integration of these applications within a coherent, open-system architecture could yield better efficiency and usability, reduced costs and enhanced extensibility, enabling a “plug and play” integration of future new or upgraded applications such as those in nomadic devices and those utilising GNSS services for advanced positioning and timing. This open system architecture would be embodied in an open in-vehicle platform, guaranteeing interoperability/interconnection with infrastructure systems and facilities. With this modular approach, additional functionalities could be integrated later for in-vehicle safety and safe HMI, personal mobility, logistics support and access to multimodal information and possibly electronic vehicle identification. This platform should be introduced in commercial vehicles first. Positive feedback from these applications would help speed up the uptake of integrated ITS applications in private vehicles, therefore stimulating a Europe-wide market for original and after-market in-vehicle products and services. The development of cooperative systems, based on an exchange of information and communication between vehicles and with the road infrastructure, is also progressing rapidly, and needs to be further promoted. The following actions are proposed:

6.5.

Action

Target Date

4.1

Adoption of an open in-vehicle platform architecture for the provision of ITS services and applications, including standard interfaces. The outcome of this activity would then be submitted to the relevant standardisation bodies.

2011

4.2

Development and evaluation of cooperative systems in view of the definition of a harmonised approach; assessment of deployment strategies, including investments in intelligent infrastructure

2010-2013

4.3

Definition of specifications for infrastructure-to- 2010 (I2I) infrastructure (I2I), vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and 2011 (V2I) vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication in co-operative 2013 systems (V2V)

4.4

Definition of a mandate for the European Standardisation Organisations to develop harmonised standards for ITS implementation, in particular regarding cooperative systems.

2009-2014

Action Area 5: Data security and protection, and liability issues The handling of data (notably personal and financial data) in ITS applications raises a number of issues, as citizens’ data protection rights are at stake. At the same time,

data integrity, confidentiality and availability must be ensured for all parties involved, especially citizens. Finally, the use of ITS applications creates additional requirements in terms of liability. These issues can be a major barrier to wide market penetration of some ITS services if citizens’ rights are not shown to be fully protected. The following actions are proposed:

6.6.

Action

Target Date

5.1

Assess the security and personal data protection aspects related to the handling of data in ITS applications and services and propose measures in full compliance with Community legislation.

2011

5.2

Address the liability issues pertaining to the use of ITS applications and notably in-vehicle safety systems

2011

Action Area 6: European ITS cooperation and coordination Coordinated deployment of ITS in the EU calls for intensive and effective cooperation between all parties involved at European level, ideally leading to rapprochement on deployment requirements, better synchronisation of deployment activities and avoidance of national and proprietary silo solutions that constitute barriers to European integration. Dissemination of the best available knowledge as to the costs and benefits of ITS projects from a full life-cycle perspective and feedback on relevant experience are needed to support informed investment decisions by public authorities across Europe. To make EU-wide deployment a reality, agreements on common assessment methods and uniform tools for decision support are therefore crucial. Such coordinated deployment of ITS throughout Europe also requires greater involvement of cities and regional authorities, notably at urban and at inter-urban level. Guidance and technical support should be provided to facilitate and underpin consensus building and decision-making processes. Finally, the implementation of the measures in this Action Plan will call for an adequate governance structure. Member States should aim at reaching agreement on a common ITS agenda and on methods to proceed from plans to coordinated implementation, for example by way of concerted investments or harmonisation initiatives.

The following actions are proposed:

Action

Target Date

6.1

Proposal for a legal framework for European coordination on the Europe-wide deployment of ITS

2008

6.2

Development of a decision-support toolkit for investment decisions in ITS applications and services. This should include a quantified evaluation of the economic, social, financial and operational impact and cover aspects such as user acceptance, life-cycle cost/benefit as well as the identification and evaluation of best practice for facilities procurement and deployment

2011

6.3

Development of guidelines for the public funding from both EU (e.g. TEN-T and Structural Funds) and national sources of ITS facilities and services based on an assessment of their economic, social and operational value

2010

6.4

Set-up of a specific ITS collaboration platform between Member States and regional/local governments to promote ITS initiatives in the area of urban mobility

2010

LOOKING AHEAD This Action Plan proposes an approach for a coherent and faster deployment of ITS across Europe, building on policy objectives. The priority areas of action and the enabling measures outlined above are designed to fulfil this goal. By integrating and complementing the various activities supported in the past at EU and national level, the approach will fully benefit from ongoing work and successful deployment of applications and services that have emerged. Such a blend will provide the best framework for a significant contribution of ITS to the achievement of more sustainable mobility in Europe. While serving the short-to-medium term perspective in its effort to foster ITS deployment in the EU, this Action Plan aims at building a long-term vision clearly defining the role of ITS in tomorrow’s transport system in Europe. The European Commission will report on the progress in the implementation of this Action Plan in 2012. This report will also review and, if necessary, extend the priority areas as well as the scope of the actions.

This Communication is accompanied by a proposal for a Directive on a framework for the coordination of the deployment of ITS.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 21.8.2009 COM(2009) 434 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS ‘eCall: Time for Deployment’

INTRODUCTION

Road fatalities in the EU-27 have fallen by more than 27 % since 2001, when the Commission published its White Paper on European Transport Policy.1 The European Road Safety Action Programme2 and the Intelligent Car Initiative3 have had a significant impact on this positive development, and are expected to continue to yield further benefits towards the goal of reducing fatalities. However, with around 39 000 deaths and more than 1.7 million injured in 2008 on European roads, further action is needed. The pan-European in-vehicle emergency call, ‘eCall’, is estimated to have the potential to save up to 2 500 fatalities annually in EU-27 when fully deployed, to reduce the severity of injuries, bring significant savings to society in healthcare and other costs and reduce human suffering.4 To help deploy the pan-European eCall, initially aimed for full-scale roll out in 2009, the Commission has already taken several steps. It supported a working group comprising all stakeholders, which agreed on the definition of an interoperable eCall service which will work across borders in Europe, and invited all stakeholders, including the Member States and industry, to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which commits them to work together towards implementing eCall. The Commission also adopted two communications defining an implementation plan and recommending action by stakeholders.5 Furthermore, the Commission adopted in December 2008 the ITS Action Plan6, in which support to eCall deployment is one of the actions, and at the same time an ITS Directive7 proposal, which provides for a legal instrument (i.e. a regulatory committee) to impose measures to the Member States, notably for the ‘harmonised introduction of pan-European eCall’. eCall enjoys widespread support from all stakeholders, including the European Parliament, the Council, the Member States and the general public.

1 2

4 5 6 7

COM(2001) 370 – ‘White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’. COM(2003) 311 – ‘European Road Safety Action Programme — Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility’. COM(2006) 59 – Intelligent Car Initiative - ‘Raising Awareness of ICT for Smarter, Safer and Cleaner Vehicles’. COM(2007) 541 – ‘Towards Europe-wide Safer, Cleaner and Efficient Mobility: The First Intelligent Car Report’. See studies on www.esafetysupport.info/en/ecall_toolbox/related_studies/. COM(2005)431 – ‘Bringing eCall to the citizens’. COM(2006) 723 – ‘Bringing eCall back on track’. COM (2008) 886 – ‘Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe’ COM (2008) 887 – Proposal for a ‘Directive laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes’

• The European Parliament has on several occasions pledged its full support to implementing eCall, and called on the Commission and the Member States to take all the necessary steps to deploy it in a harmonised way throughout Europe8. • The Council of the European Union considered it as a priority to define the measures needed to promote the harmonised introduction of an interoperable EU-wide eCall on the basis of co-operation and appropriate standardisation9. • Most of Member States have signed the eCall MoU and support eCall implementation. • More than eighty public and private organisations have also signed the MoU, including representatives of all stakeholders in the value chain. More than 70 % of citizens responding to a Eurobarometer survey in Europe said they would like to have eCall installed in their next car.10 Progress has, however, been too slow and the roll out of the pan-European eCall is severely delayed. The voluntary approach taken in previous communications and the Commission’s efforts to standardise eCall and work with all stakeholders has not been sufficient. Further measures are urgently needed. This Communication aims to inform the EU Institutions on the progress achieved, and proposes new measures to begin actually deploying the eCall service in Europe. The measures, directed to the stakeholders and the European Commission itself, include the option of setting up a regulatory framework for deploying eCall. These measures will make the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call service a reality, and lead to eCall devices being installed in new type-approved vehicles in Europe. 2.

THE PAN-EUROPEAN IN-VEHICLE EMERGENCY CALL: HOW IT WORKS

Over 1.2 million accidents require medical help in Europe every year, and many more need other types of assistance. After an accident, the occupants in the vehicle may be in shock, not know their location, be unable to communicate or to use a mobile phone. In all these cases, wherever they are in Europe, eCall makes the difference: it can drastically cut the emergency response times, save lives and reduce the severity of injuries. When fully implemented in Europe, the socio-economic benefits of eCall will be huge.4 eCall is a pan-European service that will operate in all European Member States and states associated to the initiative. It will be available in all vehicles, irrespective of brand, country and actual location of the vehicle. eCall is the only service providing European-wide coverage: no special agreements or additional devices will be needed, eCall will work at your holiday destination and during your business trip as well as at home.

EP Resolutions A6-0072/2006 of 27 April 2006, A6-0169/2008 of 6/5/2008, 2008/2216(INI) of 20/1/2009. Council conclusions on the EC Communication ‘Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe’ of 31/03/2009. Eurobarometer 267 on the Use of Intelligent Systems in Vehicles.

Figure 1. eCall — Operational Principles When a serious accident occurs, in-vehicle sensors will automatically trigger an eCall. When activated, the in-vehicle system establishes a 112-voice connection and at the same time an emergency message, the minimum set of data (MSD) including key information about the accident, such as time, location, driving direction (resulting from accurate satellite-based data such as EGNOS11 and, from 2013 on, Galileo12) and vehicle description is sent with the voice call. The eCall can also be activated manually. The mobile network operator (MNO) identifies that the 112 call is an eCall from the ‘eCall flag’ inserted by the vehicle’s communication module. The MNO handles the eCall like any other 112 call and routes the call to the most appropriate emergency response centre — Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) — 13 as defined by the public authorities. The PSAP operator will receive both the voice call and the MSD. The information provided by the MSD will be decoded and displayed in the PSAP operator screen. The location and driving direction of the vehicle can be shown in a Geographic Information System. At the same time, the operator will be able to hear what is happening in the vehicle and talk with the occupants of the vehicle if possible. This will help the operator ascertain which emergency services are needed at the accident scene (ambulance, firemen, police) and to rapidly dispatch the alert and all relevant information to the right service. Furthermore, the PSAP operator will be able to immediately inform the road/traffic management centres that an incident has occurred in a specific location, facilitating rapid information to other road users and thus preventing secondary accidents, helping to clear the carriageway and therefore reducing congestion.

12 13

European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System. It increases the reliability and precision of GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) signals. European GNSS to come into operation from 2013 onwards PSAP: the physical location where emergency calls are first received under the responsibility of a public authority or a private organisation recognised by the government. The most appropriate PSAP is the one defined beforehand by authorities to cover emergency calls from a certain area or for emergency calls of a certain type (i.e. eCalls).

REPORT ON PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

3.1.

Progress of standardisation activities

The Commission requested the European Standardisation Organisations (ETSI14, CEN15) to draft open standards for the eCall operation, based on the recommendations agreed by the stakeholders.16 This work was accepted by the technical committees ETSI-MSG17 in collaboration with 3GPP18 for the standards related to the eCall transmission and CEN TC 278 WG 1519 for those related to the MSD structure and the operational requirements of the systems. The main milestones reached are: • CEN approval of the structure of eCall Minimum Set of Data (‘MSD’). The MSD includes important information to help send the services to the site of the incident and to speed up the response. The MSD enables the PSAP operator to respond to the eCall even without a voice exchange. • 3GPP approval of the eCall discriminator (‘eCall flag’), included in Release 8 of the technical specifications with which the mobile telecommunications systems must comply. This discriminator will differentiate between 112 calls from mobile terminals and eCalls, and also between manual and automatically triggered eCalls. This will permit Member States to design the eCall response infrastructure in the way that best fits their emergency response infrastructure (i.e. centralised/decentralised, same PSAP that receives the 112 calls, or different PSAP with a filtering function, public organisation or private one recognised by the public authority). Member States must inform mobile network operators operating in the country of the most appropriate PSAP to route eCalls. • ETSI-MSG and 3GPP approval of the core technical specifications defining the protocols for sending the MSD from the vehicle to the PSAP operator. The solution agreed is that the data will be transmitted via an in-band modem along with the voice call. It is an open standard and there will be no licence fees for using the in-band modem for the eCall service. • CEN approval of the core operating requirements for the Pan-European eCall service, defining the general functional and operational principles. The operating requirements are expected to be completed with high-level application protocols by autumn 2009. This set of standards will allow the deployment of a harmonised, reliable, interoperable, continuous eCall service in Europe, subject to their application by the stakeholders: vehicle and equipment manufacturers, mobile network operators and Member States. The updated list of standards may be consulted on: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/ecallstandards/

14 15 16 17 18 19

European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute. European Committee for Standardisation. eCall Driving Group: Final Recommendations for the introduction of the pan-European eCall. ETSI Mobile Service Group. 3rd Generation Partnership Project. Technical Committee 278 on Road transport and traffic telematics. Working Group 15 on eSafety.

3.2.

Progress on the commitment of major stakeholders

3.2.1.

Negotiations with the automotive industry

In 2008, the European Commission held negotiations with representatives of the automotive manufacturers associations (ACEA, JAMA and KAMA20) on the voluntary introduction of eCall in all new type-approved vehicles. The automotive manufacturers (ACEA being one of the first signatories of the eCall MoU) confirmed their commitment to eCall and pledged to offer eCall as an option for new typeapproved vehicles of certain categories21 three years after approval of all relevant standards (communication standards, MSD, operating requirements), provided that Member States update their PSAP infrastructures to handle eCalls. The automotive manufacturers also took the position that making eCall standard factory-equipped equipment in all vehicles would be possible only through regulation. Furthermore, the automotive industry advocates for the coexistence of the pan-European eCall and proprietary emergency call solutions developed by some manufacturers. The automotive industry is also interested in using the eCall platform to offer added-value services to boost their business. 3.2.2.

Member States

To date, fifteen Member States have signed the eCall MoU: Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden. Three other European countries have also signed: Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. Other Member States have expressed their support for the initiative and their willingness to sign the MoU in the short term: Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Luxembourg, Romania and Poland. The reasons given by other Member States for not having signed up to the eCall deployment vary but essentially relate to the cost of the operation. Some Member States are unwilling to invest in upgrading their PSAPs to receive eCalls as this may increase the tax burden on all citizens, even those who do not have a car. However, eCall would benefit all citizens, including the users of public transport and vulnerable road users. While it is true that upgrading PSAPs and rescue infrastructure will not be without cost, deploying eCall throughout a Member State, and consequently across the European Union, would mean significant economies of scale. Although some Member States are still hesitating, most are ready to go ahead and implement eCall. As the relevant core standards now exist,22 Member States should start implementing the eCall function in their emergency rescue infrastructure. As well as saving lives, it would

ACEA, JAMA, KAMA: European, Japan and Korean Automobile Manufacturers’ Association respectively. eCall will be introduced first in passenger cars and light commercial vehicles (categories M1 and N1) for which an appropriate triggering mechanism exists, and later in other vehicle categories. See http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/ecallstandards/

The automotive and telecommunications industry and service providers will benefit from new services based on the introduction of the eCall telematics platform in all vehicles. This is particularly valuable in times of crisis. Road operators will benefit from a more efficient incident management service due to immediate reporting of incidents provided by the eCall service. Emergency services will benefit from the vehicle description included in the MSD. This will inform them of the exact structure of the vehicle, considerably reducing the intervention time to extract trapped occupants and avoiding possible accidents (i.e. by knowing the exact position of the vehicle batteries or the pyrotechnic systems).24 Furthermore it is expected that after-market equipment will be developed to provide the eCall service in vehicle models already present on the market. These after-market systems should comply with the standard pan-European eCall operational requirements. 3.4.

Coexistence of pan-European eCall and proprietary eCall services

Proprietary in-vehicle emergency call services are offered in Europe and worldwide by different automobile branches and service providers (e.g., Volvo OnCall, GM OnStar, PSA, Fiat, BMW). They are typically bundled with other services, such as breakdown assistance, onboard mobile telephony, dynamic navigation, etc. Emergency calls are received by private call centres that transmit the calls and the accident data to PSAPs in an emergency. Each manufacturer needs to reach an agreement with PSAP authorities in every country in which they want to deploy the service, on a case-by-case basis. Although these services, introduced more than 10 years ago, have shown their usefulness and confirm the benefits that eCall can provide, their penetration remains low in Europe (less than 0.4 % of the vehicle fleet). The service is normally offered only in high-end cars and does not cover all countries in Europe. In Member States where there is an agreement to support proprietary eCall services with a similar quality of service as the pan-European eCall, the vehicle manufacturer would be free to choose the type of system supported (pan-European eCall or proprietary eCall service). For this purpose, CEN is developing standardised operational requirements for third party services providing eCall (TPS-eCall). In other Member States, vehicle manufacturers must implement the pan-European eCall system. If the buyer of a vehicle does not opt for the proprietary eCall solution, the automobile manufacturer must equip the vehicle with the pan-European eCall system. Regardless of the solution chosen by the vehicle manufacturer, an in-vehicle emergency call service, including voice link and provision of at least the eCall MSD, must be provided in a seamless way in all EU Member States. When eCall is fully deployed across Europe, the providers of proprietary eCall services can also migrate to using the pan-European eCall, i.e. in-vehicle emergency calls will call the 112 number while all other services provided stay intact.

See ADAC accident research study on rescue sheets. www.adac.de/rettungskarte

be an incentive for industry to install eCall systems on board vehicles and to achieve economies of scale through wider deployment. 3.2.3.

Mobile Network Operators

Mobile telecommunications operators need to handle eCalls in the same way as they handle 112 calls. They must activate the eCall indicator in their networks, so that they can identify eCalls and route them to the most appropriate PSAP defined by national governments. GSM Europe, the association representing European Mobile Network Operators, has established a task force to develop strategies to deploy eCall in Europe, contribute to standardisation and participate in the work of the European eCall Implementation Platform.23 3.2.4.

Emergency response services

Member States need to upgrade their emergency rescue service, the PSAP infrastructure to handle eCalls and the data contained in the MSD. PSAP representatives have been active in defining eCall specifications. The final definition of the service corresponds to the needs of the emergency services. For countries with state-of-the-art PSAP infrastructure capable of handling the location information of mobile calls to 112 (E112), this will represent a minimal investment. For countries with a less developed system, the design of eCall service including the eCall discriminator offers various options, such as setting up an intermediate platform. Nonetheless, upgrading the PSAP infrastructure is an essential investment for saving lives. 3.3.

eCall is an opportunity to deploy added-value services

eCall builds on technical components (satellite positioning, processing and communication capabilities) that also provide the basis for several in-vehicle applications, including those required by existing or planned regulation applicable to commercial or private vehicles, such as the digital tachograph, electronic toll collection or provisions on the transport of dangerous goods and live animals. A streamlining and integration of all these applications within a coherent, open-system architecture could yield better efficiency and usability, reduced costs and enhanced extensibility, enabling “plug and play” integration of future new or upgraded applications. Such modular approach will easily allow the low cost integration of functionalities and applications that address road safety, personal mobility, logistics support or access to multimodal information. The definition of an 'open in-vehicle platform' concept is part of the ITS Action Plan, and the introduction of eCall based on this concept would positively contribute to its momentum.

This Platform is the coordination body bringing together representatives of the relevant stakeholders associations and of the National Platforms. It aims to guide, coordinate and monitor the progress of the implementation of the eCall service across Europe to ensure a timely, effective and harmonised deployment of the eCall service in Europe. See http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/ecall_toolbox/ecall_implementation_platform/

RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1.

Need for further action

The initial target for eCall deployment was 2009. Progress has, however, been too slow and roll out severely delayed, despite the availability of standards and the willingness of a majority of stakeholders. A major problem in deploying eCall has been that simultaneous action by all stakeholders is needed, i.e. the automotive industry, mobile telecom operators, emergency services and Member States each have to implement part of the service. To find a solution to this deadlock, the Commission is considering three possible policy options: (1) not intervening and leaving the introduction to market forces; (2) supporting voluntary introduction by industry or (3) mandating introduction through regulatory measures. (1) Regarding the option of not intervening, the proprietary in-vehicle emergency call services have proved their benefit, but their market penetration is very slow, restricted mainly to high-end cars and only certain countries in Europe. Moreover the emergency response services will need to liaise with different proprietary services, adding complexity to the service. Clearly, with what is at stake (saving lives), this option is unacceptable. (2) The voluntary approach would lead to the introduction of the eCall service in Europe, but too slowly. The commitment of industry to offer eCall as an option in all vehicles of certain categories is a positive step forward, and would, with time, increase the penetration rate of the service, provided the emergency services are upgraded. However, by making eCall only an option there would not be the same economies of scale, which could increase its price, reduce demand and curb its penetration and consequently its benefits. (3) The regulatory approach would mean making eCall standard equipment installed in all new vehicles in Europe, starting with certain categories21 during a transition period, and would provide a framework for handling eCalls in telecommunications networks and PSAPs, based on existing regulations. This approach would make eCall available to all citizens in Europe, accelerate take-up and unlock the full potential of eCall to save lives and mitigate the severity of injuries. Furthermore it is expected that the certainty created by the regulatory approach will accelerate the introduction of eCall systems by automobile manufacturers, thus fostering the introduction of the service even before it becomes compulsory, and at the same time stimulating the telematics service market in Europe. 4.2.

Proposed action

The measures proposed below aim to make the pan-European eCall service a reality in Europe. Stakeholders should take the following steps:

(1)

The Commission, Member States and all other stakeholders will actively support the work of the European eCall Implementation Platform (EeIP)23 and its Task Forces, to ensure the timely issuing of all definitions, guidelines and good practise for effective and harmonised deployment of the eCall service in Europe.

(2)

The Commission, along with the Member States and other stakeholders, will launch coordinated awareness campaigns to increase understanding of and demand for the service.

(3)

The Member States, PSAP organisations, automotive and telecommunication industry, along with other stakeholders, will carry out pre-deployment pilots taking into account the standards being approved. The Commission may provide funding to support these pilots through the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP).

The final aim is to fully roll out the pan-European eCall service and make it standard equipment in all new type-approved vehicles in Europe. The Commission will monitor the effectiveness of the voluntary approach described above. If significant progress is not made by the end of 2009, both in the availability of the eCall device in vehicles, and the necessary investment in PSAP infrastructure, the Commission will plan to take the following regulatory measures in 2010: (1)

A Recommendation to the Member States targeting Mobile Network Operators on the transmission of eCall, including the MSD from the in-vehicle systems to the PSAPs. The guidelines would be based on the single European emergency number enhanced with location capabilities (E112)25 and the set of standards related to transmission of the eCall.

(2)

A proposal for a regulation under the vehicle type-approval legislation26 for the mandatory introduction of the in-vehicle part of the eCall service in new typeapproved vehicles in Europe starting with certain categories,21 based on the operating requirements approved by the European Standardisation Organisations.

(3)

The assessment of a potential regulatory measure for the necessary upgrading of the PSAP infrastructure required for proper receipt and handling of eCalls, in the framework of the proposed Directive on the deployment of ITS in Europe7. The resulting Regulation, that would require Member States to take the necessary action for eCall implementation, would be based on the recommendations of the European eCall Implementation Platform (EeIP).

CONCLUSIONS

eCall has been identified as one of the most efficient, low-cost intelligent transport systems for road safety that can be deployed in the short term. The technology is mature and the European Standardisation Organisations have issued the standards needed to ensure a reliable and interoperable operation of the eCall service Europe-wide. Citizens recognise its value and want an affordable eCall with their next vehicle. The European Parliament and most Member States have pledged full support to the eCall service. Stakeholders have joined forces in the European eCall Implementation Platform to ensure a harmonised and timely deployment of the service in Europe. It is time now to start deploying the systems in vehicles, communication mobile networks and emergency service infrastructures. In this Communication, the Commission proposes measures to accelerate the introduction of eCall as part of the equipment of all new vehicles in

Directive 2002/22/EC of 7 March 2002 ‘Universal Service Directive’ and Commission Recommendation 2003/558/EC of 25 July 2003 on the processing of caller location information in electronic communication networks for the purpose of location-enhanced emergency call services. Directive 2007/46/EC establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles.

Europe. Saving 2500 lives per year and reducing the suffering of thousands of families should not be delayed any further. Should the voluntary approach not meet the objective of introducing the eCall service in Europe, the Commission will consider introducing in 2010 new regulatory measures for making the eCall system standard in new type-approved vehicles in Europe, to bring down the cost of the systems and to ensure it is deployed in all European countries.

eCall Public consultation 2010 Results 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION • • •

Survey launched on 19/07/2010 and closed on 19/09/2010. In-house report. This is the quantitative analysis of the answers received to the public consultation. Qualitative analysis will follow.

2. COMPARAISON OF RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY, REPLYING : 2.1 By Category : • • •

As individual On behalf of the company/organisation On behalf of your public authority

308 128 14

68,44% 28,44% 3,11%

Grand Total

450

100%

Remark : Large representation of Individuals

2.2 By States : All European Member States replied to the survey, except Estonia (EE) and Cyprus (CY).: AT BE BG CZ DE DK UK ES FI FR EL HU IE

70 43 3 7 79 1 23 32 5 19 18 5 4

IT LV LT LU MT NL PL PT RO SK SI SE

50 2 1 4 1 19 10 5 1 1 6 7

1/9

Associated States : CH 2 NO 28

Other : GH (Ghana) IN (India)

1 1

Remark : DE, AT, IT, BE, NO are the most represented States.

3. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS

3.1.

I am aware of the eCall system and its functions

Answering :

n/a

Partly

Yes

Grand Total

• •

16 2

60 10

228 116

308 128

71 15,78%

357 79,33%

450

•

as individual on behalf of your company/organisation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

4 0,88%

18 4%

Remark : A huge majority of the respondents are aware of the eCall system.

2/9

3.2.

I find the eCall system useful

Answering : • as individual • on behalf of your company/orga nisation • on behalf of your public authority Grand Total

agree strongly 187 81

agree

disagree

86 40

7 2

273 60,67%

133 29,56%

10 2,22%

disagree strongly 13 1

14 3,11%

undecided 15 4

Grand Total 308 128

20 4,44%

450

Remark : A big majority of participants find the system useful.

3.3.

I would like to have my vehicle equipped with the eCall system

Answering : • • •

as individual on behalf of your company/organi sation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

agree strongly 161 64

agree

disagree

disagree strongly

undecided

Grand Total

99 50

4 3

22 2

22 9

308 128

230 51,11%

153 34,00%

8 1,78%

35 7,78%

450 1

24 5,33%

Remark : 85% would like to have their vehicle equipped with eCall.

3/9

3.4.

I would like the eCall system to work all over Europe and across all automotive brands

Answering : • • •

as individual on behalf of your company/organisation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

agree strongly 212 87

agree

disagree

59 31

5 1

305 67,78%

95 21,11%

7 1,56%

disagree strongly 21 2

23 5,11%

undecid ed 11 7

Grand Total 308 128

20 4,44%

450 1

Remark : 88% want a pan-European system working in all vehicles.

3.5.

The deployment of an interoperable EU-wide eCall can be achieved through private-led initiatives

Answering : • • •

as individual on behalf of your company/organi sation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

agree strongly 29 22

51 11,36%

undecided

79 32

disagree strongly 33 13

81 31

Grand Total 308 127

116 25,84%

114 25,39%

49 10,91%

119 26,50%

449 1

agree

disagree

86 29

Remark : There is no clear opinion whether eCall can be achieved through private-led initiatives.

4/9

3.6.

Since 20 EU Member States have signed the eCall Memorandum of Understanding (1) to promote the voluntary deployment of eCall, there is no need for legislative measures

(1) The eCall Memorandum of Understanding is an expression of commitment of the signatories to work for the implementation of eCall, but it is not a legally binding agreement. It has been signed by 20 Member States, 3 Associated States and more than 100 organisations.

Answering : • •

•

as individual on behalf of your company/orga nisation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

agree strongly 32 16

48 10,69%

agree

disagree

45 13

120 51

disagree strongly 53 26

60 13,36%

177 39,42%

81 18,04%

disagree totally 1 1

2 0,45%

57 20

Grand Total 308 127

81 18,04%

449 1

undecided

Remark : 57% advocate for legislative measures to implement eCall. 24% consider that there is no need for legislative measures.

3.7.

eCall should not be optional, but mandatory in all vehicles

Answering : • • •

as individual on behalf of your company/organisation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

agree strongly 111 43

agree

disagree

undecided

25 13

disagree strongly 39 9

34 17

Grand Total 308 127

99 45

159 35,41%

146 32,52%

39 8,69%

50 11,14%

55 12,25%

449 1

Remark : 68% consider that eCall should be mandatory in all vehicles. 19% disagree with this.

5/9

3.8.

eCall should be introduced in the following categories of vehicles? (you may tick more than one box)

Answering :

cars; motorcycles; light trucks; heavy duty trucks; buses

• •

cars; motorcycles; light trucks; heavy duty trucks

cars

none of them

193 81

cars; light trucks; heavy duty trucks; buses 34 12

11 7

8 5

20 4

Grand Total

281 62,58%

48 10,69%

19 4,21%

TOTAL CARS : TOTAL LIGHT TRUCKS : TOTAL HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS :

91,13% 84,48% 82,71%

•

3.9.

as individual on behalf of your company/organisatio n on behalf of your public authority

1 13 2,90%

TOTAL BUSES : TOTAL MOTORCYCLES :

25 5,57%

82,26% 73,17%

I would prefer that the voice call and data generated by the eCall system be handled by a private service provider rather than by a public emergency call centre (112 centre)

Answering :

n/a

agree

• •

4 1

•

as individual on behalf of your company/organis ation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

5 1,11%

disagree

29 7

agree strongly 12 21

undecided

99 33

disagree strongly 89 30

75 36

Grand Total 308 127

37 8,24%

34 7,57%

138 30,73%

124 27,62%

111 24,50%

449 1

6/9

Remark : 58% prefer eCall to be handled by public authorities, whereas 16% favours the private service provider.

3.10. How much would you, as vehicle owner, be willing to pay for having eCall in your next vehicle?

Answering :

less than 150 €

• •

212 79

between 150 to 300 € 89 45

299 67,04%

140 31,39%

•

as individual on behalf of your company/organisation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

more than 300 € 6 1

Grand Total 307 125 14

7 1,57%

446 1

Remark : The majority prefers a cheap solution.

3.11. If the price of all new vehicles goes up by ~ 200€ because it includes the eCall system, this would affect my choice when buying a new vehicle Answering :

n/a

No, it would not affect my choice.

• •

3 10

•

as individual on behalf of your company/or ganisation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

236 90

Yes, I would change vehicles less frequently or buy cheaper vehicle models. 69 24

15 3,36%

337 75,56%

94 21,08%

446 1

308 124

Remark : eCall would not affect the vehicle buyers' choice in the majority of the cases.

7/9

3.12. By providing the basic components for connecting the car to the telecommunications network, the in-vehicle eCall system could also be used to offer optional private or public telematic services, such as pay as your drive insurance schemes, dangerous goods tracking, dynamic navigation, breakdown calls, car localisation in case of theft. The availability of such services would provide me with more of an incentive to equip my next vehicle with eCall

Answering : • •

•

as individual on behalf of your company/org anisation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

agree strongly 85 52

agree

disagree

undecided

22 8

disagree strongly 30 5

41 16

Grand Total 308 127

130 46

140 31,18%

179 39,87%

34 7,57%

36 8,02%

60 13,36

449 100,00%

Remark : 71% consider that the eCall platform could be useful to provide other services.

8/9

3.13. The mandatory introduction of eCall will contribute to speed up the deployment of other telematics services in Europe

Answering : • • •

as individual on behalf of your company/organi sation on behalf of your public authority

Grand Total

agree strongly 89 47

agree

disagree

148 47

16 6

139 30,96

200 44,54

25 5,57

disagree strongly 15 6

21 4,68

undecided 40 21

Grand Total 308 127

64 14,25

449 100,00%

Remark : 74% consider that the mandatory introduction of eCall will kick-off the telematics market in Europe.

9/9

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

12th eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting "eCall Summit: Time for Deployment" Centre Albert Borschette. Room 0A Brussels, Belgium th 29 October 2009 • 10h00 – 16h30 Minutes 1. Welcome and Opening remarks The chair, Mr Juhani Jääskeläinen - European Commission, Head of Unit DG INFSO.G4 - welcomed the participants to the summit and explained the importance of eCall and that this eSafety Forum Plenary was dedicated to the deployment of eCall in Europe. Besides eCall, the important topic of the future of the eSafety Forum would also be addressed as the last item of the agenda. Mr Jääskeläinen clarified that eCall is a service for the citizens of Europe and not pushed for the sake of the Commission only. The emergency services of the Member States will benefit from knowing where an accident takes place and can provide adequate rescue services more quickly and thereby contribute to saving lives. The Commission supports the deployment of the pan-European eCall service in all vehicles in Europe but is not against private solutions which have been deployed to the market. The eCall summit would focus on three round tables discussions, chaired by different Directorate Generals since eCall is a truly joint initiative of the European Commission services: DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Transport and Energy and DG Information Society and Media. Following these welcoming remarks, Deputy Director General Antti Peltomaki, DG INFSO gave an introductory speech and there were videos with additional opening remarks from MEP's Dr Dieter-L. Koch, Vice-Chair of the Transport Committee and Ms Zita Gurmai, Vice Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. All of the speakers stressed the need to quickly move forward with the deployment of eCall. 2. Status of the eCall Initiative Mr Emilio Dávila from the European Commission, DG INFSO, gave an update on the current status of eCall deployment in Europe. Up until now consensus has been reached by the relevant stakeholders on the following issues: Page 1 of 8

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________ •

eCall is a pan-European service which operates in all Member States and Associated States. eCall service should be available in all vehicles, irrespective of brand, country and actual location of the vehicle

•

eCall is based on 112/E112, the single European Emergency number

•

eCall consists of an Audio/Voice Call together with a Minimum Set of Data (MSD)

•

The European Standardisation Organisations have been asked to provide a common open standard solution for establishing a voice call and the quasi-simultaneous transmission of the MSD to the PSAPs, as well as an eCall discriminator

•

The discriminator (eCall flag) shall be implemented to allow differentiation between mobile 112 calls and eCalls

•

Pan-European public eCall service may coexist with private services, provided they offer at least similar level of quality and that Member States agree on allowing their handling

•

eCall service shall comply with privacy and data protection recommendations provided by art. 29 WP

The last EC Communication "eCall: Time for deployment" has set up the final goal to fully roll out the panEuropean eCall service and make it standard in all new type-approved vehicles in Europe. Furthermore the Communication concludes the following: •

eCall has been identified as one of the most efficient, low-cost ITS services that can be deployed in the short term

•

The technology is mature and the standards are ready

•

Citizens recognize its value and want an affordable eCall with their next vehicle

•

The European Parliament and most Member States support the eCall service.

•

Stakeholders have joined forces in the European eCall Implementation Platform

•

It is time to start deploying the systems in vehicles, mobile networks and emergency service infrastructures

•

The Commission proposes measures to accelerate the introduction of the eCall service in all new vehicles in Europe

•

Should the voluntary approach not meet this objective, the Commission will consider introducing in 2010 regulatory measures

3. The European eCall Implementation Platform Ms Anu Laurell, co-chair of the European eCall Implementation Platform (EeIP), reported on the work done in the platform since it was set up in February 2009. The objective of the Platform is to guide, coordinate and monitor the progress of the implementation of the eCall service across Europe to ensure a timely, effective and harmonized deployment of the service. The Platform intends to do so by monitoring the progress in the Member States, exchanging best practices, sharing evidence, issuing guidelines and Page 2 of 8

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________ providing recommendations. Several task forces have been set up to progress on the implementation work and all eSafety Forum members are invited to participate. The next meeting of the eCall Implementation Platform is planned for February 2010. 4. Round Table 1: Implementation of the In-Vehicle Part Moderator: Mr Emilio León, DG Enterprise Panellists: Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA), Ansgar Pott (KAMA-Hundai), Tashiyika (JAMA), Lutz-Peter Reyer (Continental), Olivier Beaujard (Sierra-Wireless), Alexander Schelhase (Infineon), Frank Daems (NXP), Nikolai Leung (Qualcomm), Davide De Sanctis (Octo Telematics S.p.A), Theo Kamalski (TomTom International), Michael Schürdt (MEDION). Each panellist was given a few minutes to make introductory remarks to the panel discussion. Aftermarket equipment manufacturers explained they will be ready to produce aftermarket equipment to equip cars currently on the market. There can be also solutions providing part of the eCall functionalities, which could also produce benefits for the services. Octo Telematics explained they anticipate added value services on top of the eCall platform. This could contribute to a possible business case for eCall. N. Leung (Qualcomm) confirmed that the in-band modem technological solution proposed by Qualcomm and adopted by 3GPP and ETSI as solution for the transmission of the eCall MSD along with the voice call is an open standard, available for all and can be implemented in other platforms, not necessarily in a Qualcomm's one. Mr. Leung indicated that Qualcomm has licences on wireless communications, but will not add new licenses for the use of the in-band modem for eCall. Automotive suppliers explained that in the past years they have studied and designed affordable solutions to provide the eCall service in the vehicle, and that they are ready to start large scale pilots; that they see possibilities of adding additional services to the eCall platform as a contribution to a positive business case. The volume of the units to be produced is a key issue for having affordable prices; if it is introduced in all the vehicles the costs will be significantly reduced. Sierrawireless mentioned that they can offer the hardware for the whole eCall platform for 60€ to the manufacturers (additional 3-4€will be needed for upgradeability) Mr. Tashiyika (JAMA) mentioned that automotive manufacturers responsibility is to provide reliable, sustainable eCall systems. They are supporting the implementation of an eCall service, but need some lead time to implement it, including pilots for testing. Mr. Pott from KAMA summarized the importance of eCall: -

in case of emergency accidents

in case someone lost the orientation in an accident Page 3 of 8

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________ -

to inform the PSAPs of an accident and its location when not speaking the language of the country

It is of outmost importance that eCall works cross border EU wide. Mr. Reinhardt reflected on the position of ACEA. ACEA supports the EC objectives of reducing accidents but stresses that eCall is only one part of the solution. ACEA supports a pan-European eCall. However, the industry has launched private initiatives since a pan-European eCall service has not yet been rolled out despite all efforts. ACEA is concerned with the slow response from the Member States. eCall needs parallel commitment from all stakeholders. ACEA states that the lead time of industry has to be accepted. It is foreseen that eCall could be offered as a standard option three years after the specifications have been approved. A scattered approach would be regrettable. ACEA accepts the in-band modem standard proposed by ETSI, but it is afraid that standards could take another half year before finally approved and that the eCall Flag could take several years to implement. Incentives should be investigated. The cost of equipping the cars needs to be clarified, as well as the cost of retrofitting. Jan Malenstein stated that eCall establishes a voice connection through 112, so it will work even if the PSAPs are not fully upgraded, and that privacy may not be necessarily an issue. He also encouraged a closer discussion between the PSAPs and the industry. This was welcomed by ACEA. Switzerland's concern about how eCall would work in the mountain areas could be solved with the in-car system in combination with GPS. J.F. Gaillet (Ygomi) asked clarifications about IPR ruling within the in-band modem solution proposed by ETSI. Mr. Leung (Qualcomm) explained that Qualcomm will not add any license fee for the use of the inband modem for the eCall transmissions, nor in the vehicles neither in the PSAPs. Qualcomm holds some licenses within wireless communications (e.g., LTE, UMTS), but will not add additional licenses for the use of the in-band modem. The moderator thanked the speakers for their participation. Mr Jääskeläinen thanked the panellists and invited the participants to visit the demonstrations in the hall outside the conference room. 4. Round Table 2: Implementation of the Telecom part Moderator: Ms P. Michou, DG INFSO Panellists: Emilio Dávila (EC), Frederic Liljestrom (Telenor), Jaymeen Patel (Telefonica O2), Ulrich Dietz (VODAFONE), Alain Sultan (ETSI MSG), Bob Williams (CEN TC278WG15). Ms Michou (HoU INFSO-B3, Unit in charge of 112 implementation) gave a short introduction of the status of 112 implementation in Europe, and welcomed all the speakers of the panel.

Page 4 of 8

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________ E. Dávila explained how the EC has been working on the standardisation process. Based on the recommendations agreed in consensus by the stakeholders representatives within the eCall Driving Group, a report was sent to the standardisation organisations ETSI and CEN, which were asked to provide the necessary open standards for a pan-European service. The following set of standards has now been agreed;

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

List of Standards related to eCall eCall requirements for data transmission eCall Discriminator Table 10.5.135d eCall Data Transfer – General Description eCall Data Transfer - ANSI-C Reference Code eCall Data Transfer Conformance Testing eCall Data Transfer Characterisation Report eCall minimum set of data

Pan-European requirements

eCall

High Level Application Protocols

Operating

lead ETSI/3GPP ETSI/3GPP ETSI/3GPP ETSI/3GPP ETSI/3GPP ETSI/3GPP CEN

CEN CEN

Partner (ref) 3GPP TS 22.101 ETSI TS 122 101 3GPP TS 24.008 ETSI TS 124 008 3GPP TS 26.267 ETSI TS 126 267 3GPP TS 26.268 ETSI TS 126 268 3GPP TS 26.269 ETSI TS 126 269 3GPP TS 26.969 ETSI TS 126 969 CEN TS 15722

CEN WI 00278220 Draft EN 090316 CEN WI 00278243

Timing ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED ADOPTED Adopted as Technical Specifications. Being balloted as full standard Adopted as draft Finalised. Sent for Committee Comments and subsequently for ballot

The fact that no licence will be applied for the in-band modem for eCall was appreciated by the panellists. The mobile network operators play a central role in the deployment of eCall. EC is pleased that the GSM Association has signed the MoU and mobile network operators committed to support the eCall implementation. It was agreed that the costs of the European service should be keep to a minimum. There are solutions with dormant SIM cards. Commercial services can be built on top on the pan-European service, upgrading them the SIMs. GSM Europe welcomes the EC initiative on eCall, and supports the eCall service as defined by the ETSI standardisation. Telenor explained that the mobile operators are ready to implement eCall. The mobile operators stated that the eCall Flag could be implemented in 1-2 years. Mobile operators are committed to roll out an eCall pilot and work on a national level and collaborate with the stakeholders. This may include upgrading the mobile infrastructure in combination with the upgrading of the PSAPs. All stakeholders should act in parallel, for that the EeIP is a very valuable platform.

Page 5 of 8

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________ The standardisation experts confirmed that the main bulk of the work has already been done. ETSI just needs to complete a new request to include an additional end-to-end discriminator; regarding CEN some specifications are within Committee comments or balloting procedure. The experts confirmed that the standards are ready to start pre-deployment pilots by mid 2010. P. Michou closed the session and summarized that it seems like the mobile network operators are ready to go to a pre-deployment phase. The technical specifications and standards are very far advanced and it was reiterated that now it is time for pilots to deploy eCall, with all stakeholders working together in parallel. 4. Round Table 3: Implementation of the PSAPs' part Moderator: Mr Bosco, DG TREN Panelists: Mikko Jääskeläinen (FI), Jan Urbanek (CZ), Egil Bovim (NO), Jan Malenstein (NL), Harry Evers (DE, Lower Saxony), Dorin Dumitrescu (RO), Nicolas Leung (Qualcomm), John Watson (Airbiquity), Gary Machado(EENA), Rui Camolino (ASECAP). J. Jääskeläinen, EC, excused Mr Karamitsos and introduced Mr Bosco as the moderator of Round Table 3. M. Jääskeläinen (FI) opened the deliberations of the panel. The PSAP situation in Finland is good, as the centers are modern. All operators are collaborating under the same roof. A new pilot is foreseen to start soon, and Finland has decided to implement eCall. The Dutch police and the Ministry of Interior have been involved in eCall since the beginning. The PSAPs will be upgraded accordingly. There will be a national stakeholder meeting arranged within next weeks to discuss how to take eCall one step further. There is a willingness to launch a pilot. eCall is also important for incident management. Norway is running an implementation project on eCall. It is important to remember what the technology can do for the injuries of the patients. It is important with Cost/Benefit understanding in order to move ahead with eCall. In Romania a study has been launched to define what the cost will be and how to harmonise eCall according to the European approach. The study will be available soon. Romania is considering taking part in the European pilot project. Czech Republic stated that eCall is important and that they prefer to learn from experience, so the pilot will be important. Czech has 14 call centres with unified technology throughout the country. In 2008 a pilot project started to address the communication with the traffic management services, PSAPs and third parties. The Czech Republic organised already a pilot that worked well, and supported the eCall flag, as it

Page 6 of 8

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________ is necessary for the PSAPs to distinguish the eCalls. EGNOS is operational since October 2009, it should improve location based services such as eCall. eCall in Germany is a safety critical application. It may be a kick-off for other services as well. In Germany there are PSAPs operated by the police and by the fire brigade as well as integrated PSAPs. There are various solution being analysed to upgrade the PSAPs (i.e., upgrade all, have intermediate eCall centre(s), every lander to decide) and there is a need to consolidate the views of the PSAPs. Germany has set up a national platform. The German stakeholders are considering running pilots to address the implementation issues. Following the election there are new ministers that need to state their view. Qualcomm stated that the eCall in-band modem should be integrated into the service. Airbiquity explained that an in-band modem would just produce some special tones for up to two seconds in nonequipped PSAPs, which could also serve as eCall discriminator. Airbiquity will be glad to offer their experience in pilots for affordable solutions for the PSAPs. ASECAP explained that eCall is a way to improve the quality of services to their customers. The crucial point is to provide fast emergency assistance and it is important from a road operator point of view to receive the data from the PSAPs as soon as possible. This is being addressed within the EeIP. EENA –The European Emergency Number Association indicated that it is important to upgrade the PSAPs with technology that would produce benefits to the citizens and hopes eCall will serve for this. EENA likes in the eCall initiative that it aims to serve all citizens in all countries in Europe. Mr. Bosco closed the session and summarized that many Member Sates are well equipped to handle eCall but that infrastructure remains a critical issue to be solved. There is a willingness to launch a pilot which could help the PSAPs to motivate the necessary investments. This is currently discussed in the eCall Platform. 5. Final Conclusions eCall Summit Mr Hermann Meyer, chair of the EeIP, summarised the discussions of the eCall Summit: •

It is encouraging that several Directorate Generals within the Commission are cooperating on eCall and that eCall is a priority within the ITS Action Plan

•

All stakeholders agree that the deployment of eCall is beneficial and important

•

Stakeholders are ready to launch the pre-deployment pilots

•

Cooperation remains a critical success factor

•

The eCall flag can be implemented in 2 years

•

There are solutions for the management of the SIM cards Page 7 of 8

Minutes of the12theSafety Forum Plenary Meeting: the eCall Summit, 29/10/2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________ •

eCall will be part of a Telematics kick-off package

•

Some challenges remain regarding the upgrading of the infrastructure

•

The eCall Implementation Platform will intensify its work

•

eCall offers a triple win situation; saving lives, enhancing telematics kick off and upgrading PSAPs

Mr Meyer concluded the session stating that the eCall Summit truly fulfilled its mission to provide a clear commitment and motivation to the implementation of eCall. Mr. Jääskeläinen expressed his satisfaction to see the commitment of the stakeholders towards the eCall implementation, including their willingness to start the pre-deployment pilots. The first round table showed that the technology for the in-vehicle part is available; the second that the Mobile Network operators are ready, and the standards available; the third round table showed that a number of Member States are willing to enter into the pre-deployment pilot phase. However Mr. Jääskeläinen expressed some disappointment because the automotive manufacturers are still providing excuses to delay the implementation of their part of the eCall service, when a clear parallel commitment from all stakeholders is needed. He hoped that the automotive industry will after this summit show more commitment to start immediately the deployment activities of eCall. 5. Future of the eSafety Forum Hermann Meyer (co-chair of the eSafety Forum) presented the proposal for the future of the Forum, based on the task force "report" (see presentation). Mr Meyer explained that the new Forum should have specific targets on safety, namely in reduction of fatalities, serious injuries, and improvements in energy-efficiency including traffic related congestion and availability of real-time traffic and travel information. The Forum will not be a politically driven forum but taking an expert-driven approach and producing recommendations. The working groups will concentrate on priority systems and services as proposed by the Forum members. The EU Presidency Troika will also be included in the work of the Forum. The new "logo" agreed is: eSafety Forum - ICT for safe, smart and clean road mobility. The suggestion for the future of the eSafety Forum was unanimously adopted. The 12th Plenary Session of the eSafety Forum closed at 17h40.

Page 8 of 8

eCall Summit: Time for Deployment Brussels, 29th October 2009

CONCLUSIONS

The eCall Summit 29th October 2009

• Brussels – Borschette • Included demos • > 150 participants: – Representatives of all stakeholders • OEMs • Tier1, Tier 2 suppliers • Users associations • MNOs • SPs • Road operators • …

• Aim: show readiness to implement eCall • Structured around 3 Round Tables • Additional item: Future of eSafety Forum

– Representatives of MS

Conclusions Round Table 1: Implementation of the In-Vehicle Part • •

Moderator: Mr Emilio León, DG Enterprise Panellists: Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA), Ansgar Pott (KAMA-Hundai), Tashiyika (JAMA), Lutz-Peter Reyer (Continental), Olivier Beaujard (Sierra-Wireless), Alexander Schelhase (Infineon), Frank Daems (NXP), Nikolai Leung (Qualcomm), Davide De Sanctis (Octo Telematics S.p.A), Theo Kamalski (TomTom International), Michael Schürdt (MEDION)

• Technology is ready • Stakeholders are ready to start pre-deployment pilots • Automotive manufacturers will need lead time to implement eCall in their vehicles. A scattered approach would be regrettable. • After–market solutions will appear in the market • eCall platform will serve to offer added value services • Qualcomm will not charge additional Intellectual Property Rights for eCall’s in-band modem solution. Open solution, can be implemented in other platforms

Conclusions Round Table 2: Implementation of the Telecom part • Moderator: Ms P. Michou, DG INFSO • Panellists: Emilio Dávila (EC), Frederic Liljestrom (Telenor), Jaymeen Patel (Telefonica O2), Ulrich Dietz (VODAFONE), Alain Sultan (ETSI MSG), Bob Williams (CEN TC278WG15)

• eCall flag can be implemented within 1-2 years • Mobile Network Operators ready to participate in pilots. Parallel commitment from all stakeholders needed • Affordable adhoc solution (“eSIM”) for the eCall case • Standards completed (subject to ballot) Will be available for the pre-deployment pilots

Conclusions Round Table 3: Implementation of the Public Service Answering Points’ (PSAPs’) part • Moderator: Mr Bosco, DG TREN • Panellists: Mikko Jääskeläinen (FI), Jan Urbanek (CZ), Egil Bovim (NO), Jan Malenstein (NL), Harry Evers (DE, Lower Saxony), Dorin Dumitrescu (RO), Nicolas Leung (Qualcomm), John Watson (Airbiquity), Gary Machado(EENA), Rui Camolino (ASECAP)

• Some Member States (MS) ready to launch deployment plans to handle eCall service • Many Member States willing to participate in predeployment pilots • eCall also important for incident management

The eCall Summit Conclusions (1/2) • It is encouraging that several Directorate Generals within the Commission are cooperating on eCall and that eCall is a priority within the ITS Action Plan • All stakeholders agree that the deployment of EU-wide eCall is beneficial and important • Technology and standards are ready • Stakeholders are ready to launch the pre-deployment pilots • Cooperation remains a critical success factor • The eCall flag can be implemented in 2 years • There are solutions for the management of the SIM cards

The eCall Summit Conclusions (2/2) • eCall will be part of a Telematics kick-off package • Some challenges remain regarding the upgrading of the Public Service Answering Points’ (PSAP’s) infrastructure (i.e., fragmented situation in the Member States) • The eCall Implementation Platform will intensify its work • eCall offers a triple win situation; saving lives, enhancing telematics kick off and upgrading PSAPs • Proposal for the Future of the eSafety Forum unanimously adopted

13th eSafety Forum Plenary Meeting 12th -13th October 2010 Diamant Business Centre Brussels, Belgium

Draft Minutes v2

Table of contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 1.2 1.3

INTENDED AUDIENCE ............................................................................................................ 3 OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 3

MINUTES OF THE 13TH PLENARY MEETING OF THE

ESAFETY FORUM .................. 4

APPENDIX 1 - FINAL AGENDA .................................................................................................. 22 APPENDIX 2 – PARTICIPANTS LIST ........................................................................................ 24 APPENDIX 3 – NEW ESAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 26 APPENDIX 4 – SUMMARY OF MEETING’S ACTIONS ......................................................... 31

Draft Minutes v2

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Intended audience This document is prepared for all the eSafety Stakeholders, that is, for each body responsible for the different eSafety priority actions, both internally and externally to the eSafety Forum.

1.2 Objectives The objective of this deliverable is to present the minutes of the 13th Plenary Meeting of the eSafety Forum to all stakeholders of the eSafety Initiative. The writing of the minutes was undertaken by Mihaela Ostafe, Project Assistant at ERTICO - ITS Europe.

1.3 Executive summary The 13th eSafety Forum Plenary meeting took place on 12th – 13th October 2010 at the Diamant Business Centre in Brussels, Belgium. The first half day (12th October, afternoon) was dedicated to on the eSafety Forum activities, respectively reporting on about the eSafety Forum Working Groups results and the progress on updating the eSafety Recommendations in 2010. The second day (13th October, full day) focused on three themes: 1. Research and Innovation 2. Deployment and 3. eSafety Forum in the changing political environment Moreover, the eSafety Awards ceremony 2010 took place on 13th October in the morning. All presentations and meeting documents are uploaded on the iCar Support project website, at: http://www.icarsupport.eu/esafety-forum/esafety-forum-plenary-meetings/esafety-forum-plenarymeeting-12-13-october-2010/ Annexed to this report: •

Appendix 1: Final agenda

•

Appendix 2: List of participants

•

Appendix 3: New eSafety Recommendations

•

Appendix 4: Summary of meeting’s actions

Draft Minutes v2

MINUTES OF THE 13TH PLENARY MEETING OF THE FORUM

ESAFETY

Tuesday, 12th October 2010, 13.00 – 17.30 Welcome Juhani Jääskeläinen, Head of Unit ICT for Transport, DG INFSO opened the meeting. He welcomed the eSafety Forum members and introduced the meeting agenda (Appendix 1).

eSafety Forum Activities: Working Groups and Task Forces activities Chair: Monica Schettino, iCar Support Monica Schettino, Project Manager of the iCar Support project opened the session by informing that in the last year five eSafety Forum Working Groups finalized their work and delivered final reports. This session will be first dedicated to the reporting of these Working Groups activities and recommendations. Second, as in the past months progress has been registered on the updating of a new set of eSafety Recommendations (following-up the monitoring of the initial 28 eSafety Recommendations formulated by the eSafety Group in 2003), the new list will be presented to the eSafety Forum members for approval. Nomadic Devices Forum (NDF) Working Group (WG) final report Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA and Theo Kamalski, TomTom Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA opened the session and gave a short history of the NDF WG. The Group started its activity in early 2008 and the final report has been delivered in the autumn 2009. Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA and Mark Jendzrok, Medion are the former co-chairs of the Group for this first activity’s period. To follow-up on the results and recommendations, the Group continued their activities after the delivery of the final report, under the leadership of new co-chairs: Theo Kamalski, TomTom and Michael Schürdt, Medion. Wolfgang Reinhardt and gave a presentation focusing on the NDF activities until 2009, as well as on the recent emerging market developments, which determined the Group to reconsider part of the earlier recommendations from the report delivered in 2009. Theo Kamalski also gave a presentation, focusing on the issues currently under discussion in the Group. This was given in the form of an executive summary, highlighting nomadic devices related issues on market growth, product categories, standardization, ESoP requirements, usage impact issues, trends, solutions and road map by 2015 (see presentations).

Questions and comments from the audience Draft Minutes v2

Alan Stevens, TRL, former co-chair of the HMI WG, commented that when moving from the OEM to portable devices a series of concerns about safety issues appear. In this context, with regards to the iPhone APPS, he questioned whether the best ones will impose to the market and be used, while all the rest will disappear from the market. Wolfgang Reinhardt replied that it is still a long way before moving completely from in-car devices to nomadic devices generally and smart phones in particular; moreover the in-car devices have the advantage of giving the opportunity of integrating the advantages of the PND market. Strong co-operation links are currently being developed between OEMs and nomadic device manufacturers. The concept of “low-cost navigation” refers to the navigation systems which costs are below 1000€. Having this safe integration is currently a strong trend, defining at the same time a business-to-business approach that the nomadic device manufacturers did not have before. The risk comes in when a quality device is not safely installed and where it is not possible to distinguish between the different functionalities of the smart phones (i.e. watching TV or internet games access is possible while driving as no firewall to block the possibilities exists). Theo Kamalski added that the automotive industry has learned not to build phones in the cars, as the phones become outdated in a couple of years: not the same goes for the nomadic devices, which are integrated in the cars. Hermann Meyer, ERTICO – ITS Europe asked whether the proposal of the Group is to extend the ESoP to the smart phones. Theo Kamalski replied that the recommendation is indeed that the ESoP would be extended to the functionality of the applications which are running on the smart phones. Hermann Meyer asked whether this should not be the case also for the in-build car applications. Wolfgang Reinhardt replied that this is possible, the ESoP could be extended in the future to in-build car applications. eSecurity WG final report Christoph Ruland, University of Siegen Christoph Ruland, University of Siegen, co-chair of the eSecurity WG presented a summary of activities and results of the eSecurity Group and the final report’s recommendations. The eSecurity WG was created in spring 2007 with the scope of analysing the lifecycle of a vehicle and to look at risk and security, as well as to the stakeholders and their roles, in order to come up with recommendations on different aspects: research, technology, standardization, legislation, certification, responsibilities, quality assurance, inspections and overall organization. Main recommendations provided by the Group: 1. to ensure isolation between independent vehicle-based systems and interactive systems; 2. to investigate liability issues of applications beyond informing systems; 3. to harmonise legal measures concerning improvement of security; 4. to address security issues raised by specific applications and define suitable evaluation criteria; 5. to prepare recommendations for privacy by design and 6. on-going work needed for cooperative systems. Moreover, the continuation of the work of the WG is considered and could address mainly recommendation 4 and 5 above (see presentation).

Draft Minutes v2

Questions and comments from the audience Bob Williams, CSI, Convenor of CEN TC278 WG15 asked, with respect to the recommendation 2 listed above, whether the limitation (not elimination) of liability by regulation has been considered by the Group. Christoph Ruland answered that the aspect has been discussed with the legal partners and the issue is still open. It would be very valuable to have in the eSecurity work the commitment of more legal experts from the Member States (not a lot of the technical experts in the Group have also a good legal knowledge). Bob Williams also asked how the Group considers reconciling the recommendations 1 and 6 above (as for example, if isolating from cooperative systems an in-car application which detects ice on the road, how to communicate to the cars around that they are approaching ice). Christoph Ruland answered that the isolation of the systems does not imply cutting the connection between them, but that there is a need of controlled separation and a need that the communication inside the car is taken on a one message at a time basis to the outside world (unique transition point controlled by the firewall functions). SOA WG final report Volker Vierroth, T-Systems Volker Vierroth, co-chair of the SOA WG, started his presentation by introducing SOA and explained why SOA is considered for eSafety, continuing with a summary of the SOA WG work, goals and results. The Group started its activity in 2007 and finalised their report in the summer 2010. Among the recommendations of the Group: 1. SOA should be strongly considered as an alternative for implementing safety /ITS solutions compared to a centralised closed platform approach; 2. Initiate a study which focuses on governance of the relationships among stakeholders (with respect to trust, quality, SLAs, commercial aspects, DRM, privacy); 3. Define a common ontology and semantics for describing eSafety services; 4. Promote SOA to open legacy systems along the business needs of the eSafety services; 5. Only add new interfaces where required (no complete IT change required, only partial updates); 6. Promote SOA to open legacy systems along the business needs of the eSafety services and only add new interfaces where required (no complete IT change required, only partial updates), (see presentation). Questions and comments from the audience Bob Williams made a comment over the fact that ISO TC204 ICT standardization committee has already passed the standard 24097-1 on using web services in ITS and it is currently working on a second part, which covers part of the SOA WG recommendations and suggested co-operation between the two bodies. Volker Vierroth thanked for the comment and informed that he is aware of this development, as he is member of the ISO TC204. Juhani Jääskeläinen questioned if the Group was looking into cloud computing issues. Volker Vierroth replied that cloud computing was not covered by the work of the Group, as it is a rather recent development – however, it would be interesting to approach cloud computer in future SOA work. Intelligent Infrastructure (II) WG final report Draft Minutes v2

Rui Camolino, ASECAP and Paul Van Der Kroon, RWS/CEDR Rui Camolino, ASECAP and Paul Van Der Kroon, RWS/CEDR, co-chairs of the II WG presented to the Forum members the activities and a summary results of the Group. The II WG was launched in May 2008 and delivered their report one week before the meeting. The report of the IIWG is a first attempt to define ‘what is the Intelligent Infrastructure’. It elaborates on what services one may expect to be delivered by the infrastructure to the end user and it gives road operators and administrators a definition of the minimum level of required technical infrastructure in order to make the delivering possible of defined cooperative services. The report elaborates on necessary technological resources for afore mentioned referred services, on which business areas need to implement them and what cooperation is necessary, on the relation between Intelligent Infrastructure and Intelligent Vehicles and on what kind of architecture, standards and protocols are needed. The recommendations for the deployment of Intelligent Infrastructure Services looked at technologies, the involved stakeholders, the value network and business models, the assessment, development and implementation of strategies. The recommendations given are not categorized per stakeholder as most recommendations involve all or at least a number of stakeholders. It is however most important that all stakeholders shall find a good way to collaborate (see presentation for more details on the II WG recommendations). Questions and comments from the audience A comment from the audience was received, suggesting the elaboration of an implementation road map Intelligent Infrastructure’ oriented. Paul Van Der Kroon replied that when the Group started its activity, there was rather a need of identifying the II related services and requirements, as these aspects were lagging behind the development from the OEMs side, thus the report is mostly aiming at catching up with these aspects than at elaborating a road map. However, this would be very useful and could be envisaged for future work steps. Jean-Pierre Medevielle, INRETS, co-chair of the RTD WG asked what the research related II aspects and requirements are. Rui Camolino replied that there are not a lot of references available in the report on the aspects which need research support, but that these were discussed by the Group and input will be sent to the attention of the RTD WG. ACTION: The co-chairs of the II WG to send II research related requirements to the RTD WG co-chairs, Jean-Pierre Medevielle and Alessandro Coda, EUCAR.

Implementation Road Map (IRM) WG Monitoring report Risto Kulmala, VTT Risto Kulmala, VTT, co-chair of the IRM WG, informed about the latest activities of the IRM WG. The Group was launched in 2003 with the task of regularly updating systems Road Maps (including the Draft Minutes v2

monitoring of implementation of intelligent integrated systems) with technical steps and economic implications for the introduction of safe, smart and clean systems in Europe. IRM monitoring reports have been delivered in 2005 and 2007. 2010 brings a new monitoring report, updated with new systems (emergency braking is the new in-vehicle priority system looked at and dynamic navigation has been added to the list of infrastructure priority monitored systems), looking at the costs and benefits of the priority systems, at the penetration and coverage of the priority systems, promotion of systems deployment, providing moreover updated implementation road maps, a model for a continuous monitoring process and recommendations (see presentation). Risto Kulmala also informed the audience about the eSafety Forum IRM workshop scheduled to take place on 25 November in Brussels and invited the eSafety Forum members to the event. The workshop will look at what road mobility is in 2020 and which are the promising systems in 2020, in terms of safe, smart and clean road mobility, in line with the new focus of the eSafety Forum. The workshop will look at priority systems from different perspectives: automotive, nomadic/aftermarket, infrastructure related, public authority view and user perspectives. The event will take place at Diamant Business centre in Brussels. DECISION: All final reports from the WGs presented at the meeting were approved by the eSafety Forum members. All the participants in the eSafety Forum Plenary meeting receives from iCar Support a USB key with electronic copies of all the final reports presented at the meeting. International Co-operation activities Emilio Davila, EC and Frans op de Beek, TNO Emilio Davila, EC gave a presentation highlighting the latest developments for the EU–US, EU–Japan and EU–Russia co-operation, also informing about the forthcoming activities Under the EU–US co-operation, Emilio Davila reported about the Signature of EU-US Joint Declaration of Intent on Research Co-operation in Cooperative Systems, on 13 November 2009 in Washington D.C. and about two major meetings (Steering group, Technical group & working groups) which took place in 2010, in the context of the TRB 2010 in Washington, D.C. (12 – 15 January 2010) and of TRA 2010 in Brussels (07 – 10 June 2010). Under the EU-Japan co-operation, Emilio Davila discussed about the METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Co-operation Agreement endorsed in March 2008, covering ICT for Energy Efficiency and Automated Driving, EC-METI Task Force on Energy Efficiency aiming at harmonised methodologies for assessing the impact of ITS applications on emissions (the report has been adopted in 2009) and about the new project ECOSTAND, currently under negotiation, “Support Joint Task Force of Europe, Japan and USA”. Under the EU-Russia co-operation, Emilio Davila informed about the co-operation link between EU eCall and Russian ERA-GLONASS, looking at interoperability of both systems, implementation of eCall based on

Draft Minutes v2

European standards and the cross border pilots under preparation. (See presentation for more details on achievements on each co-operation link and upcoming events.) Frans op de Beek, TNO, co-chair of the International Co-operation eSafety Forum WG gave a summary of the Group activities, whose objectives are to contribute to the general objectives of the eSafety Forum, to focus on the “Inter-continental” Co-operation aspects of the ongoing work, to support WG topics which benefit from discussions at inter-continental level and to provide support on any topics which require inter-continental knowledge and experience. Frans op de Beek informed about the workshop organised by the International Co-operation WG on 27th October in the context of the ITS World Congress in Busan, which was a first attempt to elaborate on the intercontinental

co-operation

operational

level,

after the achieved

DoT-RITA-EC-DG INFSO

Arrangement. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss joint terms of reference and specific topics for cooperation as well as to prepare the next session planned to take place in the context of TRB in January 2011 (see presentation). Questions and comments from the audience Paul van der Kroon observed that the co-operation links with other regions seem to be rather researchoriented and asked whether they should not also reflect implementation aspects. Frans op de Beek confirmed that this is an important aspect and it has not been forgotten: the updated eSafety Recommendations take up international co-operation aspects related to both development and deployment. New eSafety Recommendations Francisco Ferreira, EC (DG INFSO) Francisco Ferreira, EC (DG INFSO) debriefed about the process followed to update the 28 eSafety Recommendations list produced by the eSafety Group in 2002 and monitored by eScope and eSafety Support projects in the last years. The latest update of the 28 Recommendations list under eSafety Support project is dated end-2008 and the new iCar Support project undertook the task of reviewing this list. For this, the iCar Support Team organised two workshops, which took place on 17th June and 13th September 2010, to which all the eSafety Forum chairs, WG’s and Task Forces co-chairs from the active and concluded Groups were invited to participate. iCar Support prepared the original document, which was based on the latest Recommendations Note at end-2008 and also included the recommendations of the WGs who concluded their activities in the meantime. This document has been revised and agreed on during the two workshops and the resulted list is now presented to the eSafety Forum members, for their feedback and approval. The eSafety Recommendations list was also presented to the eSafety Observers Network at the first meeting of the Group meeting on 4th October 2010 in Timisoara. Francisco Ferreira presented to the audience the new list of 25 eSafety Recommendations and the feedback received on Recommendations from the eSafety Observers Network (see presentation and Appendix 3 for the full text of the Recommendations).

Draft Minutes v2

The document is not yet final and the members of the eSafety Forum are invited to send their feedback to the eSafety Recommendations. ACTION: The eSafety Forum members are invited to send their feedback to the eSafety Recommendations by end-November. Important note: the feedback is requested in the form of specific proposals for text changes. The current text of the Recommendations is enclosed to this report in Appendix 3. Questions and comments from the audience Frans op de Beek asked which the next steps regarding the eSafety Recommendations are. Monica Schettino replied that a third workshop involving the eSafety Forum chairs and WGs/Task Forces co-chairs will be organised to finalise the list, which will then become public and will be further disseminated. The first day concluded with a cocktail and a buffet dinner at Diamant Business Centre.

Wednesday, 13th October 2010, 9.00 – 17.00

The second day of the eSafety Forum Plenary meeting was dedicated to discussions on three topics: 1. Research and Innovation 2. Deployment and 3. eSafety Forum in the changing political environment Moreover, the eSafety Awards ceremony 2010 took place on 13th October in the morning, 10.45.

THEME 1 - Research and Innovation Chair: Francisco Ferreira, EC (DG INFSO) Francisco Ferreira opened the session with a quotation from the speech on the State of Union 2010 of the President of the EC, José Manuel Durão Barroso: “We need to improve Europe's innovation performance along the whole chain, from research to retail, notably through innovation partnerships. We need an Innovation Union... and growth must be based on our companies' competitiveness”. Innovation is the key to building sustainable growth, fairer and greener societies. Increasing RTD investment with 3% of GDP could create 3,7 million jobs. The White Paper European Transport Policy for 2020 is currently under preparation and will be released later this year. It focuses on decarbonisation of transport, meaning, among others, alternative fuels, energy efficiency and a better urban mobility. The

Draft Minutes v2

preparation of FP8 started and recognises the need to develop activities complementary to research and of greater dimensions to reach a sustainable impact”. The two speakers of the first topic of the meeting today will discuss these issues. Strategic Research Agenda of the eRTD Working Group Alessandro Coda, EUCAR Alessandro Coda, EUCAR, co-chair of the eRTD WG, debriefed about the developments in the Strategic Research Agenda. The eSafety eRTD WG is working on the R&D needs for ICT for Mobility for eSafety and Intelligent Car Initiative and has been asked by the eSafety European Economic Recovery Plan Task Force (December 2008 /January 2009) to make an inventory and recommendations on how ICT/ITS research can be used to support the European Green Car Initiative. The eSafety Strategic Research Agenda defines the ICT for Intelligent Mobility Vision for 2030 and the ICT for Intelligent Mobility State of Play in 2010. RTD actions are needed in six areas: 1. Sustainable Road Transport, 2. Sustainable Urban Mobility, 3. Road Transport Safety, 4. ICT and the Decarbonisation of Transport, 5. Deployment and 6. Horizontal Issues. Actions are then defined for each of these areas (for more details see presentation). Alessandro Coda also debriefed shortly about the RTD WG workshop on 27th April 2010. Questions and comments from the audience Paul van der Kroon observed with regards to deployment area that in the past, the so called windows of opportunity make the deployment possible. Thus, decision making on windows of opportunity is to be taken into account. With regards to the horizontal issues, research could also be split in ‘human factors’ in ‘organisational perspectives’. Alessandro Coda agreed that with the comments. Jean-Pierre Medevielle added that the ‘human factor’ will be also approached under the next item of the agenda, on ELSA. ELSA Task Force proposal Wil Botman, FIA Wil Botman, FIA, co-chair of the ELSA Task Force debriefed about the activities of the Task Force since its launch at the end of 2009 as well as about the final proposal submitted to the European Commission in September 2010. Mentioned in EC Communication ‘Raising the game’ 2009 as a possible instrument, ELSA (European Large Scale Action) is meant to cut through the innovation cycle, bringing together funding from various sources. It is a goal oriented, and not product oriented instrument and it has different and broad areas of application (safety, environment, efficiency services), solutions (infrastructure, vehicles, cooperative, internet), and geography (European testbeds). A first proposal for ELSA for Transport was presented on 11 November 2009 to National ICT Research Directors Forum, based on meetings with demand side, supply side and eSafety observers, and the Council asked for further elaboration. Three ELSA TF workshops followed in 2010: 1. 31st Draft Minutes v2

March - presentations by demand side (Member States, Lower authorities and users), with discussions focusing on common priority solutions, cutting through the innovation cycle and possible contribution of an ELSA; 28th April - presentations by supply side (manufacturers (Fiat, Volvo), suppliers (Continental), traffic management (Satellic, PTV), nomadic devices (Medion), computing industry (Hermia) and research institutes (EARPA), with discussions on contribution of ELSA and 3. 17th June, gathering the members of ELSA TF Core Group for discussing the input received and putting together an updated ELSA structure’ proposal. The main elements of the proposal are: societal challenges, background of ICT for Transport, benefits of an ELSA in general, description of demand side goals and the current offer from industry (for more details see presentation). A final proposal was submitted to the EC at the beginning of October. Questions and comments from the audience Kallistratos Dionelis (ASECAP) commented that it is important to have a good communication between the demand and supply sides. It is important that the needs are clearly communicated by the policy makers, in order for the supply side – industry – to plan accordingly. Not only the research is important, but to be aware of the demand and the exact needs of the market in a certain period. Moreover, a good anticipation of the costs always favours the success of large scale actions. Research and production are needed just in the context where someone is there to buy – and this aspect has to be assured from the beginning. Frans op de Beek asked what the next steps following the delivery of the report are. Juhani Jääskeläinen replied that initially ELSA initiative belonged to DG INFSO. However, at a later stage it was taken over in wider circles, the concept being developed into ‘Innovation Partnerships’. First there will be a pilot on how Innovation Partnerships work and several innovation partnerships will be then prepared (‘Healthy aging’, ‘Smart cities’, a.s.o.). The concept exists and will be developed for transport, however at the moment is not known exactly in what context. Jean-Pierre Medevielle observed the importance of making the report available to the eSafety Forum members, as well as the importance of increasing the awareness about the ELSA aspects fast. eSafety Awards ceremony Zoran Stančič, Deputy Director General, EC (DG INFSO) The eSafety Awards, rewarding excellence in deployment of eSafety systems, came in 2010 to its fourth edition. The ceremony took place in the context of the 13th eSafety Forum Plenary meeting, the Awards being handed out for the second time this year by Mr. Zoran Stančič, Deputy Director General, European Commission (DG INFSO). During the summer 2010, the eSafety Forum members were invited to nominate candidates for two categories of the Awards: 1.

Industry/Technology Award nominates a person or team from a company or industry initiative who

has played a key role in accelerating deployment of eSafety systems in Europe. 2.

Policy Award nominates a person or team from a public administration body who has taken the lead

in implementing measures to facilitate eSafety deployment in Europe. Draft Minutes v2

The Lifetime Achievement Award nominates a person who has shown outstanding commitment and drive throughout his/ her career with regards to the acceleration of the deployment of eSafety systems in Europe. This third category was not announced this year from the beginning of the competition, as the eSafety Forum Awards Committee took the decision that it will be only awarded in exceptional cases, and not every year. The Award came as a surprise for the audience, as well as for the winner. The Industry/Technology Award was won by TomTom, for its success as world's leading provider of location and navigation solutions, with more than 40 million people using daily their solutions and for their commitment to providing a safe driving environment (such as including speed warnings in their devices) as well as for ensuring leadership of the Nomadic Device Forum. TomTom was represented in the competition and at the Awards ceremony by Mr Theo Kamalski. The Policy Award was won by the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications for all the activities taken in the last years towards the deployment of ITS and eSafety systems and services described in the national ITS strategy and Action Plan, for being the first country to sign the eCall MoU, for being always at the forefront of eCall deployment and having co-chaired the European eCall Implementation Platform. The Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications was represented in the competition by Mr Harri Pursiainen and at the Awards ceremony by Ms Anneli Tanttu. The Lifetime Achievement Award was a surprise and went to Mr Wolfgang Reinhardt from ACEA, for his tireless contribution to the success of the eSafety Forum and the eSafety initiative and, in particular, to the eCall implementation. Pictures from the eSafety Awards 2010 ceremony and winners’ videos are available on the iCar Support website, at: http://www.icarsupport.eu/esafety-forum/esafety-awards-2010/esafety-awards-winners-ceremony-2010/ The eSafety Awards ceremony was followed by a cocktail and lunch.

THEME 2 – Deployment Chair: Hermann Meyer, ERTICO ITS Europe eSafety Observers Network Group Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support debriefed about the kick-off meeting of the eSafety Observers Network on 4th October in Timisoara, the Network’s Terms of Reference and contacts. The objectives of the Observers Network are to maintain and strengthen the eSafety Observers community built by eSafety Support and to consolidate the liaison and coordination between the eSafety Observers community and National ITS Associations and other stakeholders, in order to ensure better synchronisation between the Intelligent Car and eSafety Forum priorities at European Draft Minutes v2

and national levels, thereby supporting the work of the national eSafety initiatives within Member States. The eSafety Observers are representatives selected from the EU Member States and ITS National Associations, who are actively involved in national industry, policy, or R&D activities and are acknowledged experts in their domain or sector. The Network will consist of one member from eSafety Observers Group and one member from ITS Nationals, and ‘Secondary observers’’ (delegates) will be appointed, to ensure participation to meetings. At the kick-off meeting the Terms of Reference for the Network have been discussed and approved, this way being reached an agreement on observers’ roles and responsibilities. The current eSafety Observers list, not yet final, has been also approved. The 25 eSafety Recommendations have been presented to the Observers and feedback was requested. The Observers approved the list of eSafety Recommendations in its current state. Moreover, the EC priorities on eSafety have been presented at the meeting (for more details see presentation). More information about the meeting can be found on the iCar Support website, at: http://www.icarsupport.eu/implementation/observer-s-meetings/ Lina Konstantinopoulou also presented to the eSafety Forum members the National Implementation toolbox, online on the iCar Support website, at: http://www.icarsupport.eu/implementation/ . The intention is that the next meetings of the Network would take place in conjunction with the meetings of the ITS National Network. The meetings on 2011 will take place in Poland (spring) and Copenhagen (autumn) – the dates will be confirmed in the following period. Questions and comments from the audience Wolfgang Reinhardt observed that the online tool creation was a very good idea, helping and structuring well the dissemination of the work and the task of sharing best practices between the Member States. Alan Stevens commented that on the list of Observers there are names of ministries representatives and ITS organisations, and asked if the ITS organisations are considered as national “voices”. Lina Konstantinopoulou replied that the representatives of the ITS associations input is considered national level input from the industry. However, it is desired to have in the Observers Network representatives from the public authorities of the Member States too, as their feedback would be very valuable for the activities of the Network. Wil Botman observed that having the co-operation of the Member States in ELSA is very important and questioned if the Observers Group could also play a role in securing co-operation of the Member States in this topic. Lina Konstantinopoulou confirmed and added that the ELSA report should be disseminated to the eSafety Observers, together with a presentation highlighting the goals of ELSA and the benefits that this initiative will bring to the Member States. The main question is how ELSA will help the Member States to disseminate better and faster. Hermann Meyer confirmed that this approach would be a positive one, as at the kick-off meeting the Observers passed on the message that the Group should not only bring information to the eSafety Forum, but should also receive information and guidance back. Draft Minutes v2

ACTIONS: iCar Support will liaise with Will Botman for the task above and mediate the dissemination of the ELSA report to the eSafety Observers. eCall deployment: results of the public consultations and possible future scenarios Pierpaolo Tona, EC (DG INFSO) Pierpaolo Tona, EC (DG INFSO) presented the results of the eCall Public Consultation conducted by the EC as a part of the eCall Impact Assessment. The Consultation was open from 19th July to 19th September 2010, was published on “Your Voice in Europe” (on-line Inter-active Policy Making survey) and was intensively disseminated and advertised (1845 emails) to ICT constituency, Members of the EeIP, iCar Support, ITS Nationals,IASG, eSafety Forum, etc. + DG INFSO website, Your Voice in Europe, Ministries, Associations, etc. A total number of 450 replies have been received and the analysis has been made so far in quantitative terms. A qualitative analysis of the answers given on behalf of companies/organisations will follow. The reduced sample of answers from public authorities limits the scope of the analysis (although public authorities have positioned in the past). The Consultation brought very positive results in favour of the implementation of eCall. 308 individuals, 128 organisations and 14 public authorities participated in the study. 79,3% answered that they are aware of eCall, 90% found eCall useful, 85% would like to have their vehicles equipped with eCall system and 68% consider that eCall should not be optional, but mandatory in all the vehicles. 67 % of the participants confirmed that they would be willing to pay up to 150€ for eCall to be installed in their cars, while 31% would be willing to pay up to 300€. Moreover, 75% of the participants in the study responded that if the price of all new vehicles goes up by ~200€ because it includes the eCall system, this would not affect their choice when buying a new vehicle (see presentation).

Questions and comments from the audience Wolfgang Reinhardt asked whether the survey also brings information about how many people replied that are not willing to pay anything for eCall. Pierpaolo Tona replied that this information does not come out of the survey, as the first category of price to be paid for eCall was set for between 0-150€ (no option in the answers options for expressing that the respondent did not want to pay anything for eCall). However, the results presented are partial, as the written comments are not highlighted in the data shown in the presentation. A more detailed analysis, highlighting also the comments receive in the survey will follow. A question from the audience came on how the quotes for the price of eCall have been estimated (150€ and 300€) and whether these numbers correspond to real costs. Pierpaolo Tona explained that the two numbers do not represent real costs, but an indicative, average cost of eCall.

Draft Minutes v2

Johann Grill, ADAC commented that bringing to the public only a survey in English and disseminating it in all the Members States could bias the results of the survey. Moreover, in order to obtain more accurate results, the questionnaires shall approach differently the organizations and private individuals, which was not the case of the Consultation study. Pierpaolo Tona explained that translated questionnaires in the languages of some Member States were made available upon request. With regards to the structure of the questionnaire, even if there was just one questionnaire made available to all the respondents, it contained both questions targeting individuals and organizations. Bernard Flury-Herard (MEDDEM) questioned the objectivity of some questions and argued that the sample was not representative enough to extract conclusions, in particular for France (17 answers received). Pierpaolo Tona explained that the questions had been drafted following the European Commission Public Consultation guidelines. It is true that some Member States provided fewer answers, probably due to lack of publicity in those countries. However the number of replies is very significant and some of them come from highly representative organisations. Emilio Davila added that the results will be analysed in conjunction with previous studies and public consultations representing significant samples from all EU Member States, like the Eurobarometer study and the survey conducted by automotive clubs. The results show great similarities. European eCall Implementation Platform (EeIP) status report Hermann Meyer, ERTICO ITS Europe Herman Meyer debriefed about the EeIP activities and meetings in 2010, after the last eSafety Forum Plenary meeting, “The eCall Summit”. The 4th meeting of the EeIP took place on 25th February 2010 and looked at the status of eCall deployment in Europe and the progress of the different task forces of the Platform (see presentation). The EeIP new vice-chair was welcomed to the Platform in the person of Jan Urbanek, Ministry of the Interior, Fire Rescue Service, Czech Republic. The next meeting of the platform will take place on 19th October in Brussels, at the EC premises, (see presentation for the draft agenda). Hermann Meyer stressed out the importance of keeping the eSafety Forum members up-to-date about the activities of the Platform and the importance of the Forum feedback and monitoring. Questions and comments from the audience Wolfgang Reinhardt made a comment about the agenda of the next meeting and proposed that an item on Platform’s future work development and launch of new task forces shall be added, to be discussed on 19th October. A point to be discussed here could be how the nomadic devices could be used in the deployment of eCall, as well what new projects could be launched. Hermann Meyer agreed and confirmed that the new item will be added to the next meeting agenda.

Draft Minutes v2

ITS Action Plan and ITS Directive Magda Kopczynska, EC (DG MOVE) Magda Kopczynska, EC (DG MOVE) gave a presentation on the European ITS policy agenda, with a focus on the ITS Action Plan and Directive. In the context where economic losses of ~1 % GDP (125 billion €) are registered due to road congestion, where 35.000 citizens are killed on the road per year, where 71 % of transport CO2 emissions come from road and where the CO2 emissions from transport would increase with 25% by 2050 if business-as-usual, finding solutions to increase road safety, decrease congestion and decrease the impact on climate change is crucial. ITS, use of information and communication and technologies in transport can directly contribute, in all transport modes, to safer, cleaner and more efficient, integrated and competitive mobility and therefore contribute to Europe 2020 strategy. As examples where ITS can be used for road transport: dynamic traffic management, real-time traffic information, satellite navigation, tracking & tracing, multi-modal journey planners, electronic toll collection, in-vehicle safety systems etc. The potential of ITS for road transport is to achieve a reduction of congestion by 5-15% (through dynamic traffic & freight management, dynamic navigation, electronic toll collection), 5-15% less fatalities and 5-10% less injuries (through the implementation of ITS applications as electronic stability control (ESC), lane keeping support, speed alert, emergency call (eCall)) and to save 1020%

CO2

emissions

(through

road

charging,

access

management,

eco-driving support, multi-modality etc.). To help deploying ITS, the ITS Action Plan has been adopted in December 2008 with the objectives of coordinating and accelerating deployment of ITS in road transport and interfaces with other modes (24 Actions in 6 Priority Areas were put in place) and the ITS Directive is in place since August 2010, with the objectives of establishing a framework for coordinated and effective deployment and use of ITS, of setting common priorities and of developing specifications and standards. ITS Action Plan priority areas: 1. Optimal Use of Road, Traffic and Travel Data, 2. Road Safety and Security, 3. Data Protection and Liability, 4. Continuity of Traffic and Freight Management, 5. Integration of Vehicle into Transport Infrastructure and 6. European ITS Coordination. Four of these are also priority areas for the ITS Directive: 1. Optimal Use of Road, Traffic and Travel Data, 2. Road Safety and Security, 3. Continuity of Traffic and Freight Management and 4. Linking Vehicle and Transport Infrastructure. In this context, the Member States must ensure use of specifications when ITS is deployed and cooperate in respect of priority areas. However, there is no deployment obligation before the adoption of the subsequent co-decision proposal. The development of standards for interoperability, compatibility and continuity is a very important part of this. Moreover, the EC may adopt guidelines and other non-binding measures to facilitate cooperation for the ITS deployment. A European ITS Committee and an ITS Advisory Group will be created in the following period, both bodies being chaired by the EC. The ITS Committee will be formed by Member States representatives, with the tasks of adoption of: a work programme, reporting guidelines, standardisation mandates, non-binding measures, consultation for specifications, and information exchange. The ITS Advisory Group will be formed of High Level Representatives from the service Draft Minutes v2

providers,

user

associations,

transport

operators,

industry,

social

partners,

professional

organisations, local authorities and other relevant forums, with the tasks of advising the IYTS Committee on business and technical aspects and to make heard the voice of the stakeholders, (see presentation). Questions and comments from the audience Paul van der Kroon underlined that in eSafety is very important to keep a continuous line between research, development and deployment, and that eSafety Forum puts a lot of efforts into achieving this. eSafety Forum is open to co-operation to all interested parties in the development and deployment, separate organisations or other bodies with objectives in the same line. Receiving the support of these bodies would be easier when the eSafety Forum could make understood that the EC support is with us, not just from DG INFSO, but also from other EC Directorates Generals, DG MOVE, DG Research support being very important. In this context, Paul van der Kroon asked how the eSafety Forum and its initiatives as a platform are seen by DG MOVE and DG MOVE support can be obtained for the eSafety Forum. Magda Kopczynska started by stressing that if the messages coming from different EC Directorates seem confusing in some cases, this shall be communicated back to the EC, as it is something that the EC must correct. She added that no answer can come from her side on how eSafety Forum is seen in the future by DG MOVE or EC generally, but that it is rather up to the eSafety Forum to define and communicate where they see the need to contribute in eSafety. After this is communicated, the EC can help with avoiding making a positioning mistake and correcting misunderstandings. Kallistratos Dionelis commented that in deployment there are two main ways, top-down and bottom-up, and both of them have an important role to play. ITS, before the ITS Directive was put in place, functioned rather bottom-up in its approach analysis, basing itself on the fact that the technology is developed in order to meet future demands. ITS Directive comes with a strong accent not on the analysis and research, but on the deployment side. Bottom-up wise, all stakeholders in the 27 Member States believe now that they have a role to play. Top-down wise, the policy makers are there to give guidance and direction to implementation, however, the organisations, bodies and fora playing the roles after are the same ones: there is no need for restructuring at this level, or to invent other bodies or fora, but to use the existing ones, eSafety Forum being an example in this sense. Magda Kopczynska stressed that the ITS Directive did not arrive in a moment when Europe was an empty desert in terms of ITS deployment. A lot of deployment actions were already running before. This is why the real need is to make the deployment specification really useful and for this the support of Member States is needed. Lina Konstantinopoulou observed that Magda Kopczynska’s presentation is a lot in line with the eSafety Observers Network activities, in the sense that in the ITS Directive there is a strong need of support from the Member States and the dialog with industry is necessary, too. The eSafety Observers (mainly industry representatives at the national level) are reporting yearly to the eSafety Forum about the national ITS implementation activities. Lina Konstantinopoulou observed that if Draft Minutes v2

reporting is requested on the same issues – and there are high chances that this would happen – there is a clear duplication of work, and suggested to join forces in order to avoid this. Magda Kopczynska responded that further discussion on this is needed. The obligations in the ITS Directive are clearly addressed to the Member States and not to the industry side. However, when the reporting is done on the same issues, it would be valuable to look at the reports together. Juhani Jääskeläinen commented that rather than duplicating the work, the issue would be in this case that the feedback received may be thin, as previous experience shows that the expertise coming from the eSafety Observers is rather limited. Magda Kopczynska commented that a possibility could be that the ITS Committee would invite to their meetings other experts from the national level (in this case eSafety Observers), or their reports could be discussed in the ITS Committee. Magda Kopczynska will raise this to the attention of the ITS Committee.

THEME 3 - eSafety Forum in the changing political environment Chair: Juhani Jääskeläinen, EC (DG INFSO) The eSafety Forum response to future challenges Juhani Jääskeläinen, EC (DG INFSO) Juhani Jääskeläinen gave a presentation, focused on the challenges in Europe’s Transport Sector, the eSafety Forum today and the changing political environment, on how the activities adjusting could be driven in line with the challenges of the changes in the political environment, the role of the Forum in the context of the ITS Action Plan and Directive and the potential contribution of eSafety towards the overall objectives of Europe’s Transport Policy. As highlighted by Magda Kopczynska presentation, the Challenges in EU’s Transport Sector are multiple: Safety (35.000 deaths on the roads per year and 1.5 million injured persons, with human error involved in 93% of the accidents), Congestion (with costs amount to 130 billion €/ year and a loss of 1% GDP yearly), Energy Efficiency & Emissions (with road transport representing 85% of total CO2 transport emissions and 70% of consumed oil) and additional challenges and socio-economic trends (growth in demand – by 2020 it is predicted that the freight transport will increase with 50 % and the passenger transport with 35 %, aging population in Europe etc). To respond to these challenges, a policy framework for actions in the area of Safer, Cleaner and Smarter Vehicles is put in place, to 1. coordinate and support the work of relevant stakeholders, citizens, Member States and the Industry (eSafety Forum having a major role here), 2. support research and development in the area of smarter, cleaner and safer vehicles and facilitate the take-up and use of research results and 3. to create awareness of ICT based solutions to stimulate user’s demand for these systems and create socio-economic acceptance. The eSafety Forum acted in the last year towards responding to the objectives of the European Policy: according to the new vision, Forum has extended its activities beyond road safety to energy efficiency, cleaner mobility and sustainability, new Forum Recommendations have been developed, reflecting new vision, strategy and actions, the actions regarding the deployment and use of the Working Group results are increasing, new Working Groups are Draft Minutes v2

being established to strengthen the Forum in these areas and further work is planned, with focus on the business opportunities of ICT and ITS. Today, the eSafety Forum continues to enjoy support from all stakeholders, has renewed itself, and will be supported by DG INFSO in the coming years. The strength of the eSafety Forum is in its membership, and it has a very well functioning organisation including the Steering Group co-chaired by the EC, AVEA, ASECAP and ERTICO. ERTICO has a key role in ITS deployment in Europe as a multi-sector organisation specifically working on ITS deployment. Thus, the eSafety Forum and ITS Advisory Group need to find a mutually-beneficial way of working together, to avoid overlaps and above all avoid frustration of stakeholders. This means coordination of all advisory activities and consultations and finding a way of assuring coordination between the bodies. Further on, the eSafety Forum shall make its position clear with regards to the different policy instruments in place and to the coming up policy. Juhani Jääskeläinen finished his presentation by bringing to the members of the Forum one of the latest decisions of the Steering Group: an expert consultation will be launched in the following period, inviting the eSafety Forum members and the members of the eSafety Observers Network to give their views on the new Forum objectives for the period from 2010 to 2020. The main task will be to fill in the percentages in the Forum objectives, listed below, and to motivate those percentages any statistics and documentation available: –

Another …% reduction in the number of fatalities across Europe starting from current level (2010)

–

Another …% reduction in the number of seriously injured persons across Europe starting from current level (2010)

–

…% reduction of road traffic related congestion

–

…% improvements in energy-efficiency

–

…availability of real time traffic and travel information

(see presentation). ACTION: iCar Support Team to prepare a questionnaire on the eSafety Forum new objectives definition and to launch the expert consultation.

What comes next in research in ICT for Transport Stefanos Gouvras, EC (DG INFSO) Stefanos Gouvras, EC (DG INFSO) gave a presentation highlighting the new trends and current developments in research in ICT for Transport, highlighting 1. today’s research (ICT for mobility in FP7, with EGCI continuing and FI-PPP at its beginning), 2. the directions for future research (RTD WG Strategic Research Agenda, ELSA Task Force – Transport-ICT ELSA, the communication on A Digital Agenda for Europe and the communication on Innovation Union) and 3. The programming landscape for future research (EIP on Smart Cities and Mobility, FI-PPP Trials, Test-Beds, Pilots and the FP8 pre-identification phase and time table) (see presentation).

Draft Minutes v2

Questions and comments from the audience Hermann Meyer stressed that, with regards to ELSA, when the work had started, the first focus point was a communication on ELSA, the second was that it could be something like ELSA in the context of the Innovation Partnership or the communication on Innovation Union, and now it is being discussed that ELSA could be part of Regional Funds. To become part of the Innovation Partnership, ELSA report has to be very well communicated to the policy makers, which so far did not happen. Working on the Reports in the eSafety Forum Working Groups and Task Forces is very important, but equally important is to find a clear role and make eSafety Forum voice heard at the political level. It would be valuable if the eSafety Forum members would organise in such way that the results coming from Working Groups and Task Forces is heard. For the case of ELSA, if it will be part of the Regional Funds, there are a lot of members who can present and transmit the information to the Member States. In general lines, it is also very important that the eSafety Forum transmits a clear message of what they want to do and communicate a clear strategy behind it. Stefanos Gouvras commented that, with regards to ELSA, the proposal will be taken into a communication. With regards to the EIPs like “Smart cities” it is important to have in mind that the Innovative Union will last until 2020, by when a strategy will be also formulated, addressing important societal challenges. Wil Botman and Kallistratos Dionelis expressed that in order to sell itself better at the level of policy making, the name of the eSafety Forum should change, in line with its new focus “safe, smart and clean mobility”. Wil Botman also commented, with regards to ELSA that an answer from the EC side is needed, on whether the report is what it was expected and what is needed at this moment. The initial considered target of the work of the ELSA Task Force is not anymore there, but maybe further work on the report would be helpful and make it more useful than at this moment.

Wrap-up Juhani Jääskeläinen explained that the deployment issues cannot be sorted by the EC only and that implementation involvement and commitment are needed from the Member States and industry all over Europe at the same time. With regards to the name of the eSafety Forum, Juhani Jääskeläinen invited the members of the Forum to send suggestions for names. He reminded that the initial idea of changing to “iMobility” or “eMobility” was dropped, as these names are already taken. ACTION: eSafety Forum members are invited to send their suggestions for new names of the eSafety Forum at info@icarsupport.eu. The date of the next meeting will be decided and communicated to the eSafety Forum members soon.

Draft Minutes v2

APPENDIX 1 - FINAL AGENDA

The 13th Plenary Meeting of the eSafety Forum Venue: Diamant Brussels Conference and Business Centre Diamant Building, Meeting Room Einstein Brussels, Belgium 12-13 October 2010

Final Agenda

12 October 13.00 – 13.45 Welcome coffee and registration 13.45 – 14.00

Opening: Juhani Jääskeläinen, EC (DG INFSO)

14.00 – 17.30

eSafety Forum Activities: Working Groups and Task Forces activities Chair: Monica Schettino, iCar Support

14.10 – 14.30 NDF WG final report, Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA and Theo Kamalski, TomTom 14.30 - 14.50 eSecurity WG final report, Christoph Ruland, University of Siegen 14.50 - 15.10 SOA WG final report, Volker Vierroth, T-Systems 15.10 – 15.30 II WG final report, Rui Camolino, ASECAP and Paul Van Der Kroon, RWS/CEDR 15.30 – 15.50 IRM Monitoring report, Risto Kulmala, VTT 15.50 – 16.10 International Co-operation activities, Emilio Davila, EC and Frans op de Beek, TNO 16.10 – 16.30 16.30 – 17.00

Discussion

New eSafety Recommendations - Francisco Ferreira, EC (DG INFSO)

17.00 – 17.30

Discussion

17.30 – 18.30 Cocktail 19.00 – 21.00 Buffet dinner Draft Minutes v2

13 October 08.30 – 09.00

Welcome coffee and registration

THEME 1 - Research and Innovation Chair: Francisco Ferreira, EC (DG INFSO) 09.00 – 09.30

Strategic Research Agenda of the eRTD Working Group, Alessandro Coda, EUCAR

09.30 – 10.00

ELSA Task Force proposal, Wil Botman, FIA

10.00 – 10.30

Discussion

10.30 – 10.45 Coffee Break 10.45 – 12.00

eSafety Awards ceremony, Zoran Stančič, Deputy Director General, EC (DG INFSO)

11.30 – 12.00 Cocktail 12.00 - 13.00 Lunch Break THEME 2 - Deployment Chair: Hermann Meyer, ERTICO ITS Europe 13.00 – 13.20

eSafety Observers Network Group, Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support

13.20 – 13.40

eCall deployment: results of the public consultations and possible future scenarios, Pierpaolo Tona, EC (DG INFSO)

13.40 – 14.00

European eCall Implementation Platform status report, Hermann Meyer, ERTICO ITS Europe

14.00 – 14.30

ITS Action Plan and ITS Directive – Magda Kopczynska, EC (DG MOVE)

14.30 – 15.00

Discussion

15.00 – 15.15 Coffee Break THEME 3 - eSafety Forum in the changing political environment Chair: Juhani Jääskeläinen, EC (DG INFSO) 15.15 – 15.45

The eSafety Forum response to future challenges, Juhani Jääskeläinen, EC (DG INFSO)

15.45 – 16.15

What comes next in research in ICT for Transport - Stefanos Gouvras, EC (DG INFSO)

16.15 – 16.45

Discussion

16.45 – 17.00

Wrap-up

Draft Minutes v2

APPENDIX 2 – PARTICIPANTS LIST Last Name

First Name

Organisation

Arndt Balistreri Basset Bastiaensen

Martin Amélie Ludovic Edwin

ETSI iCar Support FIGIEFA TomTom

Becucci Blervaque Botman Braun Camolino

Fabio Vincent Wil Uwe Rui

UNASCA ERTICO - ITS Europe FIA Foundation City of Cologne APCAP

Carels Coda Coulon Cantuer Curci Davila Gonzalez

David Alessandro Myriam Natalino Emilio

IBCN-IBBT EUCAR European Commission, DG INFSO Polidream European Commission, DG INFSO

De Sanctis Delhaye Dionelis Egger

Davide Aline Kallistratos Michel

Octo Telematics S.p.A. Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations ASECAP CEDR

Ferreira Filatova Flament Flury-Herard Franzen

Francisco Evgeniya Maxime Bernard Stig

European Commission, DG INFSO Navigation Information Systems ERTICO - ITS Europe MEEDDM Chalmers

Gaillet Godwin Gouvras Grill Hadrovic

Jean-François Simon Stefanos Johann Andrea

Ygomi Europe EUCAR European Commission, DG INFSO ADAC e.V. ACEA

Hagleitner Harrich Haub Henchoz Hoadley

Walter Michaela Thomas Jean-Michel Suzanne

ADAS_Management Consulting Kapsch TrafficCom AG European Commission, DG INFSO DENSO Polis

Hoeberechts Hoefs Ikeda Jääskeläinen Jenssen

Guy Wolfgang Makoto Juhani John Arild

European Commission, DG INFSO European Commission, DG INFSO Nissan European Commission, DG INFSO Ministry of Transport and Communications

Kamalski Konstantinopoulou Kopczynska Köpman

Theo Lina Magda Helen

TomTom iCar Support European Commission, DG MOVE European Commission, DG INFSO

Kulmala

Risto

VTT

Draft Minutes v2

Lindenbach, Dr.

Agnes

ITS Hungary Association

Litton Lumiaho Maurer

Simon Aki Hans Jurgen

European Commission, DG COMM RAMBOLL DEKRA

Medevielle Menzies Meyer Meylikhov Miethe

Jean-Pierre Régine Hermann Evgeny Christiane

INRETS European Commission, DG INFSO ERTICO - ITS Europe Navigation Information Systems TU Braunschweig

Nagura Olsen op de Beek Ostafe

Keiji Sigurd Olav Frans Mihaela

DENSO Norwegian Public Roads Administration TNO iCar Support

Petersen Phillips Potters Potvin Reinnardt

Gerhard Steve Paul Michel Wolfgang

Swiss FEDRO FEHRL AISBL Connekt Renault ACEA

Roebroeck Rosines Garcia Ruland Schettino Sergeys

Hugo Francesc Christoph Monica Filip

Federation of European Motorcyclists' Associations Atos Origin University of Siegen iCar Support Honda Motor Europe Ltd.

Solberg Stancic Stevens

Stig Zoran Alan

Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority European Commission, DG INFSO TRL

Tanttu Tatsuda Tegtmeier Thomas Tona

Anneli Norihiro Joerg Pete Pierpaolo

Finish Ministry of Transport and Communications Suzuki International Europe Robert Bosch GmbH Transport Safety Research Centre European Commission, DG INFSO

Urban Van De Kraats van der Kroon Vassileva Vierroth

Peter Henri Paul Veneta Volker

EARPA IMA BENELUX Rijkswaterstaat ACEM Satellic Traffic Management

Ward Williams Yamakawa Zimmermeyer

David Bob Takehisa Gunter

FIA Foundation CSI JAMA Europe Robert Bosch GmbH

Draft Minutes v2

APPENDIX 3 – NEW ESAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS 25 eSafety Recommendations

In line with the new eSafety Forum focus, the new recommendations address not only safety but also smart and clean mobility in Europe

Topic

N. 1

Accident Causation Data

Recommendation

2 Define a common format and structure for recording accident data in the EU countries. Develop jointly a European Accident Causation Database covering all EU and enlargement countries, and provide open access to industry and public agencies. Harmonisation of VIN number enabling the identification of vehicle safety systems installed and inclusion of VIN number or other safety system existence information in accident registration processes 3

Impact Assessment

Human-Machine Interaction

Promote and carry out evaluation and validation of priority safe, smart and clean mobility systems and candidates for utilising the consolidated and refined methodologies and validation framework via Field Operational Tests etc a) The 2008 ESoP should now be updated according to the consensus recommendations published in Oct. 2009 b) Development should be monitored such that the ESoP can be re-visited periodically (at least every 3 years) providing a balance between current relevance and stability c) Nomadic Device should meet the requirements of the ESoP with special focus on safe vehicle integration (NaviFix) and certification based on agreed measurable criteria (based on the recommendations of the NDF)

Draft Minutes v2

In line with the new eSafety Forum focus, the new recommendations address not only safety but also smart and clean mobility in Europe

Topic

N. 6

Implementation Road Maps

Recommendation

8 Cooperative Mobility systems and services 9

Draft Minutes v2

Identify requirement for specifications, and where necessary develop new specifications for pan-European, standardised interoperable interfaces and communications protocols for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure communications which will support interactive, co-operative mobility systems and services. Pursue intercontinental co-operation in the development and deployment of cooperative mobility systems and services. The Recommendations serve as basis for the topics to be discussed at intercontinental level.

Based on recommendations from CVIS, COOPERS, SAFESPOT ,Pre-DriveC2X and the eSafety Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group, agree on pathway towards deployment of cooperative systems to achieve minimum level of market penetration to start the services as well as to achieve maximum sustainable interoperability and ease the provision of new services in line with market demand

Identify, investigate and develop the relationship between electric vehicles and their related requirements for the intelligent infrastructure, namely which special applications/services are required.

Setting up Strategic long term cooperation (Implementation Platform for Cooperative Mobility systems and services) in the field of cooperative mobility to enable in an early stage future deployment of services. It should create a • common vision covering the importance of Cooperative services for each stakeholder • business models covering the interests of all strategic stakeholders for the implementation of the various CS and a road map which: o provides understanding of I and V on how each party participates in the process o explores the common denominators o agrees on converging visions, and Related strategy (ies) o establishes attuned objectives and o selects the first generation joint cooperative services

In line with the new eSafety Forum focus, the new recommendations address not only safety but also smart and clean mobility in Europe

Topic

N. 12

Digital Map Database

In vehicle 112 emergency calls (eCall) 14

Draft Minutes v2

a) Further support measures needed to have EU wide 112 eCall service deployed b) Explore the potential of nomadic devices for eCall for existing and future vehicle fleet Support the wider use of the pan-European RDS/TMC network and further development and deployment of TPEG services. Improve the data quality of traffic and travel information by e.g. xFCD with regard to accuracy and reliability

Legal issues for testing and deployment

Based on existing research results, define requirements for European digital road map data which should contain, in addition to road network data, agreed road attributes for private and professional driver-support for information and warning purposes, such as speed information, eco driving, road configuration data. Create suitable partnerships and mechanisms to produce, maintain, certify and distribute this digital road map data. They should be made available for all users at affordable prices (where possible free of charge). National, local and regional authorities and operators should provide the above data on road configurations within their networks, with target dates for implementation.

Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information

Recommendation

Develop, test and deploy RTTI services using cooperative mobility systems

a) Assess the need of adapting the relevant legal frameworks (e.g. Vienna convention) to deal with the road mobility improvements obtainable with safe, smart and clean systems in vehicles. b) Develop a methodology for risk benefit assessment, achieve an industrial and societal consensus on a European Code of Practice, and establish guidelines for facilitating the market introduction of safe, smart and clean systems.

In line with the new eSafety Forum focus, the new recommendations address not only safety but also smart and clean mobility in Europe

Topic

N. 17

Standardisation and certification

Recommendation

Analyse the specific needs and priorities for standardisation in European Standardisation Organisations for ICT for mobility systems and services. Follow-up, liaise and contribute to the standardisation work in this area in CEN, ETSI and ISO, in particular regarding the activities carried out in the framework of the Mandate /453 to support the interoperability of cooperative systems for intelligent transport, and promote global harmonisation when appropriate

ICT Deployment

19 Spectrum allocation

Work towards ICT deployment in transport through partnerships on European large scale actions by organizing large scale test-beds in cooperation with demand and supply stakeholders and in line with the ITS Directive, in which solutions to existing societal challenges are taken through the innovation chain in a continuous programmatic approach of a sufficient scale and duration a) Identify spectrum allocation needs and take necessary actions for a sufficient spectrum allocation for safe, smart and clean systems and services b) Support the worldwide harmonisation of spectrum allocation

20 a) Design and execute awareness campaigns which explain the benefits, functioning and use of safe, smart and clean mobility systems and services to the stakeholders. Stimulate demand and use

b) Investigate the possibility to use marketing as well as fiscal/financial incentives to stimulate and support consumers’ demand of intelligent road applications and use of safe, smart and clean mobility services. This support should target especially the buyers who choose to equip their vehicles with co-operative systems, thus helping to create an initial market demand for safe, smart and clean mobility services advanced co-operative systems in particular.

Draft Minutes v2

In line with the new eSafety Forum focus, the new recommendations address not only safety but also smart and clean mobility in Europe

Topic

N. 21

Recommendation

Business Model

Investigate, facilitate and support the usage of after market/nomadic devices for large scale deployment of safe, smart and clean mobility applications and services

Initiate and follow-up of deployment of ICT measures for energy efficiency and ICT for electric vehicles (EV)

Investigate the most suitable safe, smart and clean mobility services and applications for the VRU

After market devices Preparation and updating of the Strategic Research Agenda on ICT for Safe, Smart and Clean Mobility ICT for EE in transport

Vulnerable Road Users

Draft Minutes v2

APPENDIX 4 – SUMMARY OF MEETING’S ACTIONS 1. The co-chairs of the II WG to send II research related requirements to the RTD WG co-chairs, JeanPierre Medevielle and Alessandro Coda, EUCAR. 2. The eSafety Forum members are invited to send their feedback to the eSafety Recommendations by end-November. Important note: the feedback is requested in the form of specific proposals for text changes. The current text of the Recommendations is enclosed to this report in Appendix 3. 3.

iCar Support will liaise with Will Botman and mediate the dissemination of the ELSA report to the eSafety Observers.

iCar Support Team to prepare a questionnaire on the eSafety Forum new objectives definition and to launch the expert consultation.

eSafety Forum members are invited to send their suggestions for new names of the eSafety Forum at info@icarsupport.eu.

Draft Minutes v2

Final Report, September 2009 -Short Form∗Editors: Editing Team NDF Special Contributions: Members of the Working Group NDF Peter Christ, ERTICO Michael Fond, Orange Peter Fröhlich, FTW Rudolf Gerlach, TÜV Rheinland Johann Grill, ADAC Mark Jendzrok, MEDION Michael Schürdt, MEDION Tobias Axt, MEDION Theo Kamalski, TOMTOM Katia Pagle, ICCS Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA

∗

The complete version of the final report can be received from Wolfgang Reinhardt (ACEA). eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum

June 2009

Final Report

Page 1 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Nomadic Device Forum

List of Figures

1. Background & History 1.1 Aim and Objectives 1.2 Scope 1.3 Work items 1.4 Organisation 1.5 Membership 1.6 Nomadic Device Forum 2008-2009 Activities 1.7 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) 2. Executive Summary 3. Market Development (In-vehicle navigation, PND) 3.1 General Overview 3.2 OEM Navigation Systems 3.3 Portable Navigation Systems (PNDs) 3.4 Smartphones & Handhelds with Navigation Functionality 4. Road Safety & Nomadic Devices 5. HMI Achievements for Safe Integration 5.1 Key Research Results 5.1.1 User Experiences 5.1.2 PND Safety Advantages 5.1.3 Supportive Functionality and Precautions 5.1.4 Product Achievements 5.2 Fixing of Devices 6. Open Issues & Potential Improvements 6.1 Problems with Products in the Market 6.2 Missing Common Standard(s) 6.3 Field of View 6.4 Interpretation of the Law 6.5 Potential Solutions, their Barriers and Benefits 6.5.1 Technical Issues 6.5.2 Standardisation 6.5.2.1 Human Machine Interface 6.5.2.2 PND Connector 6.5.2.3 Database Access 7. Road Map 8. Recommendations

4 6 6 7 9 10 10 11 13 16 16 20 22 25 27 29 30 30 31 32 33 33 35 35 36 39 40 43 43 45 45 46 47 48 53

Annex I – Letter of Intent

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum

June 2009

Final Report

Page 2 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Table of Content

Figure 1: Sales figures portable navigations systems for Western Europe (15 countries) in 1.000 units for 2007-2008 23 Figure 2: Estimated Trends in road deaths in EU27, based on 27 developments 2001-2007 (ETSC 2008a) Figure 3: Percentage change in road deaths between 28 Figure 4: Customer statements on Nomadic Device usage 31 Figure 5: Advanced PND features 32 Figure 6: View ahead (Art. 71 section 5 VTS) 41 Figure 7: Obstruction of view by navigation device 42 Figure 8: Recommended mounting place for passenger cars 49 Figure 9: Recommended mounting place for small vans and MPVs 50 Figure 10: Proposed Roadmap 52

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum

June 2009

Final Report

Page 3 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

List of Figures

The use of “Nomadic Devices” (or NDs) or portable and aftermarket devices used in the vehicle by a driver for support, assistance, communication or entertainment, is increasingly common. The Term Nomadic Device covers all types of portable information, communication and entertainment equipment as well as accessories that can be brought inside the vehicle by the customer to be used while driving: o Personal Navigation Assistants or devices (PNDs) (110+ brands) o Internet Appliances (iTouch, Nokia N, Sony Mylo, etc.) o Portable CD/DVD Players (Video) o Music Players (Zune, iPod, Sony, Samsung, etc.) o Mobile Computing (PDSs, UMPCs, Laptops) o Mobile Phones/Smart Phones (iPhone, Nokia, HTC, Samsung, Blackberry, LG, Sony-Ericsson, …) o Gaming Devices (Nintendo, PlayStations Portable, Sega, …) o Portable TVs As in-car use of such devices grows rapidly, there are concerns that this should not lead to driver distraction and increased safety risk. The lack of standards for device “docking” in the vehicle, and for safe installation and use, imply added costs, inconvenience and perhaps risks for the user. The need for a safe HMI goes back to 1995/96 as a request of a high level expert group from Member States, directly appointed by the Commission. The recommendation of this group lead to the first Commission recommendation on safe HMI issued on 21 December 1999 followed by a report on the needs for updating & expanding the first principles in July 2001.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 4 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

1. Background & History

With the start of the eSafety Program a new eSafety Working Group on HMI was formed to revise the first ESoP and to explicitly add nomadic device integration issues and requirements to the work of the group. The working group delivered a final report with updated recommendations in 2005. Moreover, an expert group was established to draft the 2006 update of the new ESoP, which was supported by the European projects AIDE and HUMANIST. The Commission Recommendation of 22 December 2006 was published on 6th February 2007 (refer to: OJ L 32/2007). Comparing to the previous recommendation it addresses both mobile and integrated in-vehicle information and communication systems. A revision of this new recommendation was performed on 26 May 2008 and published on 12 August 2008 (refer to: OJ L 216/2008). This revision was performed after a request by ACEA and it includes a clarification of visual display mounting installation principles (Installation Principle IV) excluding such type M1 vehicles from the “30 degree rules”, which are derived from N1 vehicles). To especially address the challenges for nomadic devices a “Nomadic Device Forum” (NDF) was established on 20 January 2005 by the AIDE integrated project (6th FP, eSafety Strategic Objective, co-funded by EC) to bring together representatives of the key stakeholders involved. During the last four years the Forum has organized a number of workshops and meetings to discuss important issues around nomadic devices and their use within the vehicle, addressing the most important use cases, the potential requirements for and main characteristics of a common “Nomadic Device Gateway”, related business eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 5 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

While ACEA supported the EC recommendation on behalf of its members through a letter to the Commission only a very few Member States took action to implement the recommendations in their market.

On 24 October 2007 the attendees at the workshop of the AIDE NDF in Brussels agreed on the need for the Nomadic Device Forum to continue following the end of the AIDE project, perhaps as a working group of the eSafety Forum. This proposal was accepted by the eSafety Forum Steering Group. 1.1 Aim and Objectives The Nomadic Device Forum constituted a multi-sector working group aiming at: o Safe, effective and user-friendly nomadic device integration and use in vehicles o New business opportunities related to the in-vehicle use of nomadic devices To achieve these objectives, the Forum: o Acted as a European consensus platform to reach cross-sector agreement on issues relating to nomadic device safety, technical harmonisation, in-vehicle integration and their safe use o Acted as a bridge between the research projects on nomadic device issues and also between Europe and the rest of the world o Provided advice to the EC on nomadic device issues o Identified requirements for new work items, handled e.g. by sub-working groups of the Forum, research initiatives, standardisation bodies etc. 1.2 Scope Even though the Forum is open for all nomadic device stakeholders, the OEMs and other interested parties the work of the Forum focussed on Personal Navigation Devices (PNDs) and their safe integration in vehicles due to lack of participation and interest from the other groups. The Forum is not dealing with general HMI eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 6 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

aspects and HMI issues including the awareness and take-up of the European Statement of Principles on Invehicle HMI, the “ESoP”.

1.3 Work items The main work items identified were: Technical safe integration o

Find ways to identify areas in the vehicle for safe mounting of nomadic devices under consideration of the Field of Vision Directive (77/649/EEC) of motor vehicle drivers (M1 vehicles only) as well as airbag deployment corridors and made those data accessible Development proposal on how to access the forum’s information (public access, via OEM web page, via NDM web page, with costs or free of charge? etc.) NDMs to pre-specify a standard docking station (e.g. NAVI-FIX) based on e.g. the FIAT 500 concept and to discuss deployment with OEMs/CE4A1 Promoting the creation of commonly accepted and standardized gateways or docking stations for invehicle integration of nomadic devices, in terms of mechanical mounting, electrical connection and device-vehicle information exchange. For nomadic devices/applications in use, make expert assessment of likely risks related to driver use and device installation Despite warnings and alerts expressed several times by some stakeholders the use of nomadic devices for the transmission of eCall message as communication and positioning device was investigated. Business Opportunities

Identifying business opportunities specifically in the areas of public-private services (e.g. eCall, speed advice, traffic information, cooperative systems).

CE4A = Consumer Electronics for Automotive eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 7 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

issues, embedded systems or non-information and communication systems such as Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS).

Identify possibilities for OEMs to market a safe standardized interface vs. windscreen fixing Discuss and identify other business opportunities where a co-operation between OEMs and ND manufacturers is beneficial Legal Issues

Identify legal and organisational issues and propose solutions. Initiate a legal expertise on liability issues (in case a customer does not follow the recommendation?) How to react to an increasing risk that national legislators want to enforce safe integration of Nomadic Devices? Cooperation between stakeholders

o o o

Compile and agree on scenarios and use cases for nomadic device-vehicle cooperation (installation, interaction, integration) Identify functional and system requirements Define system architecture for a nomadic devicevehicle solution Outline specifications for a “smart” vehicle-device gateway (including intermediate gateway for information management), including physical data, functional and application interfaces Support standardisation efforts, best practices, and guidelines. Awareness Building

o o

Nomadic Device Manufacturers (NDM) to agree on key messages to increase awareness for safe integration on the user level and showing potential consequences of poor fitment Find ways to ban unsafe devices which do not meet ESoP requirements Provide self-certification for meeting ESoP rules and to differentiate from non-compliant devices

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 8 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Start parallel campaigns to inform customers on the benefits of certified devices and the need for safe installation Initiate automobile clubs and car magazines to test devices also related to safe fitment and communicate results

Originally it was intended to support the work of the Nomadic Device Forum by sub-working groups but finally the topics were handled in the general meetings. 1.4 Organisation The Nomadic Device Forum was chaired by: o Wolfgang Reinhardt, ACEA (Forum Chair, Vehicle manufacturers’ association) o Mark Jendrzok, Medion (Forum co-chair, ND Manufacturer) The chairmen were supported by an Organizing Committee, which consisted of the following persons and organizations: o o o o

Angelos Amditis, ICCS Peter Christ, ERTICO Wolfgang Hoefs, EC DG INFSO Gustav Markkula, VTEC

The chairmen were also members of the Organizing Committee. The eSafety Support Office provided administrative and organizational support. The Organizing Committee was responsible for organizing plenary meetings and working sessions of sub-working groups of the Forum. In between meetings, the Forum and its sub-working groups used web tools and other means of collaboration. The Organizing Committee was also responsible for continuous reporting on activities and results to the eSafety Forum. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 9 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Membership in the eSafety Working Group: Nomadic Device Forum was open to any interested organization that wanted to actively support the Forum’s activities. The Forum especially welcomed representatives of stakeholders concerned with in-vehicle use of nomadic devices, such as: o o o o o o o o o o

Vehicle manufacturers Portable navigation system manufacturers Pocket PC/PDA manufacturers Automotive suppliers Navigation map suppliers Mobile Telecom operators Service providers Public authorities Research organisations & academic bodies Associations related to the field 1.6 Nomadic Device Forum 2008-2009 Activities

o o

o o o

Promotion of the Forum to attract members from all stakeholders. Organization of a first plenary meeting on April 10 followed by meetings on 4 September and 25 November 2008. 2009 meetings on 26.2, 23.4, 17.6, 14.10 (Final report) Regular NDF meetings on 24.9 and 03.12. Identify areas in the vehicle for safe mounting of nomadic devices under consideration of the Field of Vision Directive as well as airbag deployment corridors and made those data accessible Promote a study to transfer ESoP requirements into measurable criteria and encourage compliance tests according to comparable measurements Creation and promoting commonly accepted and standardized gateways or docking stations (e.g. NAVI-FIX) for in-vehicle integration of nomadic devices, in terms of mechanical mounting, electrical connection and device-vehicle information exchange.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 10 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

1.5 Membership

o o

Investigate potential solutions for eCall using nomadic devices as communication and positioning devices Discuss and identify business opportunities in the areas of public-private services (e.g. eCall, speed advice, traffic information). Establishing contact with the CE4A working group to get their input on nomadic gateway issues. Liaison with current and new research projects related to NDs (e.g. FESTA, TELEFOT, FOT-Net, etc.), e.g. by organization of common workshops. 1.7 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

It is in the interests of both OEMs and NDM to avoid legislation on technical matters with regard to HMI, leaving room for differentiation. In August 2008 the NDF formulated a MoU with the purpose to promote the implementation of the “European Statement of Principles (ESoP) on human machine interface for safe and efficient in-vehicle information and communication systems”, as recommended in the European Commission Recommendation 2007/78/EC. The principles should be taken into account when designing new products to enable a safer, more effective and more user friendly integration of infotainment systems as well as aftermarket and nomadic (mobile) devices in the vehicles. This MoU also applied to personal navigation devices. It had to be seen as an expression of the individual and collective commitment of the signatories to work in partnership in order to realise a shared objective to the benefit of society. The MoU did not materialize due to different objectives from Automobile Manufacturers, which wanted to decouple the implementation of the EsoP from discussions on potential co-operations between the different stakeholders. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 11 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Consequently, the work of the NDF in its original form has come to an end with this final report, but will continue as a cooperation platform for the NDMs.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 12 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Even though this decoupling was agreed upon at the NDF meeting on 4th September 2008 the Forum failed to coordinate a common approach to a standardized interface between the PND and the vehicle. Instead, several discussions took place between individual OEMs and NDMs resulting in bilateral agreements.

The growth of nomadic devices (PNDs, smartphones, handhelds with navigation function) cannot be turned back in time. It is expected that while OEM/dealer installed systems will grow from 2.8 million to 4.5 million devices (2008 vs. 2013= 60%), nomadic devices will grow from 26.7 million to 66.8 million (150%) in the same period. Strong growth is expected in the field of smartphones (+280%). Strong in-vehicle use of nomadic devices requires standardization and cooperation between the different market players to avoid potential safety risks. Mobile navigation is one major application and driver for growth, but other applications should undergo similar assessments. The European Statement of Principles for safe installation is valid and needs to be applied for all driver and driving related applications. Awareness building at customer level will be however essential to inform at potential safety risks. The usage of mobile navigation devices in vehicles has no proven correlation with traffic accidents. On the contrary, research shows positive impact on energy efficiency, productivity and road safety. In spite of significant progress in product technology and design of nomadic devices there are still deficiencies concerning HMI and safe installation, which have now been taken up by leading suppliers to meet ESoP requirements and future challenges. Aging population, higher migration and mobility, strong urbanization trends and environmental challenges as well as sustainable transport needs and technological progress in ITS applications have to be taken into account in future product developments. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 13 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

2. Executive Summary

Consumer tests, technical research and discussion in the workgroup revealed a number of open issues with nomadic devices, which are mainly in the area of missing standards, product design, content presentation, fixing and customer mounting, detracting the field of view or interfering with airbag channels. There are no EU regulations beside the Commission recommendation on safe installation (ESoP) of 26 May 2008 yet on retrofitting vehicles with navigation devices but national rules might exists in the different road traffic licensing regulations. The workgroup has looked at these issues and have proposed a number of suggestions and potential solutions. While the majority of issues can be solved by the nomadic device manufacturers the problem of safe fixing requires cooperation between vehicle and nomadic device manufacturers to identify the most uncritical area at the windscreen or on the dashboard (e.g. access to respective OEM information).The NDF favours a socalled NAVIfix solution with a standardized interface and PND connector. The workgroup believes that this idea should be pursued in international bodies. As a short-term solution the NDF proposes to conduct a study to investigate if the fixing of the device in the lower left corner (right corner for U.K) of the windshield is the most suitable place with regard to field of view and other requirements.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 14 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Most important factors for customers are reliable route guidance, a competitive price, a good value for money, and an easy to use and safe system. Additional services and multi functionality are nice to have and can be a sales pitch when buying a new device.

In chapter 8 the NDF suggest a road map for safer invehicle fixation that starts with today’s mounting instructions in the user manual for PNDs and ends with a standardized electro-mechanical interface (NAVIfix) by 2015 the latest. One final key recommendation presented in chapter 9 is that all nomadic device manufacturers should sign a « letter of compliance » with ESoP requirements and work together to address open issues.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 15 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

While the ESoP leaves considerable room for innovation and flexibility it does not foster standardized evaluation and certification processes. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to specify a concrete set of measures and procedures for the evaluation and certification of HMIs for nomadic devices.

3. Market Development (In-vehicle navigation, PND)

During the mid nineties the first navigation products for cars showed up in the market. Most of these products found its way into the car during production of the car. The retail market in those days was relatively small. High product prices and build-in costs withhold navigation becoming a mass-market retail product. After the millennium change first Personal Navigation Devices (PNDs) came to market. Attractive end-user prices, the ‘out of the box use’ philosophy and fast innovation cycles made PNDs successful in short time at a larger audience. In half a decade PNDs became massmarket consumer electronic products. The navigation sales in Europe showed a growth from 1.755 million sets in 2003 to 18.708 million sets in 2008. This is an increase of 1,066%. A spit per navigation product type is given in the table below2. Fixed systems

OEM sales Aftermarket sales Total Fixed system sales

Nomadic Devices

OEM PND sales Aftermarket PND Sales Total PND sales

2003 1,175 395 1,570

185 185

2008 2,244 384 2,628

2013 3,968 356 4,324

592

1,003

15,488 16,080

11,107 12,110

(In thousand)

Source : iSupply Corporation. In the following other sources will also be quoted showing slightly different numbers. Unfortunately some statistics refer to Europe 15, Europe 15 + EFTA, others to Western Europe, etc. without giving the necessary details. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 16 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

3.1 General Overview

Fixed and Nomadic Devices Systems Sales

16000

in Thousand Pieces

14000 12000 2003

10000

2008 8000

2013

6000 4000 2000 0 OEM sales Aftermarket Total Fixed sales system sales

OEM PND sales

Aftermarket PND Sales

Total PND sales

A very detailed study by TRG3 provides more information (in-vehicle navigation systems include dealer installed aftermarket device):

Total Navigation Systems Sales 80000

Year

70000 60000

In-Vehicle Navigation Systems (in 000)

50000

Dedicated Navigation Devices (in 000)

40000

Smartphones/PDAs w/Navigation (in 000)

30000

Handsets w/Navigation (in 000)

20000

Total Navigation Systems Sales:

10000

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

in thousand pieces

TRG Telematics Research Group: Worldwide Telematics Summary 2008, Period 2000 – 2013. eSafety Forum Nomadic Device Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 17 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

18000

… Aftermarket products are sold by electronic specialist and/or car dealer and installed in the dashboard in the service shop, basically independent from the new car purchase.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 18 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

While OEM products are bought together with the vehicle either as a vehicle standard or as a factory option and installed in the factory …

From 2005 onwards Personal Navigation Devices are also entering the car as OEM products.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 19 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Personal Navigation Devices sold in the Aftermarket are almost exclusively mounted by a windscreen dock on the windscreen. Generic mounting instructions are given in the user-manuals of the Personal Navigation Devices. End-users following the instructions will minimize negative effects on Field of View.

o Unmodified aftermarket PND docked in mounting station of car maker o Specific OEM PND docked in mounting station of car maker with (wireless) connection to car infrastructure o Specific OEM PND docked in head unit of car make o Black box OEM PND connected to car infrastructure (connected to Multimedia system of the car; connected to car infrastructure; HMI of Multimedia system) o (Specific) PND fully integrated in the car In the first two categories HMI structure between Aftermarket and OEM remains the same in most cases. In the last three categories the displayed information remains the same in most cases and one or more buttons of the head unit replaces the touch screen. 3.2 OEM Navigation Systems The market for OEM navigation systems has grown from 1.175 million units in 2003 to 2.244 million units in 2008, an annual growth rate of 14.3 % p.a. Market prices for integrated navigation systems are very difficult to compare as they are mostly offered as an infotainment unit including stereo radio, several loudspeakers, the choice between black/white or colour display, and CD for one country or DVD for Europe Prices are in the range of € 1,000 to € 1,700 for volume producers and from € 2,000 to € 4,000 in the more luxury segment.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 20 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

In general, the following OEM PND integration configurations can be found in 2009 on the European market:

However, according to a recent market research study in Germany, done by IfD Allensbach, only 10%4 of the German households use a fix integrated navigation system today.

Internet Statistics: Statista 2009, Source: IfD Allensbach. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 21 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Increasingly, cooperation between vehicle manufacturers and nomadic device manufacturers leads to a new category of integrated navigation system at market prices starting from 500 €.

On the positive side integrated systems largely meet the requirements of a safe HMI (European Statement of Principles for safe integration of information and communication devices), do not disturb the field of view, do not interfere with any airbag deployment channels, have in many cases larger screen, have excellent audio capabilities, and longer navigation capabilities without GPS reception (vehicle sensors). They also do not depend on customer fixing. When switched on the actual and correct GPS position is available without a delay so that navigation services can be used immediately. 3.3 Portable Navigation Systems (PNDs) For the European market the following chart shows die geographical distribution in Western Europe for the years 2007-2008. While in 2007 14.5 million units of portable navigation devices were sold in Western Europe this number increased to 16.6 million units in 2008, an increase of 14.64%.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 22 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

There are several issues that impact on the use of integrated navigation systems. The system itself is relatively expensive and systems based on CD require the purchase of corresponding CDs when more-detailed map material about the main European Countries is needed. With 150 Euros and more these CDs are relatively expensive as well. In addition integrated systems do not include the latest developments (e.g. touch screen, give slower mobile phone support update, have older antenna technology) when they enter the market due to industry lead times. Other important safety features such as speed alert information are also not covered by integrated solutions. Furthermore, travel planning and programming have to be done in the car and cannot be prepared in advance at home, which bear the risk that this is done while driving. Additional features such as Internet access and or TV could also cause serious concerns.

Sales figures portable navigations systems for Western Europe 3600

Germany Great Britain 2500

France 1700

Italy

4375

2997

2715

1950

1150 1199

Spain 775

Netherlands

927

507 535

Belgium Sweden Denmark

360 351

2007

259 383

2008

Swiss

220 275

Austria

214 277

Portugal

195 254

Finland

182 243 35 102

Ireland

23 29

Luxemburg 0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

in thousand pieces

Figure 1: Sales figures portable navigations systems for Western Europe (15 countries) in 1.000 units for 20072008

The drop in sales prices and the continuous strong competition will cause - according to Canalys - a sustainable consolidation of the PND sector. Today, three providers, Garmin (35%), TomTom (29%) and Mio Technology (9%) cover almost three quarter of the global market. In Europe GARMIN, TOMTOM, MIO, NAVMAN, MEDION, NAVIGON, MAGELAN, HARMANBECKER basically share the market (>80%) but have different positions in different markets.5 The issues with PNDs are that they have to be fixed on the front windscreen, that the fixing has to be left to the customers with the problem that the customer ignores the recommendations from the NDM for safer positions 5

Statements made by NDF members. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 23 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

2770

Many systems give the customer a wide range of additional services (different voices, music, video players, audio books, hands-free mobile phone connection via Bluetooth) also causing distraction when activated while driving. Hardware lifetime is principally shorter than for integrated systems. The advantage of these systems is their competitively pricing - with prices ranging from below € 100 to € 500. They are, from a technology point of view, state-of-the art and feature latest developments within a period of about 6 months. This includes touch screen technology, speed information, speed limits and alert, environmental routing, etc. It can also be expected that they will be used to collect traffic information (e.g. floating device data) and to offer e.g. eCall and tolling functionality.

New developments integrate TMC antenna in the foot of the docking station or in the device itself. Charging remains an issue. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 24 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

so that field of view is narrowed (conflict with Field o View Directive) or customer fixing interferes with airbag deployment channels. Another issue comes from the loosely hanging cables for recharging and TMC6. Due to its position on the windscreen sunlight reflection is a key issue. As it is fixed at arm length it is more difficult to operate and causes distraction. The screen is also small in comparison to integrated systems resulting in smaller figures and numbers. Low battery capacity restricts usage outside the vehicle e.g. for sightseeing and walking tours in cities. Several devices need a relatively long time to establish a GPS connection, especially after starting the system in narrow streets with high buildings or dense forest areas. This constrains their use especially in unknown areas. The same problem is caused by heat reflecting coated front screens, which could cause delays of up to 45 minutes with permanently loosing the signal afterwards.

The growing number of mobile phones and smartphones with integrated GPS and navigation functionality represents a potential business threat for nomadic device manufacturers, but also give new business opportunities (sales of navigation software, etc.). According to Canalys, in the third quarter of 2008 more GPS smart phones were sold in Europe than PNDs. For example, the mobile phone manufacturer Nokia is already the third largest supplier of mobile navigation solutions in Europe, all platforms combined, behind TomTom and Garmin. Mid-range mobile phones will be equipped with GPS chipsets in late 2009.

Today, however, only 3% of all mobile phone customers in Germany actively use GPS (location based services) in their phones. With regard to the European smart phone market with navigation software the market research group Canalys reported that the sales of such products already tripled in the first half of 2006 in comparison to the same period the year before from 166 to 465 thousand units while the market for mobile navigation only doubled. Mainly so-called "Off board- or Online-Navigation Systems", which gained the majority in the second quarter of 2006, become more and more relevant. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 25 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

3.4 Smartphones & Handhelds with Navigation Functionality

Three out of four of the strongest suppliers for smartphones offer these solutions solely or partly online. The company Jentro with its online solution "activepilot" lead the market in Europe in 2006 with 30.4 % market share (Germany: 60% share). Together with Wayfinder (10.3%), Telmap (9.2%), and Webraska (5.5%) they reach more than 55% of the smart phone navigation market. The negative side of most smartphones is that when used in a vehicle they can seriously draw attention away from the driving tasks. Too many services, still available when driving, have nothing to do with the driving task like Internet access, TV, downloading of information, SMS, emails, music, etc. and could cause critical distraction. Screens are normally very small, keyboards are challenging and numbers and characters are tiny. When used for in-vehicle navigation and placed in dashboard holders they are far from meeting the requirements of the ESoP. Furthermore, navigation software is charged and any download of actual traffic information or map updates cost extra money. As smartphones are mobile phones their usage in a vehicle is normally forbidden when used non-hands-free. On the positive side, they are pretty efficient from the technology point of view; they are all-rounder and have special benefits when navigating outside the vehicle. From price point of view hardware prices have come down significantly and range from below € 100 to about € 450 without a mobile phone contract; otherwise e.g. in Germany they cost zero together with (rather expensive) contract.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 26 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

These systems do not store the map data on the device itself but download the routes via GPRS or UMTS respectively from a central server instead.

About 43,000 people were killed in road traffic collisions in the European Union in 2007. This is 11,000 fewer than in 2001 but for the first time since the adoption of the EU target, 2007 saw hardly any reduction compared with the previous year. If recent trends continue, the European Union will reach its target only in 2017. While the former EU-15 taken together will reach the target in 2013 if it maintains progress so far, slowest progress has been made in Central and Eastern European countries.

Figure 2: Estimated Trends in road deaths in EU27, based on developments 2001-2007 (ETSC 2008a)

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 27 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

4. Road Safety & Nomadic Devices

The experience of the best performing nations suggests that the key to their success has been their unrelenting struggle against major road offences such as: o Drink driving, o Speeding and o Non-use of seat belts and their investments in infrastructure improvements. New vehicle safety technologies also made a major positive contribution in general. As market penetration rates, geographic fleet composition and car park age structure, however, are different between the Member States the impact of new safety technologies differs considerably from market to market. In no statistics, however, an indication could be found that the increased use of nomadic navigation systems leads to a safety hazard due to unsafe fixing or distraction. Taking a look at the PND share distribution among major West European countries and by comparing it with fatal accident reduction trends, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between the two. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 28 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Figure 3: Percentage change in road deaths between 2001 and 2007 (ETSC, 2008a)

In February 2007 the Dutch independent research institute TNO carried out a research on this topic. The objective of this research was to find an answer to one central question: What effects does the use of navigation systems have on traffic safety? In order to find the right answer to this, the following five research questions were formulated: o Does a navigation system have an influence on the number of accident claims and the claim costs? o Does using a navigation system increase the driver’s alertness and reduce stress? o Does driving behavior change when a navigation system is used? o Is the workload on drivers reduced when they use a navigation system while driving? o Does using a navigation system reduce the number of kilometers driven? The respondents of the test indicated the brand of navigation used. Minimum 64% of the navigation products were of PND manufacturers only. The remaining products were from manufacturers producing OEM, Aftermarket and PND navigation units. The estimated percentage of PNDs used in the test is between 65-85% and this means that there was a dominant presence of PNDs in the test. The results are based on 106,799 car lease drivers and 128,555 records. Duration of the test was half a year. The percentage of cars with navigation was 10.5%; not necessarily always switched on while driving.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 29 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

5. HMI Achievements for Safe Integration

Satellite navigation systems have a positive influence on road safety. Drivers without navigation submit 12% more claims and claim 5% more cost than drivers with navigation. Navigation systems support the driver as: o 65% of the users agreed that they are more in control during their trip o About 75% also feel less stressed and calmer when driving o The majority mentioned that workload is reduced when driving in an unfamiliar area and that the system makes it easier to keep attention on the road. Other important findings relate to mobility and showed that the mean distance and time traveled to reach the destination was shorter. The study also showed that the halt time was shorter and that fewer stops were made when driving with a navigation system. An actual study (07/2009) carried out in Germany by NAVTEQ, tracking 2,100 individual trips with over 20,000 km of driving and over 500 hours of driving time, using three reference groups (w/o navigation, with navigation, with navigation plus traffic information) showed that when using navigation the average driver could increase fuel efficiency by 12%, drove nearly 2,500 km less each year and saved fuel costs of € 416 per year. 5.1.1 User Experiences A survey study in USA, DE, FR, UK, IT and ES shows that approximately 60% of the navigation users indicated to agree with the statement ‘you feel safer in your car when driving with a navigation system’. The score of non-navigation users was significantly lower. In each country the score of non-navigation users was significantly lower- 18% to 48% versus 54% and 70% per individual country. Exact details are shown in Figure 4. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 30 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

5.1 Key Research Results

The survey shows that in the mentioned countries: • • • •

62% - 85% feels less stressed while driving with navigation 68% - 75% feels calmer in the car while driving with navigation 65% - 80% feels more in control while driving with navigation 48% - 75% feels it easier to keep her/his attention on the road 5.1.2 PND Safety Advantages

Personal Navigation Devices have additional safety advantages specific for the product type. Trip destinations do not have to be entered in the car. Users can take PNDs with them to enter the destinations at a more convenient place at home or in the office. This will have impact on entering complete addresses while driving. If PNDs are mounted in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer there may be a positive eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 31 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Figure 4: Customer statements on Nomadic Device usage

5.1.3 Supportive Functionality and Precautions All new launched PNDs will be accomplished with instructions for safe fixation of the device in the car. PNDs offer the opportunity to disable functionality while driving. Entering full addresses will be impossible and menu structures of the HMI are restricted to driver’s support. State of the art PNDs will alert drivers when exceeding the maximum speed or alert drivers in the proximity of schools or children’s crossovers. Advanced lane guidance support drivers change lane in time. Figure 5 shows an example of lane keeping and speed warning.

Figure 5: Advanced PND features

On-line traffic and traveler information services are primarily developed to support navigation and to inform the driver reliably about the time arrival. The accuracy and reliability of the traffic information of the secondeSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 32 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

impact on driver distraction as display and road can be monitored simultaneously. The nomadic characteristic of PNDs can positively impact on safety since users that are frequently changing cars (e.g. persons who frequently use rental cars for business or leisure) are able to use their own PND, with which they are familiar, in different cars.

5.1.4 Product Achievements There are three categories of product safety: 1. The intrinsic impact of safety by Personal Navigation Devices, 2. The impact achieved by the implementation of the recommendations of the ESoP 2008/653/EC and 3. The impact of added eSafety functionality. An evaluation showed that in the area of passive safety most guidelines could be implemented by the PND sector itself without any cooperation with other sectors. In some cases it is difficult –if not impossible- for PND sector to implement the solution with potentially the highest traffic safety impact without the support of other sectors. If such cooperation cannot be achieved the intention should be to strive for the next best solution and not to restrict the use of PNDs. Latter case would destroy the intrinsic traffic safety impact of Navigation in a mass market and this will have a significant negative impact on traffic safety. The NDM partners consulted in the past expert organizations for advice. An example of such advice is TNO memorandum TNO-DV3 2006 M048 dated 27 July 2006 of authors: M.H. Martens, A.J.K. Oudenhuizen, W.H. Janssen, M. Hoedemaeker. TomTom used the recommendations in the mounting solution, mounting instructions and human machine interfaces. 5.2 Fixing of Devices State of the art is that all PNDs of the NDM partners are accomplished with mounting instructions for safe positioning and mounting in the car. As long as these instructions are followed the most optimal safety situation is achieved for window mounted PNDs. In our view only a standardized electro mechanical interface would improve the current situation slightly as it eliminates the influence of the users. eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 33 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

generation services is good enough to inform the driver on hazardous situations as e.g. approaching the tale of congestion at bad visibility (curve, hill, fog, etc.).

The NDM believe that a lot of mechanical passive safety issues can be solved when the PND is fixed at the short windscreen site (EU continent: Left Side, UK: Right Side) especially related to Field of View (FoV) and potential risk for the driver to be hit in case of an accident. For practical reason it is recommended to use this position for mounting from now onwards; campaigns to create awareness should be considered. As a second step it is recommended to study which percentage of the large volume cars cause FoV problems. Based on the outcome there are two options: o Percentage is acceptable -> no additional requirements in ESoP o Percentage is not acceptable -> develop and standardize « NAVIFix » The German Public Authorities (BMVBS/BASt) initiated activities to support the implementation of the ESoP/653/EC. The working group FKT-SA-PSS dealt with passive safety and derived a list of requirements for PNDs from the OEM requirements list. Tests were executed on several products of the NDM partners recently and only minor problems were found and meanwhile solved. References to international standards give for some of the rules in ESoP 2008/653/EC limits to meet, but most HMI rules indicate softer design principles. This is done deliberately. It provides the necessary freedom to the HMI designer to compromise differently between simple eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 34 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

As a result of REACH legislation and environmental requirements new synthetic materials had to be used with as consequence the window docking stations had to be re-designed to meet the desired cohesion requirements again. Meanwhile all launched new products of the NDM partners fulfill this requirement.

6. Open Issues & Potential Improvements 6.1 Problems with Products in the Market In addition to TMC navigation that obviates traffic jams, mobile navigation device OEMs equip their products with additional features such as MP3 players, picture viewers, video players and DVB-T receivers. Also, the scope of map coverage increases constantly. Even lane guidance, speed limits and 3-D representation of buildings are now possible. However, the value of premium additional features is questionable when the quality of the basic functions is not good enough or on-screen representation is so small as to be illegible. Buyers are offered none but the most general information on where to install the device without cluttering their field of view or keep them far enough away from the airbags to prevent them being projected in the cabin when airbags are released in a crash. ADAC testers found shaky mounts and devices, which dropped from the windscreen altogether because the suction cups were not strong enough to hold; connection and antenna wires cluttering the dashboard and steering wheel or being in the way. Testing conducted by TÜV Rheinland has confirmed that in many cases the mounts themselves, the connections between the devices and the mounts or the suction cups and the windscreens will not withstand the deceleration eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 35 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

and more complex HMI concepts. NDM stakeholders have evaluated their HMI concepts and concluded that most of the rules are fulfilled. There are difficulties to meet the minimum character size requirements and the contrast of the display. Differentiation is made between primary and secondary information to be displayed. The primary information fulfils the requirement in most cases. Display contrast is a more problematic decision. NDM is concerned that the extra costs will disturb market position. The price gap between compliant and non-compliant PNDs will increase; less safe products will conquer the EU market.

Other issues of major interest include driver distraction and the operability of the devices while driving. At certain speeds, some devices on the market automatically shift from the map display to arrow-only display, thus minimizing the output of information. Using the devices while driving represents a high safety risk, since, depending on the devices’ position, the drivers may have to avert their eyes completely from the road ahead. The range of devices tested by ADAC included one with DVB-T functionality, which can receive up to 30 TV programs, depending on the quality of the reception. For safety reasons, the OEM specified the device to display TV programs only when stationary. From a very low speed the reception switches to audio only. Some of the devices come without or with incomplete user instructions. Often, this information is available only on a CD-Rom or must be downloaded on the Internet. There are still motorists, who do not have access to the Internet to print manuals. The complexity of some manuals makes it also quite costly to print the entire document. This aspect weighs even heavier when the basic operation of the devices is not intuitive. 6.2 Missing Common Standard(s) There are no EU regulations yet on retrofitting vehicles with navigation devices. There is only the COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 26 May 2008 on Safe and Efficient In-vehicle Information and Communication Systems: Update of the European Statement of Principles on Human-Machine Interface (2008/653/EC) providing general recommendations.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 36 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

loads impacting them in a crash. In such a case the navigation devices can turn into projectiles that are a serious threat for a car occupant.

In this case, the state of the art includes the standards applicable to the factory equipment of vehicles throughout the EU. The requirements are: o

Stability of the mount and the PDA, the laptop or displays under deceleration forces in line with Council Directive 74/408/EEC and/or ECER17; testing of mounted device in a sled test at 20g over 30ms. Positioning with paying attention to airbag deployment: there must be no interaction between airbags and navigation devices. Positioning relative to the driver’s field of view in line with 77/649/EEC and/or for German utility vehicles §35b StVZO. Devices must not restrict the driver’s direct field of vision.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 37 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

In Germany, the Road Traffic Licensing Regulation (StVZO) makes provisions for installing retrofit equipment where this requires the use of tools. Retrofitting vehicles is covered under §19 StVZO that deals with the after-sale alteration of vehicles and vehicle parts in general. §19 section 2 explicitly provides that the authorisation to operate a vehicle expires if the alteration is liable to cause a hazard and if no positive expertise or permit is obtained. While the owner of a vehicle is responsible to install only tested parts, the manufacturer is responsible for the safety of the parts in line with the state of the art.

Testing display, device functionality, and operation in line with the update of the European Statement of Principles on human-machine interface (2008/653/EC). Requirements lay out in Council Directive 72/245/EEC on electromagnetic compatibility must be met. Energy dissipation and shatter-proofness in line with ECE-R21 and/or 74/60/EEC and/or for German utility vehicles §30 StVZO. There must be no shattering, no sharp rupture edges in the impact area, no acceleration in excess of 80g for longer than 3ms. Radiuses in line with ECE-R21 and/or 74/60/EEC. Any edges in the head impact area, which can be reached by a ball with a diameter of 165mm, must be rounded with radiuses of at least 2.5mm and must be constructed to absorb energy (cf. above). Materials with a hardness of less than 50 Shore A are deemed absent. The structure below them must be assessed. If installed on the dashboard outside the head impact area, the reachable radius must not be less than 3.2mm. For German utility vehicles §30 StVZO applies (no dangerous edges).

For suction cup mounts, the legal situation in Germany is somewhat different. The same requirements apply to the suction-cup installation of a navigation device, which also apply to a roof rack or to securing the cargo. Manufacturers are bound by the product safety act. o

The component must be safe in line with the state of the art.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 38 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

6.3 Field of View7 When the media reported about motorists being indicted for installing mobile navigation devices in a manner obstructing their view, the Zurich municipal police started receiving inquiries on how to install such devices safely. A memorandum dated 24 October 2007 was published to explain the legal requirements applicable in Switzerland and to show where mobile navigation devices can be installed without posing a threat to road safety. Applicable Legal Requirements a.

Obstruction of the field of view

The drivers of motor vehicles must ensure that in their vehicle the field of view is not obstructed. The regulation on technical requirements for vehicles (VTS8) specifies in Art. 71 section 5 (see Figure 6):

“Assuming the level of a driver’s eyes to be 0.75m above the level of the seat, the driver must be able to freely view the road ahead outside a 12.0m radius. [...]” In addition to the provision above, Art. 71 section 4 VTS also comes into play. It requires that windows ensuring command of the road allow clear and undistorted view. b. Driver distraction The unobstructed view notwithstanding, the driver must refrain from any activity, which might interfere with the operation of the vehicle (Art. 31 section. 1 SVG9 and Art.

Zurich municipal police memorandum of 24 October 2007 VTS=Verordnung über die Technischen Anforderungen an Strassenfahrzeuge (Swiss regulation on technical requirements for road vehicles). 9 SVG=Strassenverkehrsgesetz (Swiss RoadTraffic Act). 8

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 39 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

The state of the art includes the requirements listed above. The driver is responsible for positioning the device.

3 section 1 VRV10). Drivers must ensure that using the navigation devices does not distract them from driving.

Confirming the position of the Zurich municipal police and in line with the position of ASTRA (the Swiss Federal Road Agency), the law may be interpreted as follows: A good view of the road ahead is essential for road safety. Windows ensuring command of the road include the windscreen and the front side windows. No stickers or sun shades may be attached to them, except for the mandatory items or items expressly specified by law (e.g. toll stickers, LSVA11 transponders, interior mirror and sun visors). Under certain circumstances, the installation of today’s commercial navigation devices on or against the windscreen may be tolerated, since the devices serve a justified purpose; reducing search time. If used correctly, navigation devices can increase road safety by providing information about road signs or about the course of the road. Using a navigation device must not pose any risks for other road users, e.g. because the driver’s view is obstructed. In accordance with “Art. 71 section 5 VTS” the navigation device must not obstruct the field of view specified therein. This means that the driver must be able to see an object on the road 12m or more ahead. Devices mounted to the centre of the windscreen do not comply with this requirement: they create a dangerously large blind spot (Figure 14). Based on the above considerations, the Swiss authorities deem installations at the upper or lower edges of the windscreen acceptable. Notably, if installed in the angle between the dashboard and the glass at the lower edge of the windscreen, today’s commercial products do not interfere much or at all with the mandatory field of vision ahead of the vehicle (12m radius). 10 11

VRV=Verkehrsregelnverordnung (Swiss Traffic Regulations). LSVA=Leistungsabhängige Schwerverkehrsabgabe (Swiss/Liechtenstein HGV toll). eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 40 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

6.4 Interpretation of the Law

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

When it comes to the ban against distraction, the situation is similar to that of using mobile phones while driving. For instance, it is not admissible to enter a new destination into the navigation device while driving.

Field of view to keep clear

Figure 6: View ahead (Art. 71 section 5 VTS) (Source: Merkblatt der Stadtpolizei vom 24. Oktober 2007)

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 41 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Navigation device 12x18cm approx. 60cm from the driver’s head

Obstruction of view Obstruction of view at 15m •approx. 2m vertical section •approx. 3m horizontal section

str uc tio

no fv

iew

Navigation device 12x18cm approx. 60cm from the driver’s head

Figure 7: Obstruction of view by navigation device (Source: Municipal police memorandum of 24 October 2007)

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 42 of 56

6.5 Potential Solutions, their Barriers and Benefits

The ND Forum feels that a study should be conducted to show the percentage of the existing fleet in which the installation of navigation devices in the lower left area of the windshield would interfere with the field of view. Such a study could also determine the extent of the blind spot in the mandatory field of view caused by the currently available navigation devices. Another possibility would be to mark the windscreen in type approval (4° line below which obstructions of view are tolerable).

In line with the requirements of the Recast Directive, the vehicle manufacturers could specify positions for the ND eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 43 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

6.5.1 Technical Issues

o o

Coated windscreen glass issues could be overcome by connection to internal vehicle antenna. As an option for future development, the work group discussed the introduction of standardised “NAVIFix” installation points (like those for ISOFIX child seat attachment points). This would provide the possibility of compliance with existing field of view regulations, finding a safe spot relative to airbag deployment and to ensure the crash-safe installation of the device and connection with the on-board circuits without lose wiring and aerials. Various categories of installation points (on top of or at the front of the dashboard, large/small vehicle) would also allow the adaptation of the scale of the onscreen display. This idea presents a certain potential and could be a solution for the future development of vehicles and navigation devices. The work group would also like to point to the CE4A (Consumer Electronics for Automotive) integration work group, with which the ND Forum has established contacts in view of developing a standard electrical/electronic interface. This work group believes that the above idea and its potential for the development of vehicle and navigation devices should be pursued in international bodies.

One possible step in this direction would be amendments to the Council Directive 74/60/EC and ECER21. The German work group listed the following in-car installation requirements for ND: a. Compliance with the ≥3.2mm radius, energy absorption of 80g/3ms, and shatter-proofness in line with 74/60/EEC / ECE-R21 b. Compliance with 77/649/EEC and/or §35b StVZO (field of view) eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 44 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

manufacturers in which nomadic devices can be installed ensuring that there is no interference with the field of view or with airbag deployment.

Items b) and c) stand out as potentially problematic and costly. In this respect, only vehicle-specific agreements are likely to be achieved. The results of this work group were presented to, discussed and basically endorsed in the ND Forum. The ND manufacturers need closer cooperation with the vehicle manufacturers, notably with a view to items b) and c). 6.5.2 Standardisation 6.5.2.1

Human Machine Interface

The HMI of an in-car information system has a significant effect on driving safety. In order to minimize distraction from the primary driving task, HMI design and evaluation should be built on a consistent and internationally agreed set of principles and criteria. The ESoP has been prepared to meet this need. While the high-level principles within the ESoP leave considerable room for innovation and flexibility, they do not foster standardized evaluation and certification processes. It would thus be worthwhile to specify a concrete set of measures and procedures for the evaluation and certification of HMIs. Benefits: eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 45 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

c. Safe positioning relative to airbags d. Sled test 20g/30ms conducted according to ECE-R17, Appendix 7 e. Compliance with 72/245/EEC (electro-magnetic compatibility) f. Review of display, functionality and operability in line with the update of the European Statement of Principles on human-machine interface (2008/653/EC) g. Compliance with the Council Resolution of 17 December 1998 on operating instructions for technical consumer goods h. Compliance with the Council Directive 2001/95/EC of 3 December 2001 on general product safety.

Results of various product tests relying on such a test procedure would be better comparable and thus provide more transparent guidance for consumers. Barriers: • Automobile manufacturers are currently reluctant to promote standardized measurement procedures with unique target figures to compare individual products against or to have products certified. • Building such a certification procedure requires high efforts of all parties involved. Although much relevant material is available that can be taken as a reference, some further empirical research would be needed to validate a sound test methodology and to establish documentation and awareness. For such activities, public funding on the European level would be necessary. 6.5.2.2

PND Connector

As a common connection interface, a PND connector should be integrated in the centre console. A technical sample of this solution is already on the market (Fiat 500). The nomadic device manufacturer could provide a brand-specific connector to connect the brand-specific PND to the car interface. As a minimum requirement, the interface should provide switched power. Optionally, FM aerial access for TMC, access to the CAN bus and to the sound system might complete the interface.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 46 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Nomadic device manufacturers could be supported in self-certification for meeting ESoP rules and to differentiate from non-compliant devices.

When travelling with company cars or rental cars, destinations can be entered prior to the trip, which is safer than entering them while driving and more comfortable than entering the destination just before starting. Barriers: Currently the automotive industry is not willing to provide a standardised connector. From their point of view, designated bilateral business relations are preferable. 6.5.2.3

Database Access

Information for installation with windscreen mount or aftermarket centre console mount systems. Installation of nomadic devices can cause safety-relevant problems, which cannot be managed by the nomadic device manufacturers without support from the automobile industry. One aspect is the field of view, which might be affected if the nomadic device is installed in the wrong place. Another issue is the airbag deployment area as airbags might interact with installed nomadic devices in case of an accident. For new cars, it would be preferable if a safe installation area would be specified in the car user manual as long as no standardised area is available for nomadic devices. Benefits: Safe installation of nomadic devices.

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 47 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Benefits: Personal navigation systems can be used in different cars (company car, second family car or rental car). When a familiar system is used, driver distraction is decreased compared to an unknown system such as an OEM system or a nomadic device from a rental car company.

For cars already on the market, a database provided by the car manufacturers might be helpful. Alternatively, third parties such as technical service providers could provide such data to the ND manufacturer. The technical service provider could perform practical tests to check where it is possible to install nomadic devices in a way that they do not interfere with the airbag systems and do not cause blind spots in the mandatory field of view. Such tests could be funded by a consortium of ND manufacturers. 7. Road Map Most passive safety requirements can be solved by the PND manufacturer, but for safer in-vehicle fixation the support of the car makers is needed. Therefore safe fixation is part of the road map. Prior to the roadmap definition discussion took place on potential safe mounting solutions. Following potential safe fixation solutions were discussed: 1. Mounting instructions in the user manual of the PND 2. Mounting instructions in the user manual of the car 3. Look-up datebase with car model specific mounting instructions for the users 4. Proprietary in-vehicle PND mounting facilities of the car makers 5. Standardized electro-mechanical interface NaviFix

All these potential solutions were cross-examined on following criteria: eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 48 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Barriers: Currently, the automotive industry is reluctant to provide information for a safe installation area for nomadic devices. Possibly an EU Directive would be an option.

Field of View Airbag areas Specific versus generic solutions User influence Additional effects

This resulted in the following conclusions: Mounting instructions in the user manual of PNDs is state of the art. Most PND manufacturer consulted an expert organization to guide them. TomTom followed the advice of TNO made in report TNO – DV3 2006 M048 dated June 27, 2006. The recommendation is to mount the PND as low as possible on the windscreen at the left side of the steering wheel (in UK the right side). For MPVs the small side window is recommended. See both pictures below. All members of the NDM have similar instructions in the user manual of their products.

Figure 8: Recommended mounting place for passenger cars

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 49 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

• • • • •

This is the best possible car model generic mounting instruction to give. There are still two safety relevant uncertainties namely the positions of the airbags and the influence of the user. It is the expectation that only in a small number of car models “Field of View” requirements will not met for a few centimeter maximum. Mounting instructions in the user manual of the car do solve the airbag issue, but the user influence can not be minimized. The look-up database is comparable with the previous option. There are higher costs involved to create and maintain the database but the influence of end-users cannot be minimized. Customers can still ignore mounting instructions. A standardized electro-mechanical interface (NaviFix) is the best possible solution for safe fixation of PNDs. Car makers decide on the mounting position and this will per definition result in the best option for “Field of View” and avoid contact with airbags. The influence of the user is minimized as the position of the PND is predefined by the car maker. Furthermore, NaviFix has two additional eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 50 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Figure 9: Recommended mounting place for small vans and MPVs

Usage of the proprietary mounting precautions of the car makers is a solution for a small fraction of personal cars. Only the cars equipped with such a propietary solution will benefit and this is below 10%.

Sa fe Ra ty Im nk p in act g

Ad di be tion ne al fit s

nf lu en c Us e

ifi c Ca r

Sp ec

s Ai rb

Fi el

Vi ew

This argumentation is summarized in the table below:

User Manual PND

>85%

large

User Manual Car

100%

yes

large

Look-up table

95%

100%

yes

large

Proprietary car solution

100%

yes

small*1

Cables ?

Navifix

100%

yes

small*1

No cables Veh.cat.

Short term

Long term

*1 Remaining user influence is size of device.

In addition to passive safety also HMI aspects were considered basically in the NDF. Some HMI requirements are hard or not measurable. Other requirements may eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 51 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

safety benefits. There are no cables hanging around in the car and it offers the option to distinguish between the type of vehicles in which a PND is used. This can be done mechanically or electrically. This categorization enables PND manufacturers to enable and disable software per vehicle type. E.g. disable small urban streets for lorries. Point of discussion is the “Field of View” for different sizes of PNDs and other Nomadic Devices. Or with other words, how to prevent customers worsening “Field of View” with too large Nomadic Device sizes for the choosen NaviFix position?

All described elements are part of the proposed road map of the NDF, which is shown below. The reader should realize that this is a best case road map. Delays in the eSafety HMI WG, the establishment of a certification process and verification criteria as well as the development of NaviFix may delay milestones in the road map.

HMI certification

HMI certification Verification methods Criteria for hard requirements and Guidelines for soft requirements

ESoP update HMI WG

ESoP draft

ESoP launch

18 months period

Status Report Input for HMI WG

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Safe mounting instructions in user manual of PND & transition adaptation

Safe mounting instructions in user manual of car

Nomadic Device Forum Standardization NaviFIX

NaviFix

Figure 10: Proposed Roadmap

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 52 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

change depending on compromises to be made if the number of applications running on the same HMI increase. For the part that is measurable certification is possible and recommended. For the more flexible part implementation guidelines are needed to instruct HMI designers. This part may also be subject of a more flexible way of certification. The HMI subject is the core activity of the eSafety HMI WG and will be addressed in this group.

•

Implement the four passive safety related recommendations of chapter 4 in the ESoP update.

•

Until more sophisticated future fixation solutions are available nomadic device manufacturers should recommend to their customers to fix a nomadic device on the left lower corner of the windscreen or for cars with fixed side windows (MPV, etc.) on this side windscreen.

•

Start campaigns to create customer awareness on safe mounting of Nomadic Devices. This is a joint effort of NDMs, user organizations, insurances and public authorities.

•

There is only representation of the PND industry in the ESoP discusssion. Get other Nomadic Device manufacturers involved.

•

The EC needs to approach the market leaders and/or associations of the other ND sectors.

•

Start standardization for safe fixing (NaviFix)

•

Start developing a Certification Process for the hard and measureable ESoP requirements and guidelines for the softer requirements which are subject to change with the integration degree of functionality in the same device.

•

Certification of HMI to be based on minimum ‘state of the art’ limits in a yes/no procedure.

•

While safe fixing and integration of nomadic devices for future vehicles will probably be solved by closer cooperation, safe fixing of such devices for the existing vehicles park requires an exchange of information with regard to less critical positions (field of view, airbag deployment channels).

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 53 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

8. Recommendations

Provide full support for Field Operational tests

•

Last but not least all nomadic device manufacturers should sign the “Letter of Compliances” with ESoP requirements as already by some12

This report can provide the basis for strategic decisions by nomadic device manufacturers and other stakeholders but cannot replace company specific strategic decisions.

For Letter of Compliance see Annex I eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 54 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

•

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report

Annex I – Letter of Intent

eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 55 of 56

Nomadic Device Forum – Final Report eSafety Forum Working Group Nomadic Device Forum

Nomadic Device Forum Final Report

June 2009 Page 56 of 56

eSecurity Working Group

Vulnerabilities in Electronics and Communications in Road Transport: Discussion and Recommendations

Title:

Vulnerabilities in Electronics and Communications in Road Transport: Discussion and Recommendations

Project:

eSecurity Working Group

Editor:

Trialog

Date:

21 June 2010

Version:

v1.0

File:

eSecurity_VulnerabilitiesInRoadTransport_v1.0.doc

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

Document History Version 0.1 0.2

0.3

0.4, 0.5 0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.91

0.92 0.93

0.94.6

0.95

0.96 0.99 1.0

21/6/2010

Status Introduction + Use Case + Legal Part, BASt Integration of OEM contribution th Integration of section from previous draft report further to 7 plenary meeting (6 Feb, 2009), Antonio Kung Restructuring the 2 parts : Independent Vehicle-based Electronics Interactive Systems Contributions on use cases and measures related to the privacy of today location oriented services Some comments on cooperative systems sections Restructuring part 2 New sections: 3.2.1.2 Unauthorised Access to Data in the Road Charging Service 3.2.2.2 Unauthorised Access to Data in the Road Charging Service 3.2.1.3 Unauthorised Access to Data in the Pay-as-you-drive Service 3.2.2.3 Unauthorised Access to Data in the Pay-as-you-drive Service 3.3.2 Discussion Legal Consequences Future Cooperative Systems 3.3 Security and Privacy of Future Cooperative Systems Small text corrections: 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.2.3, 3.3 New sections: 3.2.1.1 Unauthorised Access to Data in the eCall Service 3.2.2.1 Unauthorised Access to Location in the eCall Service English corrections: grammar, spelling, etc. 2: Part I Deleted: 3.3.2.1 Legal constraints 3.3.2.2 Warranty aspects 3.3.2.3 Liability aspects 3.3.2.4 Privacy aspects Adding organisation measures in part 2 Adding conclusions in part 1 and part 2 Elimination of state of the art section (will be transferred in a working document) List of members More explanative title Organisation and hyperlinks for references Review before submission to working group Move all motivation and contents to beginning Introduction section Roll back of Part 1 to version 8, with updates Updates to legal sections in Part 1 (2.2) & Part 2 (3.3) New version of section 3.2.1 Road Charging Addition of Recommendations section at end Accept all modifications of v0.94.6_JH Treat comments v0.94.6_JH according to discussion 20 April meeting Revised recommendations Introduction of Contents of Part 1 moved to Part 1 Introduction added for Part 2 Small corrections of spelling and grammar Minor corrections of T. Gasser and J. Scholten Version for last review Final version Definition of privacy updated in section 3.3.2.1

Date 02.12.2008 17.06.2009

18.06.2009

01.09.2009 01.10.2009

06.11.2009

01.12.2009

09.12.2009

30.12.2009

05.01.2010 06.01.2010

15.04.2010

30.04.2010

10.06.2010 10.06.2010 21.06.2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 5 1.1 MOTIVATION FOR PART 1: INDEPENDENT VEHICLE-BASED ELECTRONICS .......................... 5 1.2 MOTIVATION FOR PART 2: INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS ........................................................... 5 1.3 REPORT CONTENT..........................................................................................................6 1.4 WORKING GROUP PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................... 6 1.4.1 Chairmen .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.4.2 Working Group Participants ............................................................................................. 6 1.4.3 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 8

2 PART 1: INDEPENDENT VEHICLE-BASED ELECTRONICS .............................. 9 2.1 VULNERABILITIES USE CASES ......................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Unauthorised Enhancement of Engine Power ................................................................. 9 2.1.2 Unauthorised Mileage Adjustment ................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Unauthorised Points of Interest in Digital Maps ............................................................... 9 2.1.4 Unauthorised TV, DVD or Internet Access in Moving Vehicles ....................................... 9 2.1.5 Other Possibilities for Intentional Manipulation .............................................................. 10

2.2 DISCUSSION ON LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Unauthorised Enhancement of Engine Power ............................................................... 10 2.2.2 Unauthorised Mileage Adjustment ................................................................................. 11 2.2.3 Unauthorised Points of Interest in Digital Maps ............................................................. 11 2.2.4 Unauthorised TV, DVD or Internet Access in Moving Vehicles ..................................... 12 2.2.5 Other Possibilities for Intentional Manipulation .............................................................. 13

2.3 TYPICAL MEASURES TAKEN BY OEMS .......................................................................... 13 2.3.1 General Characteristics: Unauthorised Enhancement of Engine Power ....................... 14 2.3.2 Unauthorised Mileage Adjustment ................................................................................. 14 2.3.3 Unauthorised Points of Interest in Digital Maps ............................................................. 15 2.3.4 Unauthorised TV, DVD or Internet Access in Moving Vehicles ..................................... 15 2.3.5 Other Possibilities for Intentional Manipulation .............................................................. 15 2.3.6 Manipulation of Speed Limiting Devices ........................................................................ 16 2.3.7 Impact of Block Exemption ............................................................................................. 16

2.4 CONCLUSION ON INDEPENDENT VEHICLE-BASED ELECTRONICS ..................................... 17

3 PART 2: INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS .................................................................... 18 3.1 SECURITY AND PRIVACY IN LOCATION-BASED APPLICATIONS ......................................... 18 3.1.1 Road Charging Service .................................................................................................. 18 3.1.2 Pay-as-you-drive Service ............................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Conclusion on Location-based Applications .................................................................. 22

3.2 BASIC LEGAL CONDITIONS FOR INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS ................................................. 23 3.2.1 The Privacy Issue of Interactive Systems ...................................................................... 23 3.2.2 Non-Privacy Legal Issues............................................................................................... 23

3.3 SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF FUTURE COOPERATIVE SYSTEMS ....................................... 24 3.3.1 Analysis of Security Issues............................................................................................. 25 3.3.2 Technical Protection Measures ...................................................................................... 30 3.3.3 Organisational Measures ............................................................................................... 33 3.3.4 Conclusion on Future Cooperative ITS Applications...................................................... 33

4 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 35 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

5 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................... 36 6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 38

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

1 Introduction 0B

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) bring the promise of more safety, comfort, security, environment preservation and energy consumption reduction. However, the resulting increase in electronics and communications is raising security and privacy issues that could jeopardise deployment. The eSecurity Working Group was set up within the eSafety Forum as a discussion platform involving all stakeholders with two objectives: to discuss vulnerability aspects of electronics and communications in road transport while taking into account existing practice and emerging Research and Technology Development (RTD) initiatives, and to agree on recommendations to improve or eliminate the vulnerabilities. This report is divided into two parts: • Part 1: Independent Vehicle-based Electronics deals with in-vehicle products and systems, such as

electronic components, pre-fitted on-board systems, and after-market additional vehicle electronics (known as “nomadic devices”). This report refers to those products and systems as independent vehicle-based systems. • Part 2: Interactive Systems deals with overall applications involving vehicles communicating with

external systems, for services such as road charging and Intelligent Transport Systems. This report refers to those systems as interactive systems. The separation of the topics in these two parts is necessary because the scope and level of understanding of security issues are different. Independent vehicle-based electronics have been deployed for many years by the automotive industry. Many electronic systems are integrated in vehicles today, and a wealth of experience is available. Vulnerabilities are already known and addressed. On the other hand, interactive systems are located in an evolving and changing environment. New technologies such as car-to-car communication are anticipated. Not much experience is available on vulnerabilities or how to address them.

1.1 Motivation for Part 1: Independent Vehicle-based Electronics 6B

Since electronic systems have found their way into most areas of modern life, awareness of possible misuse and manipulation has immensely increased. This awareness is – due to severe problems in the field of personal computing – however still rather limited to this field. But even if in comparison this matter must presently be considered of minor importance, misuse and manipulation already take place in the field of traffic and transport as well. Vehicles of the 70’s and early 80’s did not include many electronic systems, so the manipulation of electronics was no issue. Some possibilities for manipulation – quite similar to those we are facing today – already existed nonetheless. This was, however, usually achieved by means of physical manipulation and thus required different skills. The increasing number of vehicle electronics potentially enlarges the number of possibilities for electronic manipulation. Many of these components, however, are of no interest as far as manipulation is concerned. Apart from this, the increase in security – as e.g. apparent with vehicle locking systems – has considerably increased since the originally mechanical components have been replaced by electronics. However, complete security is impossible to achieve. Furthermore, as long as manipulation is not effectively barred by security measures (which might not be possible to full extent), electronic manipulations are hardly retraceable. It must be noted that misuse and manipulation are problems arising within the sphere of users. In this report, the targets include products such as vehicle components, pre-fitted on board systems, and after market vehicle electronics (“nomadic devices”). In most cases, these products are either deliberately applied beyond their intended use or beyond system limitations (misuse), or they are intentionally modified in order to achieve some kind of benefit which is in some cases illegal (manipulation).

1.2 Motivation for Part 2: Interactive Systems 7B

The part on interactive systems addresses two problems which have raised concerns in the ITS community: • The privacy of location based applications. Such applications utilise vehicle location information,

using technologies such as satellite navigation systems. Examples of such services are road charging and pay-as-you-drive insurance. The implementation of such services involves the collecting, transmitting and processing of information which could be related to individuals, therefore raising privacy issues. 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

• The security and privacy of future co-operative systems applications. Such applications rely on

vehicular communications (VC) and inter-vehicular communications (IVC) capability that are foreseen in the future. Examples of such applications include extended hazard warning in safety critical situations, applications to achieve high throughput in merging areas, extended blind spot applications, safe overtaking, and safe lane change assistance.

1.3 Report Content 8B

Contents of Part 1: Independent Vehicle-based Electronics: • In section 2.1, some relevant issues for security are described in the form of use cases which are

meant to improve the understanding of the scope of the problems. • In section 2.2, legal regulations that are in existence and applicable to electronic misuse and

manipulation are described. • In

section 2.3, the availability and effectiveness of preventive measures presently taken by manufacturers are reviewed.

Contents of Part 2: Interactive Systems: • Section 3.1 presents the privacy vulnerabilities of location-based applications. • Section 3.2 presents the legal context of interactive systems. • Section 3.3 discusses the security and privacy of future cooperative systems.

1.4 Working Group Participants 9B

1.4.1 Chairmen 17B

Last Name Kung Ruland

First Name Antonio Christoph

Organisation Trialog University of Siegen

1.4.2 Working Group Participants 18B

Last Name Reinhardt Polli Seeck Gasser Vierkötter Scholten Offermann Eymann Younès-Fellous Carvais Cosenza Held Müter Franz Leinmueller Mäurer Papadimitratos Pellischek Bridgeman

21/6/2010

First Name Wolfgang Roberto Andre Tom Marcel Joachim Tobias Thomas Vanessa Johanna Stefano Albert Michael Walter Tim Hans-Jürgen Panos Gloria Gary

Organisation ACEA Altea BASt BASt BASt BMW Bosch Bosch CNIL CNIL CRF Fiat Daimler Daimler Daimler Denso Dekra EPFL ERPC GmbH ERTICO - ITS Europe

eSecurity WG Carrotta Konstantinopoulou Buchta Surmont Davila Höfs Okagoglou Gerlach Dölle Freytag Kost Chatfield Ernst Ngoh Osório Deckers Troncoso de Cock Stevens Dumortier Yiangoullis Geuens Trenor Vila Perez Losa Vila Sansone Daulaud van Rongen Godart Motte Karppinen Lonc Foersterling Janusson Venema Rebuffi Susta Kung Raither Bartsch Holle Groll Ruland Zhendong Kargl Spell All Thorngren Gaillet

21/6/2010

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport Alessandro Lina Anna Charles Emilio Wolfgang Gzim Matthias Lukas Christoph Martin John Thierry Lek Heng Luís Sebastian Carmela Danny David Jos Yiango Christophe Tomas Marta Pedro Alfonso Marta Fulvio Claude A.K. Julie Stefaan Lauri Brigitte Frank Ulrik Nol Luigi Antonin Antonio Barbara Markus Jan André Christoph Ma Frank Sabine Pontus Jonas Jean-François

v1.0

ERTICO - ITS Europe ERTICO - ITS Europe European Commission European Commission European Commission European Commission European Commission Fraunhofer Fokus Informatik HU BERLIN Informatik HU BERLIN Informatik HU BERLIN InnovITS Ltd Inria Institute for Infocomm Research (I2R) Singapore ISEL ITM - Öffentlich-rechtliche Abteilung (Abt. II) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / COSIC Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / COSIC Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / ICRI Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / ICRI Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / ICRI Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / ICRI LISITT - Instituto de Robótica LISITT - Instituto de Robótica LISITT - Instituto de Robótica LISITT - Instituto de Robótica Mediamuse Ministère de l'industrie Mobi-Spot NAVTEQ NXP Office of data protection Ombudsman Renault Siemens VDO Sweco VBB Technolution Thales The Office for Personal Data Protection Trialog Trialog TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH University of Siegen University of Siegen University of Siegen Ulm University Ulm University Volkswagen Volvo Volvo Ygomi LLC

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

1.4.3 Acknowledgements 19B

We would like to thank the following people for their editorial contributions: Last Name Gasser Vierkötter Scholten Konstantinopoulou Troncoso Daulaud Motte Venema Kung Raither Ruland Holle Kargl Spell Ohst

First Name Tom Marcel Joachim Lina Carmela Claude Stefaan Nol Antonio Barbara Christoph Jan Frank Sabine Daniel

Organisation BASt BASt BMW ERTICO - ITS Europe Katholieke Universiteit Leuven / COSIC Ministère de l'industrie NXP Technolution Trialog Trialog University of Siegen University of Siegen Ulm University Volkswagen Toll Collect

We would also like to express our thanks for the participation of members of the Article 29 Working Group Party 1. 0F

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Group Party is an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy [12]. Its tasks are described in [37][38].

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

2 Part 1: Independent Vehicle-based Electronics 1B

The amount of electronics in traffic systems is increasing fast. Many are already integrated in today’s vehicles. Consequently some possibilities for misuse and manipulation of electronics are known. Part 1 of this report deals with the cases that are known today. In the first section, some issues, described as use cases, of relevance for security are presented. These use cases are meant to improve the readers’ understanding of the scope of the problems. Then legal regulations that are currently in force are pointed out, according to German legislation. Finally, possible gaps are identified that can be handled by technical security measures, at least as long as legal provisions prove to be non-effective and the danger is substantial.

2.1 Vulnerabilities Use Cases 10B

This section describes a number of presently known cases of misuse and manipulation of electronic vehicle systems. They are meant to clarify the scope of Part 1.

2.1.1 Unauthorised Enhancement of Engine Power 20B

The unauthorised modification of a vehicle's characteristics by reprogramming the engine’s electronic control unit (ECU) or the integration of additional electronic components (known as “chip tuning”) has a negative impact on not only the engine itself. In most cases, the safety relevant components in the vehicle will not match the new unauthorised adjusted power characteristic. This can cause incalculable consequences for the vehicle occupants and the surrounding traffic. In addition to the safety aspects, it is extremely complicated to retrace the modification of the engine after removing the manipulated software or hardware. In this case, the modification may also have an impact on the interest of vehicle manufacturers to maintain vehicles in its original condition. The reason lies in the OEM’s obligation in terms of, for example, the warranty.

2.1.2 Unauthorised Mileage Adjustment 21B

To increase the value of a vehicle, the mileage might be adjusted. In some Member States this is even offered as a special service by some garages. Usually this is done by some intelligent electronic equipment which is plugged into the vehicle and allows mileage adjustment. After this, the vehicle will often be sold without informing the buyer about the adjustment. This is an act of fraud against the new owner. Another aspect is that the new owner does not know how old the components in this vehicle are and is thus exposed to a safety risk. If it is not possible to retrace the unauthorised adjustment, then this might also be fraud against service garages, manufacturers and insurance companies. This is because insurance coverage and warranty on spare parts and vehicles is limited by a certain mileage.

2.1.3 Unauthorised Points of Interest in Digital Maps 22B

Electronic maps in navigation systems offer several additional options. One of them is the display of interesting points (e.g. hotels, bars, restaurants) along the route. Depending on the Points of Interest (POI’s) integrated, it is possible to warn of radar control units at the roadside. This is not only critical from a safety point of view, but also legally because the use of this information is prohibited by law in some Member States. Inconsistent to this, selling such maps is not prohibited. In addition, consumers are often unaware of such bans in certain Member States.

2.1.4 Unauthorised TV, DVD or Internet Access in Moving Vehicles 23B

More and more navigation systems offer TV or DVD functions in the car. In addition, it will be possible to access the internet in the near future. Normally the integrated TV, DVD and internet functions are only available if the vehicle is not in motion or moving below walking speed (below 6 km/h). By pressing a combination of keys or the simple installation of some freely available electronic components in the CAN-Bus (Controller-area network bus: an in-vehicle communication system for electronic components), it is in some cases possible to avoid this limitation. This applies mainly to vehicles with older hardware and software. The modification of these electronics can cause incalculable consequences for the vehicle and the surrounding traffic. The underlying risk in this kind of manipulation is distraction of the driver which generates a risk for traffic safety. From a legal point of view this case is disputable too (see section 2.2.4). Such dangers to security are usually even greater with retrofit systems. Later integrated systems of third-party manufacturers or handheld nomadic 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

devices have no or little protection against the possibility to use the mentioned functions while driving. That means that manipulation, as mentioned before for integrated systems of OEMs, is not necessary in the first place.

2.1.5 Other Possibilities for Intentional Manipulation 24B

Vehicles contain more and more electronics for comfort and safety applications. In the case of some comfort applications, there is a risk of unexpected manipulation. e.g. the electronically controlled convertible top. In the case of manipulation, it can be possible to open the top with a remote key, and this can even be achieved when driving up to speeds of 60 km per hour. Such hardware manipulation is available without permission by vehicle manufacturers. The manipulation of the convertible top is in some cases easily achieved by some electronic hardware in the CAN-Bus. Other scenarios of intentional manipulations are imaginable, e.g. the possibility of adjusting a shorter distance to vehicles in front with an Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), or the deactivation of a hands-free detection of the steering wheel in case of a lane-keep assist. These scenarios are also relevant for traffic safety and they touch the interest of the manufacturer, because warranty aspects can generally not be excluded.

2.2 Discussion on Legal Consequences 11B

Misuse and manipulation are problems arising within the sphere of users. In most cases products (in this report: vehicle components, pre-fitted on-board systems, after market vehicle nomadic devices, etc.) are either deliberately applied beyond their intended use or beyond system limitations (misuse) or they are intentionally modified in order to achieve some kind of benefit which is usually legally disapproved (manipulation). In legal terms and as far as product liability is concerned, manufacturers will generally not be considered liable, as misuse and manipulation are beyond their sphere of influence. Even so, manufacturers take precautions to avoid misuse and manipulation. Yet in spite of manufacturers’ professional approach, the great number of often ingenious users with excellent knowledge on how to manipulate electronic systems should not to be underestimated (a lesson to be learned from the parallel situation with security dangers in personal computing). Furthermore, when designing a product, it will often prove impossible to anticipate or even overview all the possibilities for future misuse and manipulation. It must therefore be considered neither just nor equitable to hold a manufacturer liable if misuse or manipulation by the user has not been encouraged. The complete absence of legal consequences is, however, questionable in case a manufacturer incites misuse or manipulation, e.g. by providing necessary tools and information. On the other hand, the legally permitted customisation of vehicles is a legitimate interest of the user. The following examples are therefore valid and only in so far of legal relevance, if a law is in place at all. This section will therefore focus on the legal consequences such manipulation has nowadays in certain fields and point out the limited possibilities and effects the law may have, exemplified by the legal situation in Germany.

2.2.1 Unauthorised Enhancement of Engine Power 25B

Some vehicles are customised by their owners. Optical modifications, generally speaking, tend not to be as safety critical as they are visible from the outside, and dangers can be uncovered more easily (e.g. by the police or through periodical technical inspections). Greater dangers are involved in the case of an unlicensed enhancement of engine power. It is important to point out that possible concerns and consequences described here are absent in the case of a licensed enhancement of engine power. As chip tuning may lead to an increase in insurance premiums, taxes (as exhaust emissions may be affected), or not be licensable at all, there is a risk that this is done illegally, i.e. without any knowledge on the side of the insurer, or the registrations office (such modifications are registered, if authorised). Modifications will usually not have been approved by official technical experts either. Moreover, some possibilities for manipulation of electronics even allow for instant “deadening” so that manipulations cannot be uncovered by the police or during a general inspection. In addition, as soon as electronics have been put back to the original condition, retraceability is barred as electronic modifications can hardly be retraced,, at least as long as no long-term data is stored. It must, however, be pointed out that data storage might cause concerns in terms of data privacy (and is therefore not a favourable alternative). Technical solutions that bar the possibility of manipulation in the first place have the advantage that customers will not feel uneasy about the extent of data

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

recorded, which they feel they might not be able to inspect. A technical solution furthermore has a greater effect on traffic safety as manipulations are made impossible in the first place. The legal consequences of the unauthorised modification of an engine’s power are manifold. First of all, the vehicle's operating license will usually expire. The licensing of a vehicle for Europe is generally taken out by means of type approval according to technical rules and regulations in international law. For Europe the ECE-Regulations (Economic Commission for Europe) are binding and their fulfilment is considered sufficient for road admission throughout Europe. It is this operating license that is no longer applicable to the illegally power-enhanced vehicle in question. For example, in Germany such unauthorised modifications lead to the expiry of the vehicle’s operating license (Section 19 paragraph 2 of StVZO: the German Road Traffic Licensing Regulations [34]). Again, note that the legal consequences and concerns do not apply in the case of licensed engine power enhancement. The following three aspects are subject to examination in the case of licensed modifications, as they might be negatively affected in case of power enhancement: • Noise emissions of power-enhanced vehicles tend to change. As far as the admission to the road is

concerned, whether the vehicle remains compliant with technical emissions requirements after an authorised modification would be subject to an expert report. • Traffic safety may be affected since the brakes of a power-enhanced vehicle may no longer match

the vehicle's power potential. This would likewise be subject to an expert report in the case of an authorised modification. It must, however, be pointed out that the brakes of automobiles nowadays more than meet technical requirements in terms of brake power, so that possible power enhancement will rarely be in conflict with this requirement. This can, however, be the case with small motorcycles, scooters, etc. • The vehicle’s exhaust emissions might be affected too. This again is subject to expert supervision in

the case of authorised modifications. Finally, a vehicle's operational hazard will rise due to the power enhancement. This has an effect on the road traffic liability risk which the vehicle brings about and must be insured. In case of an accident with an unlicensed increased-power vehicle, the insurance company would (e.g. in Germany) remain liable even though this no longer belongs to the insured risk. However, the insurance company then has the possibility to gain recourse from the contractual partner breaching contractual obligations to disclose such an enhancement in engine power. In case recourse for substantial damages cannot be reimbursed to the insurance company, the damage will naturally remain with the insurance company which will lead to an increase in insurance premiums.

2.2.2 Unauthorised Mileage Adjustment 26B

As described in section 2.1.2, the unauthorised adjustment of mileage is usually fraud against the new owner of the vehicle. If the mileage is reduced, the vehicle can usually be sold at a higher price since the buyer believes the value to be higher than it would be with the true mileage. Such manipulation of mileage recorders is a problem that has been known for quite some time. However, there has been a substantial increase in number of fraudulent manipulations since this now can easily be achieved by electronic means, in nearly no time and very comfortably. In Germany this has therefore been made a criminal offence. In Section 22b StVG (German Road Traffic Act) [32], a law has been put into place that forbids the production of programmes that allow for such manipulation as well as passing them on. The threat of punishment is up to one year of jail, and the software and hardware can be confiscated. Of course the readjustment of mileage might be necessary if the mileage counter has been replaced. If the intention lies in repairing and not manipulating the mileage, it is permissible to obtain and use the necessary equipment (hardware and software). The same will apply to any manipulation of speed-limiting devices that are compulsory in heavy commercial vehicles.

2.2.3 Unauthorised Points of Interest in Digital Maps 27B

The possibility to display Points of Interest in digital maps has been available for quite some time, and it is definitely a function with additional value that is not to be criticised in itself. However, if the Points of Interest programmed in the map allow for warnings before passing by stationary radar control units (or common grounds for radar controls), the benefit of such control units in terms of road safety is considerably diminished. As an example of the legal situation concerning such warnings, the Germany case shall be described. It must, however, be pointed out that such a law is not necessarily in place in other Member States of the EU. In many countries no regulations against such warnings exist.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

In Germany, a device that allows for such warnings in vehicles is considered to be a device banned according to Section 23 paragraph 1b StVO (German Road Traffic Code) [33]. This not only applies to devices that have some kind of sensor to detect a radar or laser control unit, but it even covers navigational systems with location information on stationary radar control units. Even though these devices are banned, they can be sold freely – even in Germany – as there is no law against owning such a device either. It is only their use that is banned. Of course such devices could be banned altogether. This, however, would call for an EU-wide regulation as the right to move goods freely throughout the EU will not allow for a single national prohibition. The free movement of goods is one of the most important rights of EU Policies. This was established through the Customs Union/Cooperation as well as the Prohibition of Quantitative Restrictions between Member States. Most important in this context is Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [36], which guarantees the import and sale of any product that has rightfully been produced within a Member State of the EU by prohibiting any restrictions on imports or measures of equivalent effect between Member States. However, in case such a device containing information on (stationary) radar control units is carried in a vehicle in Germany and this is discovered, e.g. in a stop-and-search operation of the police, it can be confiscated and destroyed as its use is banned (see above). In the case of navigational systems (even only a nomadic device and not a device fixed to the car itself), it is, however, doubtable whether confiscation would still be a proportional measure, as the device only offers the warning as an additional feature and the main function is navigation. Hence considerable difficulties exist when applying this law to the new threats of an implementation of radar unit location data as Points of Interest in navigation systems. It should further be mentioned that according to the German Federal Court of Justice, on the basis of private law, the purchase contract of such a radar warning device is considered to be against public policy which results in the contract becoming void. However, this has hardly any effect in practice as the device remains in possession of the buyer, and only the contractual rights, such as warranty or guarantee, cannot be enforced by law. Nevertheless claims for warranty or guarantee, might well be accepted by the manufacturer even if these rights cannot be enforced.

2.2.4 Unauthorised TV, DVD or Internet Access in Moving Vehicles 28B

Devices for playing DVDs are available at very low prices and can easily be fitted in standardised mounting slots in all kinds of vehicles. They usually tend to have monitors that arm out so that the video can be viewed on a large scale monitor. Since Terrestrial Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB-T) is available, it has become possible to watch TV even at high speed in vehicles. According to test reports available over the internet, reception quality is ensured at speeds up to 160 Km per hour. In the near future, access to the internet will generally be available as an option in cars as well. Aftermarket solutions might be available too. All these functions are uncritical as long as they are meant for passengers, e.g. children on the rear seats. Even the front-seat passenger can focus his/her attention on such devices at no risk at all, even when the car is in motion. If, however, such entertainment or information facilities are accessible to the driver when going any faster than walking speed, dangers for traffic safety are immanent as the attention of the driver – and especially his visual attention – must not be distracted from surrounding traffic. In practice, such options fitted as original equipment will switch off as soon as the car goes any faster than walking speed, as car manufacturers are well aware that the driver’s attention might otherwise be distracted with negative consequences for safety. However, possibilities to manipulate such an automatic “switch-off” for the driver do exist. Over the internet, detailed information on how to shortcircuit the “switch-off” has been available in the past. For more recent cars, for which the possibilities for manipulation have already been considerably minimised by OEM’s, electronic boxes are already available that facilitate manipulation. The dangers that such devices might further create, e.g. by interfering with other safety-relevant vehicle electronics, is another source of danger in this field. As far as nomadic devices with entertainment functionalities are concerned, an automatic switch-off is usually not foreseen in the first place. From a legal point of view, consequences are only very implicit. This is mainly due to the fact that such possibilities for entertainment have previously not been available at all, and legal provisions in this respect are therefore not in place. For example, in Germany the driver is therefore only generally required to ensure full view on the surrounding traffic according to Section 23 paragraph 1, sentence 1 StVO (German Road Traffic Regulations) [33]. This must not be impaired. It is, however, only a theoretical possibility to prosecute distractions, as it would be very challenging to prove that a driver 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

was actually distracted. The existence of the possibly distracting screen itself is not banned in Germany. The only available possibility on the national level lies in the prohibition of use in vehicles, and this again would prove impossible to enforce. Therefore, once again, the most favourable way to achieve traffic safety in this respect is to make sure that the manipulation of an automatic “switch-off” is barred. As a first step, the automatic “switch-off” must, of course, be implemented, but this is presently not available in all nomadic devices.

2.2.5 Other Possibilities for Intentional Manipulation 29B

As described in section 2.1.5, it must be supposed that many other possibilities for manipulation exist. Most examples tend to be too specific for the concerns of this report. One rather representative example is the manipulation of the convertible top. This will allow for opening the top of a convertible when driving at considerable speed. Here it must legally be questioned whether the danger for safety is so fundamental that this leads to an annulment of the vehicle’s operating licence. This manipulation, however, has strong technical implications and cannot be assessed legally as long as the real-life dangers are unknown. As soon as awareness of manufacturers to such new dangers is raised, the risk is usually assessed and counter-measures are put into place. So far resulting risks are in many cases unknown, and this applies to the manipulation of the convertible top. Cases of substantial dangers resulting from other possibilities for manipulation are presently not known. A possible future risk of high impact might be the manipulation of Driver Assistance Systems. The manipulation of systems that actively intervene into driving comprises the greatest dangers. The legal consequences of such manipulations are difficult to assess and would be very complex. Presently, however, such risks of Driver Assistance System manipulation can only be supposed and no information is currently available. Here manufacturers have a vital interest in avoiding any negative impacts on traffic safety. Measures to bar manipulation are therefore already in place. Their effectiveness can be assumed as long as such dangers remain absent.

2.3 Typical Measures Taken by OEMs 12B

The use of electronic systems in vehicles has been increasing for years to fulfil safety, environmental and comfort requirements for current and future vehicles. Being informed is an important issue for today’s customers. However, manipulation and misuse could be dangerous when it comes to changing the original features of the “regulated” and safe car. For this reason, vehicle manufacturers have developed feasible security mechanisms to meet current and future demands. An overly detailed discussion of potential technical measures may well create situations which provide information to potential hackers who intend to change the data or software of in-vehicle or special infrastructure systems and thus actually support their intentions. Furthermore, any detailed presentation of actual technology could stimulate new ideas for illegal actions, manipulation or misuse. Therefore the measures described below are presented in a very broad manner to emphasise how very much aware the automotive industry is of potential security risks and eventualities. The industry has consistently striven to always stay one or more steps ahead of potential hackers. These strong efforts from the OEMs serve to enhance the effectiveness of such systems and complicate the potential fraud against electronic systems of different vehicles. The automotive industry sees the need to differentiate between the various systems which produce safety, environmentally and legally relevant information and comfort functions. Not all functions can be treated in the same way. With regards to security, the industry needs to make distinctions between the different functions, applications and communication channels, such as: • More than one internal bus system physically separated by gateways acting as firewalls • Various ways to enter the vehicle's internal systems • General and personalised applications • Usage over more than a decade • Communication with common and individual partners • Fast and slow communication.

The industry thus focuses on developing solutions which are most suited to the function under consideration of several given boundary conditions and needs. This also means that it may well

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

occasionally be ineffective or impossible to fulfil all requirements through one feasible solution. Therefore, not all security requirements can be fulfilled equally with the respective technology. To create an effective set of security measures, the industry uses principles which are listed in the following examples: • Division of electronic applications into different domains • Use of gateways and firewalls • Authentication of external equipment for access to the vehicle • Use of digital signatures for protection against unauthorised manipulation.

In particular, with regards to communication applications for all principles, the necessary infrastructure needs to be implemented, which in some cases needs to be operated world-wide and must therefore be developed extremely carefully and in the most “secure” manner. For this reason, there can be no general standard to assure the necessary security function. Furthermore, the final responsibility for management of the vehicle security has to lie with the OEM concerned. This also hampers any chances for manipulation between vehicle models and brands. In fact, a certain minimum level of security may be required whereas the technical realisation shall lie within the responsibility of the OEMs.

2.3.1 General Characteristics: Unauthorised Enhancement of Engine Power 30B

With regards to power enhancement, we need to consider a number of situations, such as: • Power enhancement is extremely difficult if not impossible to detect from outside the vehicle. • The power output of an engine is type approval relevant. • When changing the power output of an engine, other specifications and values will change at the

same time. These have a direct impact on the durability of the powertrain and various components. • Power

enhancement within a limited range is possible by changing components or engine application maps. If no development activities to clarify durability issues took place, there would be extremely high risks of costly engine or powertrain break downs.

• Authorised power enhancement is technically possible, if all the necessary requirements are fulfilled. • Clearly, it is very much in the interest of the OEMs to avoid unauthorised power enhancement.

The OEMs develop and implement solutions which can restrict, impede or considerably hamper the engagement in the engine control unit, and its integration and change of the related datasets for the engine maps, whilst taking into account the legal, product liability and/or product characteristic issues. In addition, other measures may be considered: • protection against manipulation of software and datasets • avoiding

any exchange of engine controllers and associated control units through internal safeguarding and authentication of system components and software if, for example, a controller exchange or software update is necessary

• individualisation of software, controller and data through special software keys • the utmost care in granting access authorisation for service issues concerning

software, data or

relevant components. The automotive industry takes great care to implement the necessary software components to avoid or hamper unauthorised engine power enhancement. Research and development activities as well as special working groups within the industry are currently seeking to establish specialised standards and provide feasible solutions.

2.3.2 Unauthorised Mileage Adjustment 31B

The adjustment of the vehicle mileage has to be avoided in current and future vehicles. Strong efforts with electronic measures are carried out to prevent the mileage registration from being manipulated. A number of different methods keep the real mileage through storing it in different locations and comparing the values. These methods use special algorithms which are also protected through patents and non-disclosure mechanisms. Fraud or manipulation can be discovered through special monitoring instruments which are normally available at the brand service centres. At present, it seems nearly impossible to change the mileage values in new vehicles without detection. Reprogramming the data or changing the odometer will not produce such a desired result. 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

2.3.3 Unauthorised Points of Interest in Digital Maps 32B

Additional services to support drivers and provide them with information in an easy manner are welcome and commonly used. This serves to reduce potential driver distraction and risk of accidents. One major service is to provide special Points of Interest, e.g. hotels, petrol stations, public locations and various other attractions. Further possibilities can provide individual information for the disposal of the user. The provision of information is independent of the information content in all cases. There might be a selection of information which is defined by the means of data storage which is used in the vehicle. Most commonly this would be a CD or DVD which is used in the integrated navigation system, or other memory in various chip sets which can be filled with the required information chosen by the user. There is no way to distinguish between different types of information content. At present, no technical measures exist to avoid the use of certain information or point of interest which are legally prohibited, or to differentiate between information items. An effective way to avoid the use of illegal information items and that type of misuse could be increased enforcement or awareness campaigns. The legal situation in the different EU Member States and other key markets and countries needs to be evaluated and discussed carefully with regards to their legal effectiveness and infringement. However, this cannot be achieved via a technological solution.

2.3.4 Unauthorised TV, DVD or Internet Access in Moving Vehicles 33B

The automotive industry complies with the legal requirement to prohibit activation of video and free internet access for all new vehicles moving beyond walking speed. In all new series production vehicles, the visual part of the video functions and the internet shall be switched off above a certain speed. This is relevant with regards to using the function from the driver's seat, whereas the services shall remain available for rear passengers. For development purposes, special tools are required to enable additional functionalities which will not be available in new series production vehicles. These tools are only available for development engineers. Sensor signals containing data such as vehicle speed need to be distributed to different software packages and functionalities inside the vehicle architecture. Under the given conditions, it is necessary to be consistent and to use one type of sensor signal source to achieve high reliability. Furthermore, the high integration of the software and functionalities network in the vehicle may lead to communication errors if some sensor signals are manipulated. This may cause potential malfunction of functions, which in the case of manipulation the user would not accept. However, under circumstances such as the available electronics architecture, encryption or encoding, bus structure, and cost, etc., it is impossible to avoid any illegal integration of external boxes or additional hardware to the wiring of a vehicle in order to change the various sensor signals. The result may be that other functions could also malfunction. Change of the electronics architecture in a vehicle through measures which may be able to avoid such manipulation may cause additional deficits or worse performance of other important safety functions. This leads to the political question: What priorities are set according to the safety functionalities? If the OEMs develop very strong countermeasures against vehicle manipulation of TV, DVD or internet functions, one simple and straightforward reaction of potential manipulators could be for the driver to use nomadic devices instead of the OEM equipment. This would eventually cause bigger safety problems than the current few manipulators. A solution which avoids the illegal use of nomadic devices therefore also needs to be considered.

2.3.5 Other Possibilities for Intentional Manipulation 34B

Since various functions in a vehicle are supported by electronic means, some ideas might arise to manipulate these functions in order to enlarge the functional limits for comfort or performance of the system. Every electronic system or function in the vehicle could be a potential source for change within its application data. The overall architecture and physical wiring system of a vehicle, which offers potential options for special modification, are so extremely complicated that any general supervision of the wiring is almost impossible with normal means. The important functions and systems, which can be defined through serious safety concerns or legal requirements, as well as those which may cause serious damage to the vehicle or injure the driver or passengers, are monitored to inform the driver if any malfunction occurs. 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

A lot of them could be switched off according to the choice of the driver or support the driver in the best possible way which is evaluated and developed by the manufacturer. Human-machine interaction, human behaviour or further boundary conditions are all considered in the design phase. Furthermore, the intended vehicle use and operation as learned and experienced by the driver provide further essential input to the design process. If anyone intended to ignore such experience and act contrary to given rules, it would be impossible to prohibit via electronic means or to avoid manipulation through technical means in all cases. The range of different manipulation possibilities is so immense that general avoidance of such ideas would present a tremendous effort and would require huge resources for all cases. All functions which are considered necessary by the OEMs will be covered by monitoring. If others, e.g. the opening of the top of a convertible car, are functioning outside of the limits as intended by the manufacturer, the damage to other parts or the car body will prevent or reduce further safety risks without being dangerous to others. Other functions, such as driver assistance systems which are today currently in research/development or in series production, are being discussed seriously within the OEMs. The responsibility of the OEM for the product leads to the development of solutions which are generally in line with the legal requirements and necessary product liability issues. Through this process, the necessary support functions for the OEM's intended use are generally implemented.

2.3.6 Manipulation of Speed Limiting Devices 35B

Speed limiting devices are generally used in heavy commercial vehicles of the category N2, N3, M2, and M3. Passenger cars and related commercial vehicles of the category M1 and N1 do not use such devices. (See [31] for definition of vehicle categories.) Any change of software or data for running the systems is protected in the relevant vehicles through various appropriate measures, such as: • Using encrypted signals for speed information • Monitoring relevant signals • Using redundant speed signals and storing deviations as fault codes • Following secure processes including authorisation keys for staff.

If there are provisions to increase the maximum allowed speed of a relevant vehicle, the user can change the gear rations of the transmission or the rolling circumference of the tires. In order to avoid such fraud, the revolution of the wheels under consideration of the dedicated tire models needs to be monitored. Another way to avoid speed of the vehicle to go above the allowed limits is to increase the enforcement of the illegal tire replacement.

2.3.7 Impact of Block Exemption 36B

Within the field of automotive security, a lot of sensitive issues, data, and software components are handled and need to be protected in order to avoid unauthorised manipulation and fraud. To meet these goals, it is necessary to take care of the treatment of the relevant information for service and maintenance of such technologies in a secure way. The block exemption regulation stipulates that all relevant service and maintenance partners (branded and non-branded) have to be informed about necessary processes, data, software and keys to carry out the service, repair and maintenance work of the vehicle. For this reason it is essential for OEMs to develop solutions to ensure the required security and keep sensitive information within the realm of accredited stakeholders and partners. The automotive industry will continue to develop positions and proposals for feasible solutions.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

2.4 Conclusion on Independent Vehicle-based Electronics 13B

As described in the above sections, there are many measures taken by OEM’s to increase the security of independent vehicle-based systems. Thus the negative impact, especially on vehicle’s safety, promises to be reduced. It therefore seems justifiable to refrain from decisive measures in the field of independent vehicle-based electronics. That measures must remain proportional only support this finding. However, in case the eSecurity situation in the field of independent vehicle-based electronics should not improve, this issue must be reconsidered. In this case, it presently seems sensible to require a certain minimum level of security, with regulation only stipulating the end result. As pointed out in section 2.2.3, not all threats can, however, be solved technically as certain applications necessarily need to be “open” in order to allow for their intended use. In order to tackle the issue of unauthorised Points of Interest in digital maps, an EU-wide regulation banning production and trading of such security threatening software, which is currently legal, may be a first step to be taken on the EU level.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

3 Part 2: Interactive Systems 2B

Two major problems have raised concerns in the ITS community: • The privacy of vehicle location information which is used in location based applications. Such

services raise privacy issues since they involve the collection, transmission and processing of information which could be related to individuals. Examples of such services are road charging and pay-as-you-drive insurance. • The security and privacy of information in future cooperative systems applications which rely on

vehicular communications and inter-vehicular communications. Examples of such applications include extended hazard warning in safety critical situations, applications to achieve high throughput in merging areas, extended blind spot applications, safe overtaking, and safe lane change assistance.

3.1 Security and Privacy in Location-based Applications This section provides an analysis of security and privacy of location information in location-based applications based on two services: road charging and pay-as-you-drive. A great deal of attention has been paid to these two services recently. Since they are excellent cases for demonstrating the advantages of privacy by design, they are the main focus of this section.

3.1.1 Road Charging Service 37B

3.1.1.1

Introduction

46B

Road pricing or electronic fee collection is an application to charge a fee for using an infrastructure like roads, tunnels or bridges. This toll is meant to finance the maintenance of the infrastructure, for traffic management purposes, or for the reduction of negative environmental effects. The toll can depend on time, distance and place, and certain vehicle specific parameters, like the total weight, the number of axles, the existence of a trailer, and the emission class. In Europe, tolls are collected from Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV > 3.5 tons) or private cars by electronic or manual systems. Manual systems are comprised of car tax stickers which allow access to a network for a certain period of time, or the purchase of tickets for a specific route on the network. Electronic systems are comprised of systems which may or may not require the installation of OnBoard Equipment (OBE). Systems without OBE can make use of automatic number plate recognition. For electronic systems which use OBE, EU directive 2004/52 [39] allows three different technologies: 5.8 GHz microwave communication (Dedicated Short Range Communication - DSRC), satellite positioning, and GSM/GPRS mobile communication. With the advantage of being a free-flow system, the use of satellite positioning is recommended for future systems. These systems do not require the installation of road-side infrastructure for tolling purposes and can therefore be considered very flexible for any future demands, and in particular useful for large and lower-level networks. In Europe, different toll schemes have been implemented: • Area pricing: the toll is charged for the time stayed or the distance driven in a zone (e.g. time-based

London congestion charging, and distance-based tolling system for HGVs in Switzerland) • Section pricing: the toll is charged for driving on a certain section or several connected sections of a

network (e.g. the HGV toll on motorways in Germany and Austria) • Cordon pricing: the toll is charged for crossing a cordon on specified points (e.g. city tolling in

Stockholm). Currently three countries make use of satellite positioning for their tolling systems: Germany and Slovakia as primary source for toll detection, and Switzerland for validation of the odometer results. Most countries in Europe still use DSRC-based systems, e.g. France, Spain and Italy. Countries like the Czech Republic already have a DSRC-based system in place for tolling on motorways but are planning to introduce a satellite-based system for tolling the lower-level network of federal and municipal roads. It is expected that the Member States will introduce more electronic tolling systems, in particular for heavy goods vehicles, to raise money for maintenance of the traffic infrastructure, to steer traffic, and to reduce negative impacts of traffic like congestion or emission. Within the limits of applicable EU legislation, the decisions on the introduction of tolling systems, on the technology, and on the tolling parameters remain at the individual Member States. 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

To foster a seamless transport system for Europe and to support the transport industry, EU directive 2004/52 introduced the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS) which allows a user to pay his tolls in all electronic toll systems in Europe using only one OBE and having only one contract with a so-called EETS-Provider.

3.1.1.2

Implementation and Privacy Issues

47B

Electronic systems collect data necessary to determine the toll due to invoice the user, to enforce the toll regulation, and finally to check the operation and performance of the system. EU Directive 2004/52 sets the following requirements for the EETS for processing of data: “Member States shall ensure that processing of personal data necessary for the operation of the European electronic toll service is carried out in accordance with the Community rules protecting the freedoms and fundamental rights of individuals, including their privacy, and that, in particular, the provisions of Directives 95/46/EC [37] and 2002/58/EC [38] are complied with.” Privacy issues need to be considered for all kind of toll systems, but they are of particular relevance for satellite-based systems. The used positioning data is sensitive information as it could potentially allow a third party to trace a person’s movement and speed. The basic steps of processing of tolling relevant data in satellite-based systems are: • Determination of the location, based on received satellite signal (probably combined with information

from other sensors like odometer or gyrometer) • Detection of the toll object (like a road segment or an area) by comparing the measured positions

with the geometry of the toll objects (geo-referencing) • Calculation of the toll based on the detected toll object, time, vehicle and contract parameters • Aggregation of several toll declarations and invoicing the user.

Several different implementation strategies have been developed to support this process. The following main designs have been tested and implemented in road-charging systems, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. 1. Thin Client The OBE mainly collects positioning information from a satellite signal (and other sensors) and transfers it to the back-office system for further processing. In some implementations, not every individual position will be transferred, since algorithms on the OBE compress the information and select the relevant information for the toll object detection, which can lead to a substantial reduction of data. This supports efficient use of the communication channels. This scenario can lead to reduced complexity on the OBE side but requires enough bandwidth on the communication channels and a high level of availability of the back-office systems. The OBE itself cannot decide whether it is on a tolled network or not. Therefore all positions need to be transferred to the back-office system where they are matched with the actual toll objects. From a privacy perspective, this is not an appealing scenario as the server receiving all of the data would indeed have a complete picture of every meter driven by the vehicle (even on non-toll roads), and could even derive further data, such as speed. More consideration is needed to determine whether such a scenario complies with general privacy requirements like data minimisation and data avoidance. Many national laws only allow collecting data if absolutely needed for a specific purpose. Technical solutions exist to send positioning data using pseudonyms to the back-office system and to reveal the identity of the OBE only when the geo-referencing process detected that the OBE is on a toll road network. However, still large amounts of data are collected and discarded afterwards. It is questionable whether trust of the users can be established in such a system. 2. Thick Client In the case of a thick client, the process mentioned above is performed inside the OBE. It is even possible to claim the payment (e.g. by allowing credit card payment with the OBE). The only information which has to leave the OBE is any invoice relevant data. This can be as little as a monthly fee for the use of the toll road network by a particular user. This scenario should be favoured from a privacy perspective since only payment relevant data is leaving the OBE. However, it must be ensured that the toll operators still can check whether the user has met his obligations (e.g. the proper declaration of variable parameters like number of axles) and that the processing results of the OBE are correct. Implementation of data security measures and certification procedures can create the trust in the system. 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

This scenario requires more intelligence on the OBE and most probably more updates of tolling relevant data like geographical information of toll objects or tariffs. Compared to the thin client, this operational overhead is moderated by the operational advantages in case of the unavailability of communication channels or back-office systems. Thanks to their autonomy, thick clients are able to continue processing for a certain period time. 3. Smart Client The smart client scenarios can be placed somewhere between a full thin and a full thick client scenario.. The smart client takes advantage of being able to distribute intelligence between OBE and the back-office systems according to the needs of the actual system. As an example, a smart client could perform the detection of toll objects on the OBE and send the recognised toll objects to the back-office system where tariff operations are done. This reduces complexity on the OBE, takes operational advantage of the flexibility of a back-office process and preserves the privacy of the user. However, in this scenario the toll objects still need to be transferred to the back-office. No implementation strategy has been prescribed for operators and future providers of national schemes or the EETS. The decision for a strategy therefore is with the operator of the national tolling system or the EETS Provider, as long as the decision complies with the general requirements on user's privacy. A proper balance needs to be found between the demands of the user and the toll operator. On one hand, the user has a legitimate demand in having his privacy respected. On the other hand, the toll operator has an interest in getting paid for the use of the toll road network and in checking the compliance of the users and toll service providers with the toll regulations. From a privacy perspective, the preferred solutions should, if possible, avoid collecting unnecessary data and respect the principles of data avoidance and data minimisation.

3.1.1.3

Conclusion on Road Charging

48B

Electronic toll systems create a continuously increasing contribution to the funds for financing Europe’s road infrastructure and to traffic management. With the advance of electronic tolling solutions throughout Europe, in particular of satellite-based tolling systems, addressing privacy issues is of utmost importance to ensure trust in the system. A privacy-by-design approach has to be applied when designing road charging systems. A concertation must be set up between road charging implementers, road charging policy makers, and privacy policy makers to ensure a common approach for ensuring the users privacy. For all electronic systems, the following basic principles should be accepted as a general policy and need to be implemented through all processes and components of the tolling system: • Data shall be collected, transmitted and processed only as far it is necessary for creating claims or

enforcement purposes. • Data shall be collected, transmitted and processed only for the purposes created by corresponding

laws or by a private contract in accordance with applicable EU and national privacy laws. • Data shall be processed and transmitted using proper data security measures. • Data shall be deleted or made anonymous when no longer needed for claiming or enforcement

purposes. Adherence to these rules respects not only the privacy of the individual user of the tolling system. It also raises the general acceptance of tolling systems as a means for financing our transport infrastructure.

3.1.2 Pay-as-you-drive Service 38B

3.1.2.1

Presentation

49B

Insurance represents a large portion of the cost of owning a car. In order to lower costs for both owners and insurers, insurance companies have developed Pay-As-You-Drive (PAYD), or Pay-PerMile models. In contrast to the current pay-by-the-year policy, customers are charged depending on where and when they drive, instead of a fixed premium per year. For each kilometre that a car is driven, the statistical risk of accident is calculated and translated into a personalised insurance fee. A PAYD contract clearly lays out the exact fares for driving under different conditions depending on the type of road, time of day, etc. For instance, driving during rush hours could be more expensive than driving at other times, or driving on a highway could be more expensive than using secondary roads. 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

Pay-As-You-Drive insurance models are hailed as the future of car insurance due to their advantages for users and companies [17] [18]. First, the insurance fees applied to each user are fairer than the ones in the pay-by-the-year scheme, as customers are only charged for the actual kilometres they travel. Customers can also reduce their monthly bill by choosing cheap itineraries and/or times, or by just not using their car. This makes vehicle insurance affordable for lower-income car users (e.g. young people) or for people who wish to have a second vehicle. Second, PAYD policies are socially beneficial. They improve road mobility and encourage responsible driving which decreases the risk of accidents, which in turn saves money for users and insurers in addition to saving lives. Finally, PAYD has an environmental benefit, as it reduces traffic jams and discourages driving, hence reducing energy consumption and pollution emissions. For these reasons many companies have started PAYD programs (see [19] [20] for a summary and a comprehensive list of these companies, respectively).

3.1.2.2

Implementation Issues

50B

Although PAYD insurance seems to have many advantages, its current implementations involve an inherent threat to a user's privacy. In most of the implemented schemes, the full information used for billing, such as the time and position where the car was, is gathered by an electronic unit ("black box") in the car. It is then transferred to the insurance company and, in some of the cases, to a third company providing the location and/or time data to the transportation infrastructure. This situation has a downside both for the companies and the customers. For the company, managing these huge databases creates the risk of information leakage [21] [22] and the consequent damage for the company in terms of cost and/or reputation with the public. For the client, the main disadvantage is that the possession of location and time data allows the insurance company to track almost every movement of a car over time with ease and precision. Iqbal and Lim [23] show how GPS data can be automatically analysed to produce profiles of a driver's behaviour, social activities and work activities, thus conflicting with the proportionality principle as the data collected provides far more information than is necessary for the provision of the service. For instance, in their study they could identify the home location of a subject in the experiment in four out of five cases. For the fifth case, the error in the prediction stemmed only from the fact that the car was parked in an underground parking lot instead of in front or near the actual home. Some companies claim to provide privacy preserving PAYD schemes, as they collect only statistics about the location data, e.g., how much time a driver was driving on a highway, but not when or on which highway. However, these statistics are sometimes handled by a third party who collects and keeps the raw location data, hence the threat to privacy does not disappear but is only shifted. As a result, insurance companies and/or third parties can build vast databases of location data. For instance, Octo Telematics [24] claims to work for more than 30 companies in Europe and to have had more than 866,000 clients in October 2009. Even if the third party has no knowledge of the identity of the drivers, their home and work addresses can be easily identified from the trajectories and linked back to them [25] [26]. The data is transmitted through third parties, such as a telecommunications provider or a third party location data provider. Once the location data has been transmitted to a third party, the data subject has little control over it. This data could be stored or retained for long periods as well as used for purposes other than the ones for which it has been collected. Although Data Protection legislation may impose limits on what can be done with it, the penalties for breaching them are often very light. An option would be to further process the data after an anonymisation process. However, as mentioned before, anonymisation of location data such that it cannot be linked back to a person with high probability is very difficult, and researchers have not yet found a solution for this problem. For the current PAYD implementations, the responsibilities for the processed data are not clearly defined. It is necessary to define whether the data subject is the car or its driver, or in some cases the owner (who can differ from driver in case of rental or company cars). The data processor is also not a clear figure as third parties and telecommunications providers as well as the insured car itself have access to, and sometimes process, the location data. Finally, a certification process and a specification of the functionalities of the black box need to be developed to ensure that neither companies nor users are liable for client misbehaviour or bugs in the box firmware.

3.1.2.3

A Privacy-Friendly Implementation

51B

A possible solution for the provision on privacy in Pay-as-you-drive services follows closely the current implementation architecture, with the exception that the raw and detailed GPS data are never provided to third parties, as in the PriPAYD scheme presented in [19]. The main advantage of PriPAYD is that the insurance company receives only the billing data instead of the exact vehicle locations and thus cannot invade the user's privacy, while being sure it is receiving the correct data. The client can check that only the allowed data is entered in the insurance company database, and the raw data is available 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

for the client to check the correctness of the bill in case of a dispute between user and insurer. It is important to delineate the threat model. There is little point for a Pay-as-you-drive system to try to protect user's privacy beyond what road users already expect today, thus one can assume that any third party adversary that has extensive physical control of the car will be able to track it by simply installing their own tracking system. The objective of PriPAYD is to limit casual and/or deliberate surveillance by the insurance company or any third parties with limited physical access to the car, as well as preventing the aggregation of a mass of location information in centralised databases. Fine grained location/timing information should be hard to obtain for any third party except the policy holder, who has the right to audit the bill and ensure its fairness. This protection still allows for surveillance of the drivers (in case they differ from the policy holders), but we are satisfied that no systemic surveillance risk is introduced beyond what is already possible today. The PriPAYD design in [19] safeguards the privacy of the policy holder and the integrity of the billing information. Yet some attacks against the availability of the PriPAYD (or previous PAYD schemes) cannot be prevented while using cheap, off-the-shelf technology such as GPS and GSM. The design attempts to detect that such attacks are taking place, but how they are dealt with is dependent on the agreement between the insurance company and the policy holder, and appropriate actions or penalties must be codified in the contract to deal with them. The key difference between PriPAYD and the current implementation of PAYD is that all computations transforming the GPS data into billing data are performed in the vehicle’s black box. The data involved in the calculation of the final premium are the number of kilometres travelled, the hour of the day, the road the user has chosen, and the rate per kilometre given by the insurer (following the Octo Telematics model [24]). To perform the conversion, maps have to be available to the black box, and calculations have to be performed to match the coordinates with road types. These operations are no more complex than those already supported by any off-the-shelf commercial GPS navigation system. The rates imposed by the insurer or other policy parameters can be initialised in the black box when installing it, and they can be updated later in a trustworthy manner through signed updates. Once the premium for a period of time is calculated, the amount to be paid, along with the current policy, is sent in a secure way to the insurance company via GPRS, or even cheaper SMS services. The data is signed and encrypted in a special way that allows the policy holder to check that only the minimum billing information is transmitted. To ensure that the black box is not acting maliciously in favour of the insurance company, the car user or owner is allowed to audit the billing mechanism. For this purpose, we propose the use of an off-theshelf USB memory stick. The data is recorded in an encrypted way on the stick so that only the policy holder can access it, and it is signed by the black box to ensure its authenticity and integrity such that it is usable as evidence. A prototype of this scheme is presented in [27], where a proof-of-concept demonstrator is built in order to prove the validity and correctness of the design while showing that its functionality can be achieved within a reasonable cost. The results obtained after testing the prototype on a one hour trip around Leuven, Belgium suggest that privacy-friendly PAYD services are possible.

3.1.2.4

Conclusion on Pay-as-you-drive

52B

Similarly to road charging applications, it must be taken into account that privacy has a major influence on the implementation of the pay-as-you-drive service. But a resulting privacy friendly implementation can involve the use of protection mechanisms which are novel in the ITS field whilst being well known by the security community. Consequently there is a need to gain deployment experience by testing these implementations in field operational tests.

3.1.3 Conclusion on Location-based Applications 39B

• We have covered two location-based applications (road charging and pay-as-you-drive insurance)

for which large scale deployment is currently planned, As a result, significant discussion has already taken place for each of them concerning privacy issues. From the results of these discussions, the following observations can be made: • The complexity of security solutions requires agreement on evaluation criteria to evaluate solutions.

Those criteria are needed to allow deciding stakeholders to make decisions (recommendation 4). • Privacy cannot be an afterthought activity. Privacy by design is needed (recommendation 5).

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

3.2 Basic Legal Conditions for Interactive Systems 15B

Exactly which elements characterise interactive systems (also referred to as “cooperative systems”) remains unclear at this point. This leads to the difficulty of being unable to state exhaustively which legal consequences interactive vehicle applications will create in the future. Furthermore, specific legislation does not currently exist in this new field. Therefore this section is limited to a more global view of the main legal issues affected: • Section 3.2.1 highlights the most important legal aspects of privacy which will, as far as presently

foreseeable, accompany the discussion on interactive systems and applications over the next years. The chapter describes why privacy will be an issue. • Section 3.2.2 points out why other critical legal issues with a focus on liabilities are not currently

expected to be relevant to interactive systems. Here a parallel is drawn to the discussion on Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) over the past years.

3.2.1 The Privacy Issue of Interactive Systems 40B

Some kind of Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) or Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) interaction or communication is a main characteristic of future interactive systems. Along with this type of interaction or communication goes the handling of data beyond the boundaries of single vehicles. In such applications, data might thus be collected inside and outside of vehicles, transmitted to and processed in special units in order to, for example, provide the driver or other vehicle systems with additional information not otherwise available. The data processed for this purpose can feature information closely linked to the sphere of the individual driver as well as the passengers. Therefore data protection legislation or rights, generally referred to as privacy issues, must be met during the design process and when running such applications. In section 3.1, the use cases on existing in-vehicle road traffic systems therefore illustrate the effect that the principle of ‘privacy by design’ may have on system architecture and circumscribe the legal measures that have been identified or taken in terms of privacy for specific applications in the past. Future applications will increase the number of electronic systems processing data both inside and outside of vehicles. Therefore it is important to consider all personal data processing that a user will be confronted with, in both current and future systems, in order to assess specific demands for “privacy by design" in individual cases. On the other hand, it is important to note that the processing of personal data as such is permissible according to existing data protection regulations. Much, however, depends on how this is realised in an individual case. As long as data protection is taken seriously in system design and operational structures, no insurmountable barriers in terms of privacy will be encountered when implementing applications. In this respect, electronic security (eSecurity) is an important instrument that can improve privacy considerably by securing the processing of personal data against illegitimate access.

3.2.2 Non-Privacy Legal Issues 41B

Interactive systems serve a number of purposes such as traffic safety, improving mobility, environmental protection, and comfort. In most cases – and this is relevant in terms of applications in the focus of eSafety – the purpose is to influence “driving” in a very broad sense. Such influence can be indirect via information provided to the driver. This is already the case with Driver Information Systems (e.g. navigation devices). Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) goes one step further by assisting vehicle control. This assistance currently remains overridable at any time. The legal situation for Driver Information Systems as well as ADAS has mostly been discussed in terms of the hampering effect the product liability risk will have. The PReVENT project [8] developed ‘Response3’, a Code of Practice on safe ADAS development that can substantially minimise factual risks in terms of product liability for ADAS. This is achieved by applying knowledge from the past to the design of new technologies. Simply stated, the idea is mainly based on maintaining ‘controllability’ so that the driver can take over control in case of malfunctions. It also proposes an organisationally safe development process which is described in detail. To a certain extent, this approach can be transferred to ‘interactive’ applications, even though the Response 3 Code of Practice was not initially issued for this purpose. The development of interactive applications will, as is presently foreseeable, take the same development path and start off by simply informing the driver, and then at a later stage contribute to 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

the operation of “assisting” applications. This leads to the strong conclusion that interactive applications in vehicles will not bring about product liability risks too large to be handled. However, what is new in the case of interactive systems is the existence of technical devices beyond the vehicle itself, e.g. computing at the roadside or within service-providing organisations that are possibly integrated into the wireless communication network. These technical structures will probably be at least as subject to failure as current purely vehicle-based systems. In case of failure, depending on the architecture chosen, the provider of these services might well run the risk of being charged with liability. This would, in most cases, be based on a negligent or intentional breach in the execution of a service provider’s duty. For example, in Germany such claims might be based on section 823 paragraph 1 BGB (German Civil Code) [35]. Yet this possibly critical finding must be considered with the above mentioned experience on Driver Information Systems and ADAS: Until now the driver must be considered responsible for driving. He is therefore obliged to react with attention to information, even if its faults are not immediately recognisable. Therefore any excessive reactions to information provided by ‘interactive’ applications that lead to damage must – as is the case for Driver Information Systems or ADAS – be considered contributory to the negligence of the driver. In most cases, this will, if not achieved otherwise, relieve the manufacturer as well as the service provider completely from being charged with liability. Therefore the issue of liability is definitely existent but can be estimated to be manageable for the foreseeable Driver Information Applications and overrideable ADAS. A close assessment of the actual risk should, however, be made on the basis of every specific application’s design and designated architecture, as the rough estimation at hand can only be considered a first approximation. It is therefore recommended to make further investigation on liability issues when interactive applications beyond informing systems, such as those with immediate impact on driving, are considered. This is needed to understand and monitor the effects that system-introduction will have.

3.3 Security and Privacy of Future Cooperative Systems 16B

Currently, research projects like SAFESPOT [9] and CVIS [2] are preparing the next generation of ITS that will enable new kinds of applications that will make driving safer, more efficient, greener, and more comfortable. This will be enabled by the availability of a wide range of wireless communication technologies. Dedicated short range radio communication (DSRC), for example, enable vehicles to exchange messages with each other and with nearby Road-Side Units (RSUs). Alternatively, 3rd and 4th generation (3G and 4G) cellular networks may be used in some cases to implement the same kind of applications. One example is a cooperative awareness application in which vehicles inform other nearby vehicles about their position and speed by means of broadcasted Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM). The COMeSafety [14] project has defined a reference architecture for such co-operative systems as depicted in Figure 1. Basically, a vehicle’s on-board unit (OBU) communicates with other OBUs, RSUs, personal mobile devices, and the central infrastructure using a wireless communication network. Note that all communication stations have a similar software architecture.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

Figure 1: COMeSafety Reference Architecture

3.3.1 Analysis of Security Issues 42B

Because we are dealing with a complex distributed system architecture, cases for security and privacy breaches are numerous. For instance, • Since inter-vehicle hazard warning applications improve car safety, data transmission must be fast,

robust, secure and reliable. It is essential to make sure that life-critical information cannot be modified by an attacker. • Cooperative systems raise privacy issues for drivers and passengers. It is important to prevent easy

location tracking of people, as well as the access to confidential data associated with people, e.g. medical records. • Access to vehicles means easier access to the internal vehicle communication systems, which in

turn raises intrusion issues. It is essential that the electronic components in the car are not modified, e.g. by changing vehicle parameters, or changing vehicle software. Software updates should be made securely. •

Nomadic devices could be connected to vehicles, and this could raise security issues. For example, can the nomadic device use the transmission channel made available for safety applications, or can the nomadic device contain safety related applications?

• Open

communication platforms could have an impact on security and trust. Several research projects in the area are in progress, for example OVERSEE [5].

• The coexistence of multiple independent applications such as business and public applications

raises trust issues in terms of sharing system assets, e.g. communication and execution resources, and of sharing application assets, e.g. information on a subscriber. The use case approach applied earlier in this document cannot be followed because: • Specific issues depend on specific solutions. •

A high level of technical detail will in general be involved.

• Security is typically scattered throughout a system over many components and many levels, which

would result in a large number of use cases. 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

Therefore this section will use an analysis approach instead of the use case approach used in earlier sections. A primary concern of computer security is to eliminate or mitigate risks. Risk can be expressed in terms of probability of an unfortunate event and its potential damage. Examples of damage are: losing money, distrust, and political damage. Unfortunate events happen mainly because of systems having vulnerabilities and people attacking those systems by exploiting their vulnerabilities. Only real systems can have vulnerabilities. For this analysis existing cooperative systems were not considered; only their general communication architecture is discussed. Therefore this section will conclude with the enumeration of a list of threats that should be considered instead of vulnerabilities. First a high level communication architecture will be discussed to set the context for cooperative systems. The next section describes the organisations and persons (actors) involved in cooperative systems. Finally this section will conclude with a list of typical threats for cooperative systems.

3.3.1.1

High-level Description of Co-operative Systems

53B

A refined communication architecture of co-operative systems, inspired from existing initiatives (e.g. COMeSafety[14], CVIS [2], Safespot [9] and Coopers [1]) is shown in Figure 2. A number of interfaces (lines) in this figure have been labelled. Circles indicate external access points for possible human interaction. The communication architecture consists of the in-vehicle and infrastructure subsystems represented by squares. In-vehicle subsystems are: • Vehicle Host:

This system is a platform for deploying applications in the vehicle. The platform will offer many common services (e.g. communication, security) and has a human machine interface (HMI).

• ECUs:

Electronic Control Units (ECUs) are embedded units in the vehicle and are typically connected to the vehicle’s internal bus. The car manufacturer is responsible for these units. These applications might provide information that is of interest to the applications on the Vehicle Host. Examples are vehicle speed or the state of the windshield wipers, which can be used as a (cooperative) rain detector. Typically there are many ECUs connected on several networks with different characteristics, e.g. entertainment and safety.

• Applications on Vehicle Host: These applications add services to the vehicle. In this report, typical

safety applications are considered. However, projects like CVIS focus on cooperative applications to improve use and comfort also. • Nomadic devices: Nomadic devices, e.g. Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) or cell phones, might

be an integral part of the system architecture. Applications on the nomadic device could benefit from the information, connectivity and infrastructure. • Other nearby vehicles: This diagram box is not a new subsystem but represents another vehicle in

the neighbourhood in reach of communication, which creates the Vehicle-to-Vehicle interface.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

Figure 2: General architecture for vehicle IT infrastructure.

The infrastructure subsystems are: • Cellular networks: This subsystem represents the infrastructure for mobile connectivity, such as

GPRS, Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS). • Roadside units: These subsystems are located beside the road and are able to communicate with

local vehicles. • WiFi hot spot operators: Like the mobile phone operators, this subsystem represents another party

for realising connectivity between the vehicle and the infrastructure. • Identity service: This subsystem represents the first entity on the infrastructure which a vehicle

should connect to and log on to for checking credentials,. It also should hold all dynamic information of the infrastructure like subscriptions to services. • Service: The service subsystem represents a set of commercial services, e.g. dynamic routing, or

services from the government, e.g. road conditions. The vehicle driver or owner can subscribe to these services and automatically get the right application installed on the Vehicle Host. • PKI (Public Key Infrastructure): When a PKI is used, a trusted party manages identity, keys and

certificates and should interact with the infrastructure.

3.3.1.2

Actors

54B

Actors are persons or organisations that have a particular role in scenarios concerning cooperative systems. From a security point of view, actors are considered potential attackers of systems. Typically actors have access to particular subsystems because of their role. To find a list of actors and possible attackers related to vehicle communication systems, i.e. applications, platform and infrastructure, the life cycle of vehicles should be investigated. The following phases in the life cycle of a vehicle can be distinguished: 21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

• Developing and manufacturing the vehicle • Using and maintaining the vehicle • Disposing of the vehicle.

Developing and manufacturing phase actors: • Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM): Initially vehicles have to be designed, assembled and

tested by the OEM. The OEM is responsible for the quality and safety of the vehicle. • Suppliers.

Parts of the vehicles are designed and/or manufactured by suppliers of the OEM. Suppliers in the automotive industry normally cooperate closely with an OEM to produce high-quality products at low costs. Suppliers can be active in many fields. The stakeholders, however, focus on suppliers of hardware and software components that are accessible on the vehicles’ internal buses.

• Public authorities: Public authorities are indirectly involved early in the lifecycle for various reasons

such as legislation, type approval and public policy, e.g. safety, privacy, environment. Accredited testing organisations (see below) might be responsible for executing certain tasks. • Standardisation bodies: Standardisation of security-related matters, e.g. risk management, security

controls, protocols and algorithms, helps to improve the quality and interoperability of security aspects. • Accredited testing organisations: Testing bodies are independent parties that should verify that

products are produced and behave according to certain policies. Usage and maintenance phase actors: • Dealer: Vehicles will typically be sold through dealer networks. The vehicles are sold to the legal

owners, i.e. companies or persons, which might be different from the vehicle user. Dealers will typically install equipment in the car to meet the requirements of the user and the government as part of the delivery. The vehicle communication systems might be initially commissioned (i.e. activated) by the dealer. • Vehicle

owner: The owner might subscribe to services. The services can be provided by commercial parties or the government.

• Vehicle user: The vehicle user, who could also be the owner, has access to the vehicle and its

systems. He makes use of the services. • Mobile

network operator: In case the vehicle needs to communicate on the telematics infrastructure for services, a mobile network operator is involved for wireless data transmission.

• Infrastructure operator: A vehicle communication infrastructure is provided and maintained by the

infrastructure operators. • Service provider: Service providers use communications facilities to offer their services.

They can

be compared to an Internet Service Provider that gives us access to the internet. • Content

providers: Content providers are connected to the infrastructure and host useful applications. Depending on the nature of the organisation, the content can be either free, e.g. provided by government, or should be paid for, e.g. provided by a commercial organisation.

• Road

authorities: Road authorities are responsible for road maintenance and operation. As commercial companies, road authorities may also provide services to vehicle users, like broadcasting local road conditions, travel time or route advice.

• Technical inspection companies: These organisations mainly focus on periodic inspection of the

vehicles. Examples of relevant vehicle states are safety aspects and proper operation of mandatory equipment. In the future, some inspections may also cover the security behaviour of related systems or components, e.g. OBUs, using specific measures. • Service organisations: These organisations are responsible for vehicle maintenance; therefore they

have access to the car, to its equipment and to the internal buses of the vehicle. • PKI authorities: These organisations are responsible for managing basic security-related services

for the telematics infrastructure. Examples are keys, certificates, and their related identities. • Public authorities: Some public authorities are also indirectly involved in this phase. They are, for

example, responsible for legislation and other interests such as traffic management at a national level.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

• Criminals: Criminals make money in many ways, for example vehicle theft, transportation of stolen

vehicles, robbery of the driver, tracking and stealing valuable cargo. They might benefit from information from the vehicle communication system, or they might want to manipulate infrastructure of in-vehicle systems. • Malicious hackers: Persons who have access to parts of the telematics infrastructure could try to

interfere with legitimate entities. Access could be provided by various parts of the infrastructure, for example the internet, mobile communication networks, and wireless connections. Disposing phase actors: • Vehicle owner: Before disposing of the vehicle, the owner is involved in the decommissioning

process. • Service providers: During vehicle disposal, service providers might also be involved. For example,

if an OBU is to be reused, the service provider should remove sensitive information on the OBU and decommission the system in the administration of the infrastructure.

3.3.1.3

Threats

55B

It is important to realise that threats act on all architectural levels. Important levels are: • Network level • System level • Application level • Human level.

Because of the general nature of the communication architecture being discussed, it is only possible to come up with a list of general threats and vulnerabilities. The following list describes the majority of them: • Errors in the system: Developers are the source of threats from errors. Most of the time the threat

is unintentional. Threats from system errors might result in problems with data integrity or system stability which might create new system vulnerabilities. • Neglect: When employees neglect their tasks or do not follow the mandatory procedures or security

policies, it might create new system vulnerabilities or expose data. • System intrusion: This class of threat is typically network based, but it can also occur on the local

vehicle interfaces when system access is not protected properly. • Unauthorised system access: Unauthorised people might get access to systems when systems

are not properly protected, users use weak passwords, weak authentication devices are used, or passwords somehow become public, e.g. by social engineering. When unauthorised persons have access to a device, they can change its configuration, e.g. weaken firewall settings, add malicious applications or disable applications. This is true for both the in-car systems and infrastructure systems. Illegal access or a denial of service attacks on the internal vehicle buses could seriously compromise the safety of the vehicle. • Spoofing

or impersonation: Especially when communicating car-to-car, it is important to distinguish between legitimate and false entities. False entities might provide other vehicles with false information which might have an impact on safety. There are numerous other examples where authenticity of entities is very important.

• Cloning or stealing an identity: By cloning or stealing a valid identity, an illegitimate entity can be

turned into a legitimate one, or at least one that cannot be distinguished from legitimate ones. When the gain is high enough, criminal organisations might invest a lot of effort to find ways of getting access to system keys, and thus the identity or other entities. • Denial of service attack: This kind of attack is typically a network level attack. By saturating

communication channels or by using a jammer, in the case of wireless communication, the result is that applications which depend on communication cannot function properly. It is be possible to do the same for the infrastructure part of the system. • Intrusion on personal privacy: There are several methods to violate privacy regulations. Privacy

sensitive data can simply be sniffed from the network when communication is not encrypted. A vehicle’s location can be tracked by mobile telecom operators because they can track mobile communication devices in large areas. Another intrusion method involves services that use privacy sensitive data. This data should not be misused by the provider of that service.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

• Malicious code: This threat is part of several of the previous threats, but it worth mentioning

separately. Malicious code can be autonomous or it can be installed manually by an attacker. Malicious code might make a system unstable, provide backdoors for later intrusions, send data to systems of the attacker, or even participate in denial of service attacks. The malicious code can act at the system level or application level. • Time: Time is a threat for several reasons. What is secure today can be regarded insecure in several

years because of advances in technology for cracking secure algorithms. Key wear is also a factor. Whenever keys are used a lot for communication, eventually enough data can be assembled to reconstruct the secret keys.

3.3.2 Technical Protection Measures 43B

3.3.2.1

Technical Requirements

56B

Before looking at the solution space, we first need to identify the requirements for a technical solution that protects security and privacy in cooperative ITS. This section is based on work carried out within the EU ITS project SeVeCom [10]. Table 1 and Table 2 list the requirements and provide a short statement on their estimated importance with respect to eSafety applications. Name Integrity

Short Definition Prevention of unauthorised data modification

Confidentiality

Prevention of unauthorised data disclosure

Availability

Prevention of unauthorised degradation or denial of system operation and data access

Estimated Importance Integrity of data plays a major role in eSafety applications, as maliciously modified data can cause a lot of damage. Confidentiality is not required for most eSafety applications, as related data is mostly public, e.g. warnings, that should be made public and not be kept confidential. The importance of system availability depends heavily on the actual scope of applications and the reliance which people put on these systems. Whereas a careful driver can compensate for the failure of an optional warning application, the failure of an automated driving system would be disastrous.

Table 1: Key Security Requirements

Name Authentication

Short Definition Corroboration of the claimed identity

Access Control

Decision on granting access to services/data to authorised system entities

Auditability

The enabling of after-the-fact recording and analysis of system events Proof of the originator of message/information to provide Accountability Prevention of privacy infringement, i.e. disclosure of private data to unauthorised parties

Non-repudiation

Privacy

Esteemed Importance For most eSafety applications, knowing the identity of communication partners is of secondary importance. Other aspects like attribute authentication are more relevant and discussed later in this section. Most eSafety services and the data communicated between vehicles will be public, therefore authorisation/access control will be relevant only to a small number of closed (paid) applications. For invehicle systems, access control is a mandatory feature. Essentially, Access Control can be viewed as the aftermath of Authentication and Authorisation. Depends on the kind of traceability that stakeholders mandate. Depends on the kind of liability properties that stakeholders mandate. Privacy is a major concern, especially in Europe, and a distinguishing feature compared to non-European activities.

Table 2: Additional Security Requirements

The provision of security in co-operative systems applications must in particular overcome a set of specific technical, economic, and social challenges:

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

• Network scale and dynamics: Vehicular networks will be the largest real-life instances of self-

organised ad hoc networks. They also bring the challenge of mobility into the picture, as vehicles will not be able to participate in long-term security protocols because of the high dynamicity of the network. For example, two cars crossing each other on the highway have only few seconds to exchange information which is mainly safety-related. • Privacy: One of the major consumer concerns about the Vehicle Communication (VC) technology is

its potential influence on privacy. • Trust: A key element in a security system is trust. This is particularly emphasised in vehicular

networks because of the high liability required from safety applications and consequently from the vehicles running these applications. Co-operative systems will involve many stakeholders, and the presence of the human factor will increase the probability that misbehaviour arise. • Cost: Cost is another inhibitive factor in the deployment of VC solutions. In fact, the introduction of

new communication standards for vehicular communications will require manufacturers to install new hardware modules on all vehicles, thus increasing the unit cost for consumers. Another costly addition will be the infrastructure that will allow VC functions, e.g. to access on-line authorities as part of a security service such as authentication. These costs should be minimised while keeping sufficient support for vehicular networks applications. • Gradual deployment: The time span of VC deployment until it reaches considerable penetration is

around a decade. This means that only a small proportion of vehicles will contain the enhanced features of VC over the next couple of years. Yet, this functionality should still be supported despite the low penetration rate. This also applies to security services where, for example, protocols should be performed without the widespread existence of roadside infrastructure. Based on this understanding of requirements, the approaches for security and privacy protection for cooperative ITS will now be discussed.

3.3.2.2

Approaches

57B

Different research projects have addressed the issue of security and privacy protection in co-operative systems to come up with solutions. The FP6 project SeVeCom extensively analysed security and privacy issues in V2V and V2I systems and proposed a baseline architecture that provides basic security and privacy mechanisms. Other projects like IEEE 1609.2 [30] and Network On Wheels (NOW) [4] also proposed security mechanisms for V2V or V2I systems. The basic building blocks of all those approaches are very similar. They will be described based on the SeVeCom baseline architecture. Furthermore, the FP7 project PRECIOSA [6] is addressing privacy in cooperative ITS, and the FP7 project EVITA [3] is defining a secure in-vehicle platform providing a secure base for cooperative systems. Altogether, these projects provide a substantial set of results and proposals that could be used in cooperative ITS. Their results directly go into standardisation and Field Operational Test (FOT) activities like the security working group of the Car-2-Car Communication Consortium (C2C-CC)[13], working group 5 (focusing on security) of the ETSI technical committee on ITS [29], and the security architectures of SIM-TD [11] and PREDRIVE-C2X [7] FOT projects. Figure 3 gives an overview of the SeVeCom baseline architecture and prototype implementation. It shows the major components needed for securing cooperative ITS. The Security Manager controls and configures a number of security components that are responsible for the following security functions: • Identification & Trust Management Module: This manages the long-term identity certificate of a

vehicle and is also responsible for the verification of remote certificates. • Privacy Management

Module: This is responsible for managing the pseudonyms of vehicles. Pseudonyms are a concept where the identifiers used for authentication of vehicles do not include any data that allows linking the identifier to a specific vehicle or driver. These short-term IDs are to be used instead of long-term IDs and are to be changed regularly to prevent the creation of complete itinerary tracks of vehicles. The responsibilities of this module include changing pseudonyms (and correlated identifiers in the communication stack) and providing new pseudonyms when old ones expire or are not to be used any more.

• The

Secure Communication Module: This contains components that are specific to certain communication patterns or protocols and are dedicated to protecting confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a specific form of communication, i.e. by applying digital signatures, encryption, or consistency checks as needed.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

• In-Vehicle Security Module: This controls the connection between the on-board unit and other in-

vehicle networks and ECUs by means of firewalls, intrusion detection systems, or similar mechanisms. Its purpose is to prevent successful attacks on other in-vehicle systems in case of OBU compromise. • Crypto

Support Module: All crypto operations and the protection of secret key material are encapsulated in the Crypto Support Module.

• Hardware Security Module: The Crypto Support Module includes a Hardware Security Module that

provides extra protection to secret key material so that it cannot be accessed even if an OBU is compromised. • Hooking Approach: In order to connect the security subsystem to the rest of the communication

stack, SeVeCom applies a so-called hooking approach. Inter-Layer-Proxies (ILPs) introduced between the different layers of the communication stack allow the components of the secure communication module to register and get notified in case of certain events, e.g. a packet passing between layers. They can then take appropriate actions, e.g. attach/verify signatures or check the consistency of packet content.

Figure 3: SeVeCom Baseline Architecture

Other projects refine this architecture and focus on certain aspects. For example, the PRECIOSA project [6] proposes refined pseudonym management and additional mechanisms to enforce privacy policies in cooperative ITS systems, focusing also on backend systems where data is collected, aggregated, and processed. The later policy enforcement system leverages on trusted computing components and a policy control monitor to ensure that only policy-compliant access to personal data is possible. The EVITA project [3] provides a strong in-vehicle security architecture and trusted computing components. Those components can be deployed as a Hardware Security Module as specified in the SeVeCom Baseline Architecture. From the SeVeCom Baseline Architecture, one can identify the most relevant and commonly proposed technical components needed for the security and privacy of cooperative ITS: • ID Management and Authentication Mechanisms: This ensures the authenticity of vehicles. In

most approaches, this includes asymmetric cryptography based on elliptic curves, certificates issued by a trusted third party or certification authority, and digital signatures to authenticate messages.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

• Privacy Protection: By means of a Pseudonym System. Here, a balance has to be found between

authentication and privacy requirements. This includes the question of whether a “lawful intercept” 2 mechanism is required to resolve pseudonyms to long-term identifiers, thus removing the anonymity provided by the pseudonyms under certain well-defined conditions. A second approach to enhance privacy protection can be the application of a Mandatory Policy Enforcement scheme where privacy policies can control what data processing is allowed on data. 1F

• Secure

Communication Mechanisms: These are usually specific to certain forms of communication. Currently, standardisation and FOT efforts focus on simple Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAM) and Distributed Emergency Notification Messages (DENM) that are sent as linklayer broadcasts. Here, message signing is usually the most relevant security mechanism. Still, it needs to be noted that other communication patterns like Geocast, Position-based Routing, Advanced Information Dissemination, or Aggregation also require more advanced protection mechanisms.

• Data Consistency Checks: These try to verify the correctness of disseminated information, e.g. by

applying certain plausibility checks to position or speed information. • Efficient Cryptographic Operations and Protection of Secret Key Material: These are partly

implemented by means of a Hardware Security Module. • Protection of the In-Vehicle System: These are implemented by security gateways between the

OBU and other in-vehicle systems, but also by providing security mechanisms in the vehicle to ensure overall system integrity. • System and Architecture Integration: This is a special challenge as the security mechanisms need

to be closely integrated with the communication system and sometimes also with the application.

3.3.3 Organisational Measures 44B

Organisational measures could also be put in place for various reasons, such as the following: • As an intrinsic protection mechanism. For instance a company operating an information system

could set up a hierarchical clearance procedure to ensure that only accredited persons access and modify some critical application data. • As an accompanying measure to the use of an underlying technology. For instance the use of

public/private keys necessitates the operation of a public key infrastructure. • As a means to verify that a given level has been reached. For instance, the design of a privacy-by-

design application could follow a design process that could be evaluated. Likewise, interoperability, security protection, privacy protection features of a subsystem could be verified through various approaches, such as internal quality insurance, and certification. It is not possible at this stage to identify and finalise organisational measures, because there are too many unknowns in the way co-operative systems will be deployed. However it has become clear that concertation measures need to be put in place in due time to discuss and agree on such measures, possibly during field operational test phases.

3.3.4 Conclusion on Future Cooperative ITS Applications 45B

As we have seen, future cooperative ITS will pose many challenges on the organisational, legal, and technical levels. This is due to the fact that those cooperative and dynamic systems include many participants from a legal, organisational, and technical point of view, and there are no or only a few central entities controlling such systems. While research projects and different groups like the eSecurity Working Group [15], the Article 29 Working Party [12], or the security group of the Car-2-Car Communication Consortium have started addressing those issues, there is still significant work to be done before cooperative ITS is ready for deployment. On the legal side, applicability of current laws has to be analysed in detail. In particular, a discussion is needed on whether current data protection laws that target mostly data processing in businesses can be applied to such decentralised forms of data processing. From an organisational point of view, responsibilities for security and data protection in cooperative ITS have to be clarified. There are different potential candidates, like suppliers, OEMs, vehicle owners, and drivers. It needs to be determined whether there is even a need to clearly assign such responsibilities by appropriate laws or regulations. Furthermore, technical protection measures will 2

During the final review of the report, some readers have pointed out that there is actually no legal basis for such measures.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

require appropriate supporting mechanisms, e.g. a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). The responsibilities for the structure of such mechanisms need to be clarified. For example, it is currently unclear who would operate and finance such a PKI system. The organisational challenges of running a PKI for potentially millions of vehicles in Europe and even beyond must not be underestimated. From a technical point of view, there is already a rough consensus on how to secure at least initial and simple forms of cooperative ITS. The next required steps are to harmonise, classify, and select existing mechanisms. This cannot be done by only the ITS security community. Instead, all stakeholders must participate to answer important questions on the set of applications to be deployed, the desired protection levels, acceptable costs, and political and legal constraints. Groups like the Car2-Car Communication Consortium, the ETSI Technical Committee on ITS [29], and the eSafety Forum [14] provide the appropriate framework for such discussion and other important decisions. To avoid delaying the market introduction of cooperative ITS just because of missing security and privacy protection solutions, there is a pressing requirement to evaluate and demonstrate their effectiveness in scenarios that exceed the level of the earlier research projects. Field Operational Tests (FOTs), including strong security and privacy parts, should analyse the performance, scalability, effectiveness, and practicability of those proposed mechanisms. In addition, a clear vision of integration into the overall cooperative ITS architecture is required, based on a close cooperation between architecture and security groups (recommendation 6.2). It must also be noted that not all aspects of the proposed mechanisms are fully understood. Examples include performance effects of security mechanisms, e.g. message signatures, on the overall communication system, and the actual level of privacy achieved by pseudonym solutions. To avoid unpleasant and costly surprises after market introduction, upcoming FOT projects should also address remaining research issues that do not analyse how to achieve a certain security or privacy goal, but instead focus on the consequences that introducing such security mechanisms will have on the overall system. Such research has been neglected up to now. Finally, there needs to be awareness that current standardisation and testing activities focus for good reasons only on a very limited set of communication mechanisms and applications that basically include one-hop link layer broadcast and a small set of basic applications. Protecting such systems and applications is a challenge in itself. However, there should also be a long-term research vision that ensures that research on security and privacy protection mechanisms for next generation cooperative ITS is conducted in time to ensure a smooth transition to even more advanced driver assistance systems or even automated driving. Two examples of such systems are securing advanced forms of communication or cooperative driving applications, and ensuring the privacy of drivers in applications that are highly personalised and include personal profiles. In summary, it is recommended to maintain further work related to cooperative systems (recommendation 6). In particular: • Ensure standardisation and harmonisation of security solutions. • Quickly converge on a basic set of security and privacy protection mechanisms based on a careful

selection of existing proposals. Then evaluate the scalability and effectiveness of such mechanisms in real-world systems and gain a deeper understanding of the effects that such mechanisms will have on the overall system. Address consequences of the security mechanisms on the overall hardware. FOT projects can provide the right framework for this analysis if and only if security and privacy are addressed as central project elements and are not just “add-ons”. • Be aware that current work is only focusing on a small subset of the whole potential of cooperative

ITS. Therefore, especially for security and privacy research, a long-term research focus that goes beyond the current relevancy for first generation systems needs to be ensured.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

4 Recommendations 3B

The following recommendations are made by the eSecurity working group: 1. Ensure separation between independent vehicle-based systems and interactive systems. Vehicle based systems should remain under the responsibility of the OEMs and should not be affected by interactive systems 2. Investigate liability issues of applications beyond informing systems (systems that have an immediate impact on driving). Further research work is needed to understand and monitor these effects 3. Harmonise legal measures in place within Member States concerning improvement of electronic security (e.g. regulations on manipulation of mileage). Today inconsistencies among legal framework within the Member States exist. 4. Address security issues raised by specific applications. In particular define evaluation criteria and methods which stakeholders can use in their decision process. 5. Undertake further work to identify further recommendations for a privacy by design approach. 6.

Maintain further work related to cooperative systems. In particular, 6.1 Ensure necessary standardisation and harmonisation of security solutions. 6.2 Validate security and privacy mechanisms for the first generation of cooperative systems in field operational trials. 6.3 Undertake research activities on security and privacy issues for the next generation of cooperative systems.

The table below shows the scope of each recommendation. Technical scope

Legal scope

Organisational scope XX

Ensure separation between independent vehiclebased systems and interactive systems

Investigate liability issues of applications beyond informing systems

Harmonise legal measures concerning improvement of security

Address security issues raised by specific applications and define suitable support measures

Discuss further recommendations for privacy by design

On-going work needed for cooperative systems

X indicates a normal presence in a scope category. XX indicates a strong presence in a scope category.

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

5 Glossary 4B

Term 3G, 4G ACC ADAS CAM CAN-Bus C2C C2I C2X C2C-CC CAM CC CD DENM DSRC DTC DVD DVB-T EC ECE, or UNECE ECU eCall ECDSA EDPS EETS ERI eSafety eSecurity ETSI EU FIPS FOT FP6 FP7 GNSS GPRS GPS GSM HGV HIS HMI ICT IVC IEC ILP ISMS ISO ITS ITSEC IVC MAC NIST 21/6/2010

Definition 3rd Generation, 4th Generation of cellular wireless standards Adaptive Cruise Control Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Cooperative Awareness Messages Controller Area Network Bus Car-To-Car communication Car-To-Infrastructure communication Car-To-Any communication Car-To-Car Communication Consortium Cooperative Awareness Messages Common Criteria Compact Disc Distributed Emergency Notification Messages Dedicated Short-Range Communications Diagnostic Trouble Code Digital Versatile Disc Terrestrial Digital Video Broadcasting European Commission Economic Commission for Europe, or United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Electronic Control Unit Emergency Call Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm European Data Protection Supervisor European Electronic Toll Service Electronic Registration Identification Electronic Safety Electronic Security European Telecommunications Standards Institute European Union Federal Information Processing Standard Field Operational Tests Sixth Framework Programme of the EC Seventh Framework Programme of the EC Global Navigation Satellite System General Packet Radio Service Global Positioning System Global System for Mobile communications Heavy Goods Vehicle Hersteller Initiative Software Human Machine Interface Information and Communications Technology Inter-Vehicle Communications International Electrotechnical Commission Inter-Layer-Proxies maintaining Information Security Management Systems International Organization for Standardization Intelligent Transport Systems Information Technology Security Evaluation Criteria Inter-Vehicular Communication Message Authentication Code National Institute of Standards and Technology 36

eSecurity WG OEM MSD OEM OBU PAYD PKI PDA POI PSAP RSU RTD SMS StVG StVO StVZO TC TV UMTS USB V2C V2I V2V V2X VC VIN

21/6/2010

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

Original Equipment Manufacturer Minimum Set of Data Original Equipment Manufacturer On Board Unit Pay As You Drive Public Key Infrastructure Personal Digital Assistant Points of Interest Public Safety Answering Point Road Side Unit Research and Technology Development Short Message Service Straßenverkehrsgesetz: German Road Traffic Act Straßenverkehrsordnung: German Road Traffic Regulations (or Highway Code) Straßenverkehrs-Zulassungs-Ordnung: German Road Traffic Licensing Regulations (or Road Traffic Act) Technical Committee Television Universal Mobile Telecommunications System Universal Serial Bus Vehicle-To-Car communication Vehicle-To-Infrastructure communication Vehicle-To-Vehicle communication Vehicle-To-Any communication Vehicular Communication Vehicle Identification Number

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

6 References 5B

Projects and Working Groups [1]

Project Coopers http://www.coopers-ip.eu/

[2]

Project CVIS http://www.cvisproject.org/

[3]

Project Evita http://www.evita-project.org/

[4]

Project Network On Wheels (NOW) http://www.network-on-wheels.de/

[5]

Project OVERSEE https://www.oversee-project.com

[6]

Project Preciosa http://www.preciosa-project.org/

[7]

Project PREDRIVE-C2X http://www.pre-drive-c2x.eu

[8]

Project PReVENT http://www.prevent-ip.org/

[9]

Project Safespot http://www.safespot-eu.org/

[10] Project SeVeCom http://www.sevecom.org/ [11] Project SIM-TD http://www.simtd.de [12] Article 29 Data Protection Working Party http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/index_en.htm [13] Car-2-Car Communication Consortium (C2C-CC) http://www.car-to-car.org/ [14] COMeSafety Coordination Initiative http://www.comesafety.org/ [15] eSecurity Working Group http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/forum/esecurity/index_en.htm [16] eSafety Forum http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/forum/index_en.htm Publications [17] T. Litman, “Distance-based vehicle insurance feasibility, costs and benefits,” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Tech. Rep., 2007. http://www.vtpi.org/dbvi com.pdf [18] F. Zahid and C. Barton, “Pay per mile insurance,” Davenport University, Tech. Rep., 2004 [19] C. Troncoso, G. Danezis, E. Kosta, and B. Preneel, “PriPAYD: Privacy Friendly Pay-as-you-drive Insurance”, Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Workshop on Privacy in Electronic Society [20] S. Minguijon-Perez, “Pay as you drive directory. http://payasyoudrive.wordpress.com/ [21] Alert as 170000 blood donor files are stolen, February 2008. http://www.independent.ie/nationalnews/alert-as-170000-blood-donor-files-are-stolen-1294079.html [22] Norwich Union Life fined £1.26m for security holes, December 2007. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/17/ norwich_union_life_fsa_fine/ [23] M. U. Iqbal and S. Lim, “An automated real-world privacy assessment of GPS tracking and profiling.” in Second Workshop on Social Implications of National Security: From Dataveillance to Uberveillance, 2007, pp. 225–240 [24] Octo Telematics S.p.A. http://www.octotelematics.com/solutions/insurance-telematics/ [25] P. Golle and K. Partridge, “On the Anonymity of Home/Work Location Pairs”, in Pervasive 2009 [26] J. Krumm, “Inference attacks on location tracks,” in Pervasive, 2007, pp. 127–143 [27] J. Balasch and I. Verbauwhede, “An Embedded Platform for Privacy-Friendly Road Charging Applications.” Under Submission to Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE 2010), 2009. Standards, Directives, Laws, and Treaties [28] Standardisation Initiative Car-2-Car Communication Consortium http://www.car-to-car.org/ [29] Standardisation initiative. ETSI Technical Committee on Intelligent Transport Systems (TC ITS). http://www.etsi.eu/WebSite/Technologies/IntelligentTransportSystems.aspx [30] IEEE 1609.2 Standard http://www.standards.its.dot.gov/fact_sheet.asp?f=80

21/6/2010

eSecurity WG

Vulnerabilities in Road Transport

v1.0

[31] Vehicle Categories: http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/rf/DEFINITION_OF_VEHICLE_CATEGORIES.pdf [32] Section 22b of StVG (German Road Traffic Act): http://www.verkehrsportal.de/stvg/stvg_22b.php Full StVG law: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvg/index.html [33] Section 23 paragraph 1b of StVO (German Road Traffic Code): http://www.verkehrsportal.de/stvo/stvo_23.php Full StVO law: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo/index.html [34] Section 19 paragraph 2 of StVZO (German Road Traffic Licensing Regulations): http://www.verkehrsportal.de/stvzo/stvzo_19.php Full StVZO law: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvzo/index.html [35] Section 823 paragraph 1 of BGB (German Civil Code) http://www.gesetze-iminternet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#BGBengl_000P823 [36] Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon), Part 3 Union Policies and Internal Actions, Title II Free Movement of Goods, Chapter 3 Prohibition of Quantitative Restriction Between Member States, Article 34: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:EN:HTML [37] Article 30 of Directive 95/46/EC The Data Protection Directive: http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=94 [38] Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC Concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector: http://www.aedh.eu/Directive-2002-58-EC.html [39] EU Directive 2004/52 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:166:0124:0143:EN:PDF

21/6/2010

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

1/ 50

eSafety Forum Working Group on SOA

Brussels, February 24th 2010

Final report of the Service Oriented Architectures Working Group

Report and recommendations (V0.97)

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

2/ 50

Table of contents Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 2 1 Preamble ............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Partners ............................................................................................................................... 4 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 5 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6 5. What is SOA? ..................................................................................................................... 7 5.1 Definition of “SOA”: ................................................................................................. 7 5.2 SOA Terminology ...................................................................................................... 7 5.3 Advantages of SOA .................................................................................................... 8 5.4 Infrastructure / backend communication .................................................................... 9 5.5 SOA compared to legacy technologies ...................................................................... 9 5.6 Rational / Motivation for introducing SOA ............................................................. 11 5.7 SOA Standards ......................................................................................................... 11 6 eSafety special requirements on SOA ............................................................................. 14 6.1 Scope .............................................................................................................................. 14 In vehicle systems ............................................................................................................ 16 Infrastructure / backend communication .......................................................................... 17 Vehicle / infrastructure communication ........................................................................... 17 6.2 Requirements .................................................................................................................. 18 6.2 Testing, Validation and Certification ............................................................................. 18 7 Use cases overview .......................................................................................................... 20 7.1 GST Service Oriented Architecture Use Cases ........................................................ 21 7.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 21 7.1.2 About GST ....................................................................................................... 21 7.1.3 The GST Architecture ...................................................................................... 21 7.1.4 Main Use Cases ................................................................................................ 24 7.1.5 Making “eSafety” services available to the end-user ....................................... 24 7.1.6 Making information available to SOA data consumers ................................... 25 7.2 Additional eSafety Use Cases .................................................................................. 28 7.2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 28 8 Implementation examples ............................................................................................... 30 8.1 A SOA based eCall implementation .............................................................................. 30 8.2 Examples of SOA applications in Logistics ................................................................... 32 8.3 SOA in ITS test environment ......................................................................................... 33

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

3/ 50

...................... 36 9 Domain model ................................................................................................................. 37 10 End2End SOA for eSafety ........................................................................................... 38 11 “Importance of SOA for future eSafety processes” ..................................................... 40 12 Identify SOA activity fields for Stakeholders .............................................................. 41 13 Threats / Obstacles ....................................................................................................... 42 13.1 NGTP (Next Generation Telematics Protocol) ............................................................ 42 13.2 Different domains ......................................................................................................... 43 14 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 44 15 References, Links. ........................................................................................................ 46 16 List of figures .............................................................................................................. 48 17 List of members of the WG-SOA and cc: recipients .................................................. 49

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

4/ 50

Preamble

This report is the result of the SOA Working Group’s activities over more than 2years. The Working Group has been a purely voluntary initiative, with no contractual arrangements of any kind. The results of the Group’s endeavours as presented in this report are now in the public domain, and may be quoted, subject to specification of the source. As Chairman of the Working Group, I want to thank all members for their support and contributions. I would like to thank especially my co-chairs Fulvio Sansone and Natalino Curci for their contributions and engagement.

Partners

SOA is used by various industries as the main mechanism for flexible, open business transactions support. The list of partners active in WG work and contributing to this report reflect this wide scope of interests For the eSafety SOA working group, there is a long list of interested parties and some core partners that share the main work load. The work group is lead by the two chairing companies, T-Systems and Polidream S.r.l. Two main contributors are Oracle and Nimera as former co-chair and actively supporting work group member. Companies that support eSafety SOA working group include main industrial player from various fields: ACEA, Brisa, Daimler Ag, Ertico, IMA Benelux, LISITT, Sap; SBD, Toll-Collect GmbH, T-Systems, Volvo, Ygomi, BMW, ISEL and others.

For a complete list of SOA WG interested and contributing partners, please refer to the annex.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

5/ 50

Executive Summary

To deal with tomorrow’s transportation challenges, systems allowing vehicles to communicate with other vehicles and with the infrastructure, also known as cooperative systems, are needed. A pre-condition for the successful introduction of such co-operative systems is that existing services can be extended and future services can easily be introduced on the same in-vehicle and roadside infrastructure. This calls for a common view on Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA). In autumn 2006 the eSafety Forum Steering Group decided to launch a working group on Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) and its relevance for eSafety. The WG had its kick-off meeting on 5th of July 2007 and will conclude in 2009. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), which has taken the IT industry by storm over the past few years, is a software architecture that starts with an interface definition and builds the entire application topology as a topology of interfaces, interface implementations and interface calls. It is also a relationship of services and service consumers, with both software modules large enough to represent a complete business function. Similar to other enterprise and consumer services, eSafety and ITS services need to have common architectures and interface specifications to help overcome possible market fragmentation. SOA concepts and related technologies are expected to play an important role in this scenario, facilitating service interoperability and cooperation among stakeholders and specialised parties. The Service-Oriented Architectures Working Group will play a key role in identifying the benefits SOA can bring to eSafety and ITS, as well as devising a roadmap for SOA implementation. Its first tasks will be to describe the state of the art, as well as identify the missing elements for deployment and the steps to facilitate market introduction. eSafety services require involvement of different partners providing parts of an eSafety service. Public safety organisations and health systems need to co-operate with OEMs and 3rd party service providers. The combination of partners may vary from country to country – the service provided however has to be available with a consistent quality. This report analyses if and how SOA principles may support the special eSafety requirements that go beyond typical distributed services needs. Due to its design features like loose coupling, SOA seems especially suited for services deployment and usage from devices only sporadically linked to the internet. Flexibility in partnering, use of services currently available, update of services to address regional or actual requirements are just some of the features provided by the use of service oriented architectures.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

6/ 50

Introduction

eSafety, by its very nature, is a field of activity that requires involvement of parties with partially diverging interests and goals. Beside the driver as the one who benefits from the results of eSafety activities, there are usually several public and industrial partners involved even in the provision of a single service to the end user. As of today, the required collaboration among these partners is established mostly through proprietary and domain specific interfaces (e.g. standard interfaces for road authorities). The consequences are manifold: services are usually fragmented, generally not interoperable and inflexible; partnerships set up between industrial and public partners are “point-to-point” so investments cannot be leveraged in new partnerships; local and SME service and content providers have difficulties to interface their offerings to several large providers; all this resulting in a fragmented and slow developing market. IT technology like Service Oriented Architecture –SOA- is one way to loosely couple applications from different partners to achieve a joint service provisioning. The promise is that thanks to applying of a SOA concepts to eSafety in few years time, most of the safety services deployed throughout Europe would be interoperable, guaranteeing users seamless coverage when travelling abroad. In such an approach, Public Authorities and service providers would expose and consume “Services” according to certain standards and Service Level Agreements (SLA) between parties. The specific transfer of information between defined parties could happen according to the best available communications system and protocol allowing for effective interoperability between communication systems. Such a SOAbased approach would provide for the flexibility of standards-based integration and orchestration of business processes. The use of Service Oriented Architectures would also give the possibility to Public Authorities and service providers to easily reuse the eSafety platforms deployed to support a wide range of value-added services like information and comfort services. In addition, the SOA approach would allow for seamless integration of eSafety, and generally associated telematics services, into the back-office operations of Public Authorities and Service Providers allowing, for instance, integration with Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platforms, billing platforms for toll services, Business Activity Monitoring platforms for real-time monitoring of operations and reporting, etc. Systems build according to the SOA best practices will also enhance and facilitate the testing, validation and certification of safety oriented ITS Systems. SOA makes it possible to integrate distributed and existing reference services and components into test bed systems thus without the need for additional developments. This would produce relevant benefits for businesses and the society, including enhanced and widespread access to safety and rescue services, and improved sustainability of road transport, by reducing its impact on communities in terms of traffic congestion and pollution. This paper will point out where SOA may be used, when and why it may be favoured above other solutions and what kind of prerequisites may be necessary to get the most out of a SOA architecture implementation. 6

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

7/ 50

5. What is SOA? From a technical perspective, a Service Oriented Architecture is a collection of selfcontained services (system functions) that communicate with each other over specified interfaces. From a business perspective, a service-oriented architecture is a style of multi-tier computing that helps organizations share logic and data among multiple applications and usage modes. The SOA Promise: Defining services at a “business level” enables rapid composition of end-to-end business processes, delivering on the promise of greater IT flexibility and agility: Lower Technology Costs, Smaller Business IT Gap.

5.1

Definition of “SOA”:

Compared to the definition given by OASIS, the following seems more in line with our view as eSafety working group: “SOA is a software architecture that starts with an interface definition and builds the entire application topology as a topology of interfaces, interface implementations and interface calls. SOA would be better-named “interface-oriented architecture.” SOA is a relationship of services and service consumers, both software modules large enough to represent a complete business function. Services are software modules that are accessed by name via an interface, typically in a request-reply mode. Service consumers are software that embeds a service interface proxy (the client representation of the interface).” 1

5.2

SOA Terminology

To describe SOA accurately, let us define some of its terminology: Service

Web service

A unit of business functionality that can be invoked over the network and performs a distinct activity on its own (minimum dependencies) A service that is called in a standard way, so anyone can use it without knowing its internals

Loosely coupled

When services are self-contained, and can be easily combined (“composed”) and disassembled, they are called loosely coupled.

Service-Oriented Architecture platform

A standards-based platform that lets you model, develop, find, and combine services into flexible business

Source: http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=114358

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

8/ 50

processes Orchestration

Combining and assembling (“Composing”) services into a coherent business process – with a central governance service (ESB) controlling the process flow: also known as business process management

Choreography

Combining and assembling (“Composing”) services into a coherent business process without central governance Definition of a component abstracted from its implementation. In the context of SOA the interface defines the contract between producers and consumers of data and functionality.

Interface

Service Broker Service (operates Broker Service registry Publish Subscribe / link /

Service Service / user Requester Requester / user

/ cancel

query Search

provisioning

Service Service Provider Provider

Accessing / using

Figure 1 - Generic SOA roles

Figure 1 shows the main roles SOA defines. A service user may request a certain service (e.g. a local incident warning) by consulting a service broker or service directory. The service broker delivers always the best suitable and available provider that is available for a certain context. This inherent flexibility may be configured by a user’s profile to match certain quality or localisation criteria.

5.3

Advantages of SOA

SOA may be seen as one step forward in trying to handle increasing complexity and 8

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

9/ 50

enable joint processes inside companies or between different companies. So, here in SOA two different threads join: The evolution from a programming standpoint, started with “just writing code”, followed by structured programming, object based programming and languages modelling business relations & processes (e.g. BPEL, BPML). All this has been done to be able to handle the increasing complexity of software development and maintenance. For eSafety, four aspects are the most relevant: - Loose coupling, allowing services to act independently, just synchronising via communication links when available - SOA governance, the ability to control all aspects of a service lifecycle from development, deployment, usage and version control up to closing of a service. - QoS: There is a specific stack in SOA dealing with this including message quality, security and transaction quality - Business suitability: increased competition by compatible service offerings; standardized interface descriptions allow for changing services without redesign. All described above, works independent of technical implementation, perfect for technical interoperability between different entities, even or especially with diverging technical ICT architectures.

5.4

Infrastructure / backend communication

Here, mainly the interaction of service providers is addressed. Important examples included authentication, billing or invocation of third party content. The development of standardized services available by means of web services makes it possible for more public and private organizations to construct sophisticated an innovative eSafety backend systems without the need for huge development investments. A service provider, serving enhanced traffic information to its customers is able to access services such as DATEX II nodes, Parking information systems in a B2B fashion merely by using standardized orchestration technologies such as the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) and the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB). For the content provider it becomes easier to offer its content to the market while it becomes cost effective for even smaller SMEs to build innovative eSafety oriented ITS services. To realize this Services driven ecosystem standardization efforts such as ISO 24097 are primordial.

5.5

SOA compared to legacy technologies

The term Service Oriented Architecture did not pop-up by accident or suddenly without any precedence. As soon as computers got connected to each other they started to exchange data. For a long time however, computers remained stand-alone machine running many sessions in a sharing mode. Dumb terminals were connected to, at that time, huge computers responsible for the all applications layers. These computers received input from the end-user, stored or accessed data to or from huge storage devices and handed the result of the transaction back to the end user. The raise of networked personal computers near the end of the 1980’s changed that paradigm to a more flexible and performing Client/Server architecture. Compared to the passive green screen terminals, personal computers had their own processor on 9

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

10/ 50

board and were able to run their own applications without depending on a centralized CPU. These personal computers were connected to centralized data servers which allowed for multiple clients to access and modify shared data. Client/Server certainly can be seen as a big step forward from the centralized processing architecture used in the dark ages of computing but still had some very important drawbacks. First of all the Client/Server system remained rather closed and not used proprietary interfaces to shift data between client and server. The processing of the data was done on the client machine which introduced some important problems especially related to maintainability and performance. In the middle of the 1990’s the internet became more common and made it possible to connect computing devices not only in a local network but move data between systems located in different geographic locations. Maintainability issues soon resulted in the introduction of a middleman role, the application server. Application servers stand between the end user and the data store. Applications servers move the processing of the information from the “intelligent” terminal back to a specialized type of server. CORBA was one of the first application servers and is still widely in use today especially for mission critical applications. By distributing functionality over different computing systems the overall performance increases and huge applications are much easier to maintain. In general it is much easier to maintain a CORBA application on three servers serving thousands of users than having to update thousands of fat clients running on PCs. A CORBA application runs a piece of functionality which is accessed remotely from an application running on another server or a PC. Unfortunately the interfacing between entities remains on a very low level and is somewhat restricted to local area networking and due to firewall issues less appropriate for wide area networking. With the advent of the extensible Mark-up Language and web oriented technologies such as HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP) applications became even more distributed and presented their interfaces in a standardized XML format. The Interface Definition Language introduced by CORBA changed to an XML description of a Service end point, the Web Service Definition Language file, which made it possible to use remote application functionality on the fly even at runtime. A directory specification such as UDDI makes it possible to publish useful web services and make them available to consuming applications. This approach clearly shows some very important advantages compared to the previous mentioned technologies. Processing is now done by specialized entities and the results made available over well defined interfaces. As a result, consuming services or endpoints have the possibility to select best of breed implementations without having to re-implement the entire or parts of the application should a producer service become unavailable. The ability to create loosely coupled systems is without any doubt the most important result of such a “Service Oriented Architecture”. Indeed, the implementation of consumers and producers are completed decoupled and abstracted from each other. A traffic information producer service can be implemented in for instance Java while the consuming application is developed on a .NET framework. This is the true power of SOA: by selecting the appropriate implementation for each of the services in the end-to-end processing chain it is possible to create powerful and reliable systems.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

5.6

11/ 50

Rational / Motivation for introducing SOA

SOA helps address the fragmented landscape of service provisioning in a multiproviders environment and addresses the difficulties associated with silos of different service infrastructure and applications. It enables greater flexibility through: 1 Greater Interoperability – SOA, and the industry standards underpinning it, enable existing silo’d applications to interoperate seamlessly and in an easier to maintain manner than any traditional solution. 2 Increased Re-use – Once legacy systems and applications are serviceenabled, these services can be reused, which results in reduced ongoing development costs and results in reduced time to market. Further, business processes built as an orchestration of services can also be exposed as services – further increasing reuse. 3 More Agile Business Processes – SOA reduces the gap between the business process model and implementation. This enables changes to business processes already implemented as orchestrations of services to be easily captured and implemented. 4 Improved Visibility – SOA can give improved business visibility by enabling business capabilities exposed as services, and the status of in-flight business processes automated with BPM technology, to be rapidly integrated into service-enabled enterprise portals aiding business decisionmaking. 5 Reduced Maintenance Costs – SOA development encourages duplicated overlapping business capabilities (services) that span multiple applications and systems to be consolidated into a small number of shared services. This enables elimination of redundant services and reduces the cost of maintaining systems by providing a single point of change for application logic. Further, SOA gives the means to gradually phase out legacy systems and applications whilst minimizing disruption to the applications that are built on, or are integrated with, those using SOA principles. 6 Enhanced scalability – Services may be redesigned or moved to a dedicated machine to improve performance with influencing other processes.

5.7

SOA Standards

The SOA drive behind the use of open standards is that solutions based on standards drive businesses’ total cost of ownership down and promotes successful adoption. A number of standard bodies are engaged in driving creation and refinement of standards in this area, OASIS, OAG, OMG, and W3C are some of the standard bodies where relevant pieces of standardisation work takes place. Figure xx provides an overview of the relevant standards in the different areas related to SOA like business services, service bus, process orchestration, user interface and monitoring. ISO has realised the importance of SOA and is working on a standard to use web services for ITS. The standard is called ISO/ICE DIS 24097-1. Some core parte are summarized below.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

12/ 50

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

13/ 50

Figure 2 shows main components and technologies which contribute to a SOA based system Fusion Effect

Richer Experience

More Adaptable

More Interoperable

ERP/ Legacy Apps

Portal

Web Application PKI Dashboards

Process Flow Logic

Security Reliability Logging Failover Dynamic Routing

Custom Apps & Services

WS API

Web services

MONITORING

USER INTERFACE

SERVICE BUS

BUSINESS SERVICES

BAM

WSRP, JSR-168

PROCESS ORCHESTRATION

BPEL

WS-Security

XML/XML Schema

JMX

Struts/JSF

XSLT/XQuery

WS-Policy, SAML

WSDL/WSIF

Web Services Mgmt

SOAP

Figure 2 - SOA advantages and exemplary technologies

JCA

JMS

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

14/ 50

eSafety special requirements on SOA

eSafety applications require special attention with respect to availability, robustness and privacy. The status e.g. of an eCall system has to be clear at any given time to allow users to react and behave differently if services are unavailable. The following paragraphs divide the work domain of SOA in eSafety into three concrete focal points and identify the requirements for each of these focal points. For each of the focus points a number of example specifications and projects are given. By elaborating each of these areas of work the importance and use of Service Oriented Architectures to eSafety becomes clear.

6.1 Scope It is the intention of this paragraph to look at requirements that are of sole and special interest when referring to SOA implementations and characteristics. Such requirements emerge of the very nature of SOA, namely its loose coupling, message based and distributed approach. SOA strengths like flexibility, adaptability and changing relations between service providers may turn into weaknesses if analyzed with “eSafety glasses” on. That indicates a second main aspect: the services considered here need to be “backend oriented”. A solely Car2Car oriented service like “lane assist” that just makes use of cars in the vicinity will not give us relevant requirements for the design an appropriate architecture. We can focus on four aspects: • in vehicle system • infrastructure (or backend) communication • Vehicle / infrastructure interaction • Testing, validation & certification The relation between three of these aspects is clearly shown by Figure 3. The diagram is the derived from the architecture proposed by the GST and CVIS EC funded projects. Testing, validation & certification is not shown as these elements are inherent part of an eSafty system. The different aspects are represented by the following entities in the diagram: In Vehicle System – The In-Vehicle domain is represented by three main entities: • The Client System which runs a Service Oriented Software platform .The Client System is a Multi Application platform able to run several services concurrently. • The Vehicle Infrastructure which offers specific services to the Client System. These services could include communication and location services. • The Nomadic Device – Nomadic devices are integrated into the vehicle by means of a gateway concept and use or offer services to the Client System. Vehicle/Infrastructure interaction – In the diagram this domain is represented by two main entities: 14

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

15/ 50

•

Control Centre (GST) or Host Management Centre (CVIS) – This entity remotely manages the Client System and mitigates much of the concerns related to use of SOA in the eSafety domain. Some of these concerns relate to the liability of car manufacturers regarding the use of soft- and hardware in vehicles. The Control Centre is an enforcement point so far as the management of the Client System is concerned. Towards the Service Providers it offers a standardized system for deploying services to the market. These two concerns, remote device management and deployment of services are realized by two sub-components: o The Provisioning server – remotely manages the Client System and ensures that only validated and certified software is installed on the Client System. o The Deployment server – Allows Service Providers to deploy their services in a well specified way to the Service Aggregator (Control Centre or Host Management Centre).

•

The Service Centre – This entity realizes the actual service. For a Pay As You Drive system this is the for instance the Billing server operated by a Toll operator.

Figure 3 – Example on GST eSafety Entity relations

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

16/ 50

In vehicle systems The On board Unit consists of components that are relevant for service usage like operating system, middleware for updates, security layer and so on: SOA aspects include: services recovery, invocation and usage, inter-service communication. Research of Service Oriented Architectures in this domain is relatively new and is only made feasible thanks to the advances in processor capacity, memory sizes relative to the power consumption and physical size of the hardware platforms. So far as implementation of SOA is concerned on this level, the definition of “Loosely Coupled” is filled-in somewhat differently. In many respects these platforms do not support a complete abstraction of the service implementation but depend on a specific implementation technology. However, the ultimate goal is still to make components interchangeable and to support a multi-vendor environment. It must still be possible to insert “best of breed” components into a system. Some examples may illustrate this. OSGI may be considered as a SOA solution with respect to many of the definitions of a Service Oriented Architecture. The OSGi framework consists of an OSGi framework or “runtime engine” which is able to install, start, stop and uninstall components brought-in from external media or processes. The runtime engine keeps a list of services, described by their interface description and allows other components to get access to these services by means of their interface names. It is possible to interchange existing services with new versions or even install complete new implementations of a service. Some examples of these low-level services are: • Positioning In-vehicle services in a whole lot of cases need the correct geographic positioning of the vehicle. It therefore makes sense to implement a specific component which allows other components running in the framework to access these geographic coordinates. • Communication Communication to the outside world is of course one of the cornerstones of a state-of-the-art ITS in-vehicle system. A communication component allowing other components to access the back-end infrastructure makes therefore perfect sense and avoids the implementation of communication component on a per service base. Some other components which are of interest to in-vehicle services are: • Logging • Access to the in-vehicle infrastructure via CAN, MOST busses or other means. • Access to the in-vehicle HMI • Interface to Nomadic Devices In general, the domain of embedded or in-vehicle SOA systems still needs a lot of research. Translating SOA concepts from the big-iron, internet world to the world of embedded devices still needs a lot of research. This research should not only encompass the technical realization of SOA but should also define positive business models and development methodologies. Some of the issues which still need investigation are: • Openness of a SOA system – a loosely coupled interaction must be possible not only between components running on the same software platform but should also include interaction between several hardware components inside 16

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

•

• •

17/ 50

of the vehicle. An example of this could be the implementation of an automatic eCall system which needs to accept events generate from front and side crash sensors. Certification and validation mechanisms – as stated above, SOA integrated into the vehicle, to become worthwhile, must become a multi-vendor/multicomponent environment. A good certification and validation process remains therefore a primordial asset. Hardware and software innovation – Further research remains necessary to increase the performance, power consumption and capabilities of embedded systems. Positive business cases for all stakeholders involved – To realize eSafety invehicle components, positive business cases need to be found to make this a worthwhile investment for all stakeholders.

Infrastructure / backend communication Here, mainly the interaction of service providers is addressed. Important examples included authentication, billing or invocation of third party content.

Vehicle / infrastructure communication In-vehicle eSafety systems such as eCall, eLane, advanced traffic information and guidance systems need a reliable communication infrastructure. The importance of Over The Air connectivity can not be minimized related to services which may endanger lives when not working in a reliable fashion. Depending on the type of interface between the in-vehicle client system and the back-end system a number of side-effect need to be taken into consideration. The variable quality of service experienced when using over the air data communication need to taken into account when defining communication protocols and message formats. As an example, a full blow SOAP web service call over HTTP might introduce too much overhead when only a 2.5G point-to-point connection is available. For eSafety systems the OTA transmission can be divided into two main categories: •

•

Point-to-Point communication – Client Systems and Service Providers are connected in a one-to-one relationship. This might be an typical network connection over a 2.5G or 3G mobile network but it could also any other one to one communication such as SMS or MMS. Broadcasting – Service Providers transmit data in a one-to-many relation. An example of broadcast data communication is TMC broadcasted over the traditional FM band.

Each of these technologies has their own constraints which directly influence the interface descriptions between mobile and fixed system components. Access to backend services / server / client applications, service downloads as well as updates over the air (e.g. OTA / FOTA) are aspects to be considered here. OSGI offers a good functionality, GTP (Global Telematics Protocol) as well.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

18/ 50

6.2 Requirements Main requirements for eSafety applications and services identified are similar to those defined for telematics applications in general. eSafety however has more demanding requirements as malfunctions may result in possibly dangerous situations. A user must always be sure if a service is available and trustworthy or receive a clear feedback if a service in unavailable or not up to date. Service level agreements (SLAs) Service level agreements and compliancy are core aspects of a trustworthy safety service. For all stakeholders, it must be traceable if all services involved are in a good shape, up to date, reachable and performing. Non-compliance should be detectable. Availability It needs to be clear in advance, before invoking a service, if it fulfils the required SLA criteria with respect to actuality, and validity. Robustness A service or application should clearly state if it is available and be able to handle lost connections or other unexpected status transparently. Roundtrip time As service provisioning may be distributed amongst a number of partners, timing requirements still stay as they are (see eCall example). Security The common requirements on security are even more relevant for eSafety applications and services: authentication, authorization, data protection, and nonrepudiation

Health status SOA services are often “orchestrated”; build of parts of a services chain operated by different providers. The status of the resulting service shall summarize all subsequent states and give clear information on its fitness for use.

6.2 Testing, Validation and Certification In general eSafety oriented systems are often critical applications which, when failing, might prevent even the saving of lives and most certainly will not come up to their promises. System such as eCall, intelligent speed alerts, high priority traffic messages and so forth, must therefore thoroughly tested, validated and in most cases certified before they can be deployed in the large. European wide testing, validation and certification needs European wide testing facilities. Today many of these test sites exist or are planned. Most of these test sites focus on specific aspects of eSafety and ITS applications, mostly depending on the regional or national interest or on the commercial interests of the funding organizations. These test sites will operation field operational test on a limited or large scale and therefore produce services and infrastructure to conduct these tests. It would be favourable if test sites could share these services and infrastructure. In many cases, as it happens today, components are re-developed over and over again simply because existing 18

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

19/ 50

components are not made available or are developed as closed and proprietary systems impossible to integrate.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

20/ 50

Use cases overview

As SOA design and architecture is always related to certain industrial fields or business processes, it is important to describe the user activities supported by the SOA system. To give an overview on scenarios and use cases prepares the ground for a more indepth analysis of underplaying business processes. In general, a variety a services and functions have been proposed to increase driver safety, they are summarised under “Smart Car” or “Intelligent Car” technologies: The following list shows a wide range of ICT-based stand-alone or co-operative systems. Some are already in use (ABS, ESC), others are still under development or being introduced into the market (e.g. most eSafety services) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) Adaptive Headlights Lane Change Assistant / Blind Spot Detection Driver Drowsiness Monitoring and Warning Dynamic Traffic Management eCall Electronic Brake Assist System Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Extended Environment Information Gear Shift Indicator Intersection Assistant Lane Departure Warning Local Danger Warning Night Vision Obstacle and Collision Warning Pedestrian/ Vulnerable Road User Protection Speed Alert Tyre Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS) Wireless Local Danger Warning

For SOA implementation, only the co-operative, communication cantered applications are of relevance (see “8.1 Scope” for details). The uses cases drafted in the next chapter further describe such use cases / applications.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

7.1

21/ 50

GST Service Oriented Architecture Use Cases

7.1.1 Introduction The Global System for Telematics, or GST in short, project identified an Open Telematics framework, allowing to run multiple services on an in-vehicle or mobile computing system. The framework itself consists of a set of entities, which interact with each other over well-defined and agreed-on interfaces. These definitions form the basis for a specification effort starting from industry available standards extended with the requirements as identified by GST. To understand the discussion of those GST Use Cases valuable for a Service Oriented Architecture it is worthwhile to briefly discuss the GST concept, or design pattern as it is sometimes referred to, and add some definitions to the different entities, actors and interfaces which contribute to this design pattern. However before jumping into the GST architecture some care should be taken about the terminology used in this chapter, especially in relation with the definition of a Service Oriented Architecture itself. Depending on the context the word “Service” indeed has a different meaning. In the Context of GST a service is the “product” offered by a Service provider. A service provider could for instance make traffic information available or in the case of a rent car, tabulate the driven distance and billing the car user accordingly. A service in the SOA acronym as defined by the SOA definition, given elsewhere in this document, is a piece of software that is accessed by name via an interface. From a high-level view this difference might sound like a small nuance simply because, how else are GST Services accessed by an end-user? Indeed, by means of a well-defined interface as is meant by the SOA definition applied by this workgroup. For the clarity of this text however we will prefix the word service with GST if a high level GST service is meant and SOA if the software module is referred to.

7.1.2 About GST GST is an EU-funded Integrated Project that created an open and standardized endto-end architecture for automotive telematics services. The purpose of GST was to create an environment in which innovative telematics services can be developed and delivered cost-effectively and hence to increase the range of economic telematics services available to manufacturers and consumers. 50 partners from industry and research worked together to achieve its results. As a comment, I would like to state that GST finished in 2006. I would state that GST concept have further taken on by CVIS and further developed in this project.

7.1.3 The GST Architecture Figure 1 - GST Entities and Entity Relations provides a high level view on GST.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

22/ 50

Figure 1 - GST Entities and Entity Relations

The following table summarizes the different Entities. On the figure these entities are printed in Bold. Entity Service Centre

Control Centre

Client System

Vehicle Infrastructure

Role Provides a “GST Service” to the enduser. Example of services are: Traffic Information, eCall, Diagnostics, Pay as you drive insurance, Point of Interest, Speed control alerts etc. Acts as the GST Service Aggregator. In general a Control Centre offers a selection of GST Services Application to the End-User and assures the correct delivery of the software necessary to consume the service to the in-vehicle client system. Set of devices which, combined, realize a multi-application in-vehicle computing unit. Typically a Client System contains Input/Output interfaces (Screens, steering buttons, voice control, Text to Speech etc.) and a computing unit also referred to as the Telematics Control unit or TCU Represents the data properties made available by the vehicle. These data properties can be read-only, write-only or read-write. In general the vehicle 22

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

Nomadic Device

Content Centre

23/ 50

infrastructure offers information to the outside world about the state of the vehicle (diagnostics, eCall), the state of the vehicle environment (road conditions, occupants) and, depending on the type of services allowed to operate in the vehicle, the parameterization of a vehicle (ECU flashing to localize and tune a vehicle). A nomadic device can be anything that could benefit from an interaction with the vehicle. Examples are music players, smart phones, Personal Navigation Devices (PND), Personal Digital Assistants (PDA), Diagnostic Systems etc. Aggregates data either provided by the Vehicle Infrastructure (Enhanced Floating Vehicle Data) or external sources such as the government, traffic information providers etc.

These entities interact with each other over a set of well-defined and openly specified interfaces. These interfaces form the core discussion of this document and essential turn the GST design pattern into a Service Oriented Architecture. The following list briefly summarizes these interfaces: Interface Deployment Interface

Provisioning Interface

Vehicle Interface

Nomadic Device Gateway

Description Describes the “deployment” of GST Service Applications from a Service Provider to the GST Service Aggregator or Control Centre. GST defines for this interface protocols such as SOAP, HTTP, IPv6. Where the SOA Services are implemented as Web Services or Web Applications. The interface furthermore specifies a deployment descriptor and packaging format. Defines the interaction between a Client System and the Control Centre. This interface is driven by Use Cases such as: GST Service Discovery GST Service Subscription GST Service Download GST Service Install Enables the interaction between a Client System and the Vehicle Infrastructure Vehicle Infrastructure SOA Service allowing the integration of a Nomadic 23

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

Nomadic Device Interface

Service Consumption

24/ 50

Device with the Vehicle Infrastructure and the outside world via the GST Service Consumption interface or Provisioning Interface Interface allowing a Nomadic Device to access the Client System. From the description it becomes clear that the Nomadic Device Gateway and Nomadic Device Interface are two SOA services which collaborate with each other and combined realize the Nomadic Device integration. Describes the interaction between the Service Provider and the Client System. This part of the GST Design pattern realizes the consumption of the service

7.1.4 Main Use Cases The following table summarizes the main use cases identified by the GST IP project. For each of the Use Cases you will find a short description, a reference to the original GST deliverable and a short step by step description of the Use Case. This list is by far not complete but contains only those Use Cases relevant to the work of the eSafety SOA workgroup, so only safety relevant use cases are retained. Furthermore, the use cases are categorized according to their function in the interfaces table.

7.1.5 Making “eSafety” services available to the end-user This set of Use Cases relate to the deployment and provisioning of GST Service Applications. Literature references are represented by numbers, which are specified at the end of this chapter. Use Case Upgrade of a service application

Literature reference [1], UC-OS-0006, page 44

Automatic Upgrade of a Service Application

[1], UC-OS-0007, Page 47 24

Short description The Control Centre notifies the End User that a newer version of a specific Service Application is available. The End User chooses to download the upgraded version of the Service Application The Service Application is downloaded on the Client System using the Communication Infrastructure The Control Centre sends an upgrade request to the Client

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

25/ 50

System. The Client System authenticates the Control Centre as per UC-GST0023. This step is necessary to prevent malicious downloads by defector Control Centres. If the driving conditions permit and various other conditions are met (e.g. the user has requested auto updates, the Client System is compatible with the new version etc.), the Client System acknowledges or refuses the upgrade request by responding to the Control Centre. If acknowledged by the Client System, the Control Centre pushes the upgraded version of the Service Application on the Client System using the available Communication Infrastructure

7.1.6 Making information available to SOA data consumers This set of a Use Cases describe content provisioning scenarios either at the origin of the value chain where content is unprocessed data made available by a vehicle or further down the chain where content is processed by a content centre and made available in the form of information such as high priority messages and traffic data. Use Case Access to the vehicle infrastructure

Literature reference [1], UC-OS-0008, Page 48

Service Provisioning and application download

[1], UC-OS-0020, Page 58

Short description The Service Centre wants to obtain in-vehicle data by means of the Service Application or the End-User wants to obtain in-vehicle data. A Service Application reads the Vehicle data. The Control Centre determines the need for Service Provisioning. This may be the result of either a Control Centre initiative

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

End User Initiated Service Provisioning

[1], UC-OS-0021, Page 60

Control Centre Initiated Service Provisioning

[1], UC-OS-0022, Page 64

Service Consumption

[1], UC-OS-0023, Page 67

26/ 50

or an End-User initiative such as an initial log-on and so forth. The CC checks authorization and dependencies to other applications The Control Centre checks for local copies of the application to be provisioned The CC matches the Client System capabilities to the Service Application requirements The Control Centre updates the needed tables in the database to prepare the system for application download to the Client System. The Control Centre downloads the Service Application. The Client System checks the consistency of the downloaded file, the origin of the application and the permissions. The Client System installs the application and confirms the successful installation. The Control Centre continues the Service Fulfilment Identical to the previous Use Case but initiated by the end-user Identical to UC-OS-0020 but initiated by the Control Centre The End-User or Client System triggers the start of a Service Application. At this stage no connection to a back-end system, Control Centre or Service Centre is necessary. In other words Service Applications do not need

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

Service Deployment

[1], UC-OS-0025, Page 72

27/ 50

any remote connectivity to run correctly. The Service Application communicates with the Client System or with a remote Control Centre or Service Centre. If necessary the Service Application sends an accounting log message to the Control Centre for billing purposes The Service Application is closed by the End-User or the Client System. The Service Centre User physically deploys the package on the Control Centre according to the chosen business model. The Control Centre unpacks the Service Application package and allocates the different parts in its repository. The Service Centre User applies all necessary configuration changes in the Control Centre

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

7.2

28/ 50

Additional eSafety Use Cases

7.2.1 Introduction To get a good understanding of the scope of an eSafety oriented Service Oriented Architecture a few practical and real-life use cases might be very helpful. This chapter discusses three use cases with a focus on the different boundaries between the entities of a complex ITS system. These entities collaborate with each other by means of well-defined and standardized interfaces. Exactly these interfaces are the subject of the eSafety SOA working group. The following picture gives an overview of a typical ITS system, in this case a traffic information application.

Figure 4 - Traffic Information system

From left to right the different layers of the system are bound tighter by means of interfaces specified by standards which, in many cases, are the result of EC funded ITS projects. The following scenarios are discussed: 1. Traffic Information Content aggregation and service provisioning 2. Diagnostic Service scenario 3. eCall Service scenario For each of these scenarios we will have a look at the different entities and interfaces between these entities. A summary table gives an idea on the different specifications and standards involved. For each of the specifications and standards a pointer to the originating project and/or organization body is given.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

29/ 50

7.2.2 Scenario 1: Traffic Information Content aggregation and service provisioning Safety on the road: Better informed drivers can make better judgment about their time of leave and itinerary. As a consequence they help in reducing traffic congestions and improve air quality by doing so. In general we could distinguish about a number of information types including: 1 2 3 4 5

Congestion and incident information with a normal priority Short notice, high priority information such as obstacles, ghost drivers etc. Public transport information Delays and drive times Etc.

Figure 1 gives a good view on the different steps involved in this scenario. The story starts by gathering the basic content for the different traffic information services. In this stage many interfaces take part in the interaction between the originator of the information and the content aggregators. The following are only a few of the possible interfaces: Geo-positioning data transmitted from trucks, cars etc. (Floating Vehicle Data) – In general this information is received from fleet operators, leasing and renting companies, taxi operators, busses etc. In general each of the geo-positioning data points is forwarded on regular intervals to a fleet management application of some sort. An enhanced version of such an interfacing system has been researched by the GST Enhanced Floating Vehicle sub-project. In general what becomes important for this to work in an open and standardized way is: 1 A clear specified message format or at least a clear message element specification 2 An open specified interface to the vehicle environment An enhanced Floating Vehicle system would allow not only providing information about location, speed and heading, but also about other measured information such as meteorological information etc. Standardized web services accessed over an HTTP/SOAP transport layer are a way forward to provide open implementations for this interface. Raw data provided by road infrastructure – This data is forwarded by road-side infrastructure such as loops, infrared detectors, speed cameras etc. To be able to integrate this data, Content Aggregators need standardized message formats and/or message elements. Only standardizing this interface guarantees an open and efficient integration of a wide range of data originating equipment. As for the floating vehicle data providers, web services could offer a good set of specifications for an open interface. Journalistic Information – While measuring systems such as floating vehicle data providers and detection loops indicate road conditions and report information on traffic congestions and travel times, journalistic information adds specifics on the circumstances of a traffic event. Additionally, these kinds of information sources could also add information on the availability of public transport, parking lot location and availability etc. Specifications such as OTAP and DATEX2 are found on this boundary. 29

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

30/ 50

The raw data provided by these different content sources as such is not very useful. The content aggregator tier adapts the raw data into information useful for service providers to package in valuable end-user services. Content Aggregators in general bundle the raw input data into cause and result information and provide this information as an OTAP or DATEX 2 feed to the different Service Providers. Depending on the Service the aggregation level is less or more detailed. As an example, navigation systems might need detailed congestion lengths and travel times while broadcasted traffic information relies more on journalistic details. Here again OTAP and DATEX 2 are good candidates for interfacing the Content Aggregator entity with the different Service Providers. Service Providers create useful services from the aggregated traffic information. Here I think we should introduce considerations about interoperability of information services that could be achieved by using SOA and Web Services for interconnecting different Content Aggregators and Service Providers. Without the need of specifying raw data formats, being FVD, road-side data or journalistic information, CA and SP may expose Web Services for fellow CA and SP. The possibility to consume such Web Services may be conditional to commercial agreements and fulfilment of specified SLAs, which may also be described and endorsed in M2M environment. The consumer SP would integrate the consumed service within its own service to the end user. For instance a SP covering a border region (e.g. Italy-Austria) has access to raw data from Trentino Alto Adige, but may not get access to Sud Tirolen raw data from neighbouring region. In this case he may strike a deal with a SP from Sud Tirolen who has access to these raw data. The Italian SP would calculate travel times on its own covered area and would complement travel times for users crossing border with travel times obtained through Web Service from the fellow Austrian SP. The Italian SP would not need raw data about the Austrian network since he would use the travel times computed by the Austrian SP.

Implementation examples

8.1 A SOA based eCall implementation This implementation example is based on a proposal from Oracle on uses Oracle back-end components as a core element. The description given here focuses mainly on the SOA aspects. For a full description of the scenario, please refer to “The fully networked car” presentations. Overall description The eCall is an emergency call, which can be performed either manually by activation of a special SOS button in the car or automatically via in-vehicle sensors, indicating that an accident happened. Automatic triggering is generated by the airbag control module and/or other sensor data like rear sensors and transmitted over the bus system (CAN, MOST or others). After being activated, the in-vehicle eCall system establishes a 112-voice connection to the nearest, relevant PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point), which is a public authorized body. At the same time, a minimum set of data (MSD) is sent to the PSAP operator receiving the voice call. Because the minimum set of data contains key information concerning the accident such as time, location and vehicle-specific information the emergency call can be 30

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

31/ 50

processed rapidly.

Figure 5 - eCall Voice / Data flow

Timing The figure below indicates time restrictions, divided into different fields of responsibility/implementation. The time between the crash detection and the call initiation is not yet defined but it should not exceed 20 seconds. Thus the overall eCall service must not exceed 34 seconds until the PSAP is reached. As SOA uses a loosely coupled paradigm, such requirements have to be closely monitored and ensured.

The SOA Approach The proposed approach to realize the eCall architecture is the implementation of a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). In such an approach PSAPs and Service Providers would expose and consume services according to certain standards and Service Level Agreements (SLA). This would consist in pushing data to an emergency web site, which would be accessible to all authorized parties involved. Such architecture could look like it is shown in the next figure:

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

32/ 50

Back Office

Figure 6 - SOA based eCall

Benefits Such a SOA-based approach would allow an easy integration of the eCall with additional value added services that Service Providers may want to deploy in the future. In addition, it enables seamless integration of the eCall and generally associated Telematics services into the back-office operations of PSAP and Service Providers allowing, for instance, integration with Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platforms, billing platforms for toll services, Business Activity Monitoring platforms for real-time monitoring of operations and reporting, etc. The web site used for joint eCall processing could be deployed at a national, regional or European level without further efforts. The content and access rights could be agreed with the service customers to ensure that privacy issues are properly handled within the different user groups defined.

8.2 Examples of SOA applications in Logistics The following paragraph gives a first idea on how SOA is used today for logistics scenarios: ARKTRANS is a Multimodal ITS Framework Architecture and thereby a template for intelligent transport systems (ITS). Standard functionality and common information elements are defined as well as the interfaces that arrange for interoperability between ITS. ARKTRANS was established in 2001 by the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications, together with the Norwegian transport authorities for 32

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

33/ 50

sea, road, rail and air. FREIGHTWISE is an integrated project within the EU's 6th Framework Programme. FreightWise’s overall objective is to support the modal shift of cargo flows from road to inter-modal transport using road in combination with short sea shipping, inland waterways and rail. It will achieve this objective by means of improved management and facilitation of information access and exchange between large and small public and private stakeholders across all business sectors and transport modes. Project also promotes EU-policies encouraging the development of open and interoperable systems, which meet the requirements of cargo owners, transport operators and inter-modal freight integrating services. The aim is to support the Commission in formulating future legislation and in developing initiatives that can provide a platform on which the industry can develop management solutions thus helping to increase the competitiveness of inter-modal transport. Agile Freight will liaise with and re-use the deliverables of FreightWise to inform the road map for co-modal eFreight MarNIS (Maritime Navigation and Information Services) is an Integrated Research Project in the 6th FP, bringing together 44 partners and 12 sub-partners, to develop maritime navigation and information services on a pan-European basis. The main goals of MarNIS is to accommodate main elements in the European Transport Policy 2010 – “Time to Decide”, and specified objectives further developed in the Sustainable Surface Transport Work Programme 2002 – 2006. It is in this relation one of the challenges to turn the vision of “One Stop Shopping” into reality on a panEuropean and global basis. The development of a mandatory systematic use of modern localisation and communication systems will be key elements in this process. The role of sea transport in an intermodal transport chain will be focused throughout the project. The results are expected to give a solid technological and scientific basis to the Commission and the Member States administrations to study, substantiate, test and formulate possible legislation on Safety, Security and Efficiency in Shipping. EURIDICE (EURopean Inter-Disciplinary research on Intelligent Cargo for Efficient, safe and environment friendly logistics) is an Integrated Project funded by EU’s Seventh Framework Programme ICT for Transport Area. EURIDICE aims to create the necessary concepts, technological solutions and business models to establish the most advanced information services for freight transportation in Europe. The project is built on the Intelligent Cargo concept. EURIDICE will allow to address simultaneously the logistics, business and public policy aspects of freight transportation, by dynamically combining services at increasing levels of extension: in the immediate proximity of a cargo item for services directly interacting with the item itself; with supply chain services, for interaction with the actors responsible of shipping, carrying and handling the goods, as well as of the goods themselves; with freight corridor services, managed by authority and infrastructure operators who are not directly involved in supply chain business processes, but are in charge of infrastructures efficient operation, security and safety control. Such a service infrastructure is realized by adapting current SOA standards to the specific needs of moving goods and cargo communities.

8.3 SOA in ITS test environment The goal of the project was to develop a re-usable and extensible framework for conducting ITS Test Cases To be re-usable was a major design criterion for all elements like: 33

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group • • •

34/ 50

Architecture Procedure and organisation Tools and services

The extensibility was mainly important for community development of reference components and services After carefully analysing all requirements the decision was taken to use a SOA based approach; this allows the integration of legacy and new services in a well-specified and distributed fashion The resulting system supports preparation for local and European wide Field Operational Tests. The project team consisted of ITS Nationals: ITS Belgium (Project Management), ITS France, ITS Norway, ITS Netherlands (Connekt) Research Organizations: TINC, SINTEF, DLR, INRETS, TNO, IBBT And SME’s: NXP, Technolution, Q-Free, TC-Matix SOA principles were especially used to allow • Re-use Europe wide Test Site infrastructure • Setting up a Test Site infrastructure = – Combine existing services or new developed services to conduct a test process – Combining services = orchestration – Heavy use of Web service oriented technology • One core component is the Test Aggregation Service Centre: – Data management – Data storage – Data retrieval • Distributed (re-)use of well tested and proven services

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

35/ 50

Figure 7 - SOA based ITS test environment

Figure 7 shows a basic architecture overview of the ITS Test Beds “system” with a focus on the integration of SOA concepts in the architecture. The Local Test Site runs a test case which includes the integration of own locally running services but also services made available by Remote Test Sites. Systems Under Test (SUT’s) send test messages to the local test site which after executing processes such as filtering, validation and certification forwards any relevant result data to the Test Aggregation Centre (TASC) which in its turn stores the data in the Raw Data Store. Test messages in the domain of the ITS Test Beds project have a well defined structure with an identification section and a payload section which contains the actual test message. This message is transported through the local ESB and after some processing, depending on the nature of the test case, the test message is finally delivered to the Test Aggregation Service Centre where the message is sequenced into the test case cycle and stored in the Raw Data Store. To assure the multi-purpose aspect of the system the ITS Test Beds project selected a number of typical ITS Use Cases covering a broad aspect of ITS Applications. Most of them have a very close relation to the activities of the eSafety forum. The eSafety oriented Use Cases are: Use Case Automatic eCall eLane Incident Hazard Warning Speed Alert & Speed Database

Short Description Automatic initiation and processing of an E112 call from a vehicle Obtain lane position and update information with existing maps and negotiate driving trajectories with other vehicles Incident Hazard Warning based on an online "road incident database" maintained by Norwegian Radio P4 Speed Alert is a system warning for speed limits when the speed limit is exceeded. It communicates with roadside systems (VMS, TMC) for variable limits and recommended speeds. The goal is to reduce the number of accidents due to speeding.

These Use Cases serve as benchmarks for the ITS Test Beds prototype 35

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

36/ 50

implementation to be constructed and are the subjects for the different test sites which are involved in the ITS Test Beds project. The overall concept of ITS Test Beds is developed according to the FESTA handbook and is intended to deliver a technical and organizational framework for executing field operational tests in Europe. The system components are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 - SOA based ITS test environment: system overview

SOA like, loosely coupled services perform tasks like - Validate a test message - Enhance data content - Write data to the core database The system is designed in a flexible way and allows as well some services to either run locally or on a remote server. BPEL and an ESB server are used to orchestrate messages in the system. The resulting system show clearly advantages of the use of SOA for a robust and yet flexible system design that is still in wide areas “technology agnostic” and integrates well with other systems.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

37/ 50

Domain model

Domains in SOA are used to cluster services and interfaces that have a common theme. For eSafety, a look at the GST project shows the domains used at the Munich test site (and in the entire project as well):

Figure 9 - GST domain model (Munich example)

Each of these domains may be company internal or shared between partners. It is a good design rule to define domains in a way that bundles interfaces and functions or services that have a similar purpose or common theme. Domains shall have minimal number of interfaces between them but a lot of “interaction” internally. A second criterion is that domains shall contain at least a couple of interfaces / functions /services. If just some functions are important, they are better placed in an existing domain. A generic, complete eSafety domain model may be too complex for this WG to introduce, but some core elements may be identified: - in addition to the GST domain model, there will be several service provider and aggregator domains involved.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

38/ 50

End2End SOA for eSafety

Typically, eSafety services may be accessed from different countries by a brought variety of users with heterogeneous interests based on their actual context. This fact is illustrated in Figure 10 where a user is travelling through 3 countries, using for example a service on regional hazard warning.

Figure 10 - Accessing services while roaming

Taking this into account and considering requirements identified in previous chapters, An End2End services oriented architecture is best suited to fulfil actual and future requirements and act as blueprint for a .Europe-wide services platform. Due to mechanisms explained, “platform” may be the wrong term: This architecture defines how a service may be identified, invoked and finally used. All components shown in Figure 11 are services themself. As an enhancement of SOA principles mainly used within companies to perform economic transactions, services are used not only in the back-office / at the service provider but as well for communication, delivery, and even on the client. The entire value chain of eSafety is entirely mapped to services that may be provided by changing stakeholders using published service interfaces.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group End user services

Basic services

Connectivity

Transfer services Back- office services

Operation

EFC

Service Broker / Repository

Location C2x Encryption

CRM

Content

eCall

Hazard warning

3rd Party

Maintenance Dangerous goods tracking Traffic information Incident

Authentication

Authentication eCall

...

39/ 50

Logging

Applications Services

Logging

e.g. OSGI

Gateway

Warning

eCall / PSAP

Figure 11 - Seamless End2End services architecture

This architecture model may be applied as well for C2C scenarios. The services running on the OBE need to be deployed, authorised, and managed. C2C scenarios may be seen as part of more complex scenarios where client / server interaction is necessary.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

40/ 50

“Importance of SOA for future eSafety processes”

The challenge for eSafety in the future will be multinational, multi-company driven. SOA supports easily instances of one service supporting different languages or service provider. Most important hereby is the existence of directory services and public repositories. Domain and service type classification offer the ability to choose “best fit” services depending on individual needs. Using such mechanisms, e.g. a vehicle maintenance service provider may therefore be changed automatically depending on regional settings. Some important aspects of SOA for future eSafety processes include: - Co-existence, interoperability and competition of services (or service elements), - Faster introduction of new services (by re-use of existing service components) - Higher quality and robustness - Clear responsibilities and traceability of service availability and usage - SLA agreements contracts possible - Requirements on real-time / near time or a certain latency

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

41/ 50

Identify SOA activity fields for Stakeholders

If we look at SOA for eSafety, we have as well to look at possible value chains within that domain. This analysis is closely linked to an analysis of what role or activity a stakeholder in this process may have. Stakeholder that generate content like: • traffic flow data • location related safety data • eSafety POI • profile based alerts • PSAP locations • infrastructure

Stakeholder that • use content and • aggregate into value added services. • Supportive services like CRM or AAA may be performed here as well.

Stakeholder that deploy a Service to the user. In addition, other functions like CRM or AAA may be performed

Content producer

Service provider

Service distributor

Public authorities Automobile clubs Fleet operator FCD sources OEMs 3rd party

eSafety services provider OEMs Radio stations Traffic alert eCall / bCall provider Payment provider Clearing house Certification agency

Broadcaster OEMs Telcos 3rd party service areas

Stakeholder that use the service(s) provided. A clear benefit must be perceived for the service to be attractive.

Service consumer

Public authorities Driver Police / Ambulance Logistics companies Individuals Public transportation Fleet operator

Figure 12 - The eSafety value chain

The figure above shows an ideal value chain for eSafety. It may consist of many partners, some of them not even known to others when the business process for deployment of an eSafety service is set up. The roles shown may be performed by one company at all or each by one or more. In the future, an entire ecosystem of service providers with a variety of well defined specialised service elements will emerge. The target solution for a certain user may then be combined “on the fly” using available services from changing providers.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

42/ 50

Threats / Obstacles

This paragraph discusses some aspects that are observed as critical for SOA implementation decisions. By giving possible solution for mitigating these threats, a more use case oriented discussion may start. Companies have for years invested huge amounts of money of the last years in their IT infrastructure. It is well adapted to the internal business processes and supports as well information exchange with selected partners over well defined interfaces (EDI . .) To change this infrastructure and follow the new paradigm seems not practical and expensive. SOA may be implemented and used as well by simply adding a new interface to an existing software system. For new systems to be planned, SOA principles should be considered from the start. A service oriented architecture is by definition distributed. Such systems require new and well suited tools for bug tracking and service validation and testing. Services are just described, their internals are not visible to the user or manager. Typical tools to address these issues include TCP monitoring, and special SOA tools like SOAPScope or SOAtest. If not understood and designed correctly, typical problems of distributed systems like transaction tracking (rollback) scalability and availability may occur. Due to extensive XML message processing, and the number of parties involved, scalability and latency effects have to be considered. These aspects have to be considered by design and resource allocation in an initial phase. Responsibility for processes (safety related= special consideration on availability, robustness and trust). SOA principles are useful within one company (mainly reusability and flexibility aspects) but are especially useful in co-operation of different partners.

13.1 NGTP (Next Generation Telematics Protocol) The needs of industry and other stakeholders have lead to the development of other standards aiming in similar directions as SOA but merely focused on mobile telematics and eSafety applications. BMW, in collaboration with telematics service providers (TSPs) Connexis and WirelessCar, has developed both a new telematics framework and a technologyneutral telematics protocol to bring greater flexibility and scalability to the industry. The result of this collaboration is a new open approach to implementing telematics services called the Next Generation Telematics Protocol (NGTP). NGTP is a new approach for delivering over-the-air services to in-vehicle devices and hand sets alike, with the focus on open interfaces across the entire service delivery chain. 42

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

43/ 50

NGTP’s developers set the following six objectives: • • • • • •

Provide a technology-neutral protocol and consistent user interface for telematics services; Reduce barriers to collaboration and implementation; Enable adoption of new technologies as they come online; Support legacy systems for connectivity throughout the service life of a vehicle; Gain wide acceptance and encourage innovation through an open approach; Increase the value proposition for vehicle manufacturers, service providers, content providers, and motorists.

NGTP will enable vehicle manufacturers to use the best offerings from a variety of partners while maintaining a consistent driver experience. The new protocol will also allow TSPs and content providers to sell the same services to multiple vehicle manufacturers. Moreover, NGTP will support legacy systems, allowing older and newer vehicles alike to access new telematics offerings. NGTP accommodates the EU’s pending eCall initiative, and the protocol’s open architecture will accommodate future industry trends. Compared to the use of SOA, which is quite “universal” in its applications, NGTP is specially designed for telematics use. NGTP offers synergies with a SOA based approach if business transactions and joint service provisioning is realised with SOA and telematics messages are exchanged using NGTP. But: some NGTP services like the dispatcher are not stateless and their specification does not provide discoverability. Moreover, NGTP defines interfaces between subsystems and not just the interfaces of the subsystems. So NGTP does not meet all the SOA design criteria.

13.2 Different domains Although Manufacturer and supplier use SOA now for many years as the standard means for providing commercial transaction support, SOA principles have not been commonly accepted as new paradigm by the ITS / Telematics community. Possible synergies within companies are therefore not identified and business opportunities are lost. This leads to a low acceptance and slow take-up of such principles.

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

44/ 50

Recommendations

This chapter gives some recommendations based on the findings of working group. The recommendations are focussed on eSafety support and are intended to maximise the benefit of SOA principles for this application area..

Recommendation SOA should be strongly considered as a better alternative for implementing safety /ITS solutions compared to a centralised closed platform approach

Who EC Member states automotive industry suppliers service provider insurance companies motorway operators road safety organisations police and road authorities in Member States local authorities

Initiate a study which focuses on governance of the relationships among stakeholders (with respect to trust, quality, SLAs, commercial aspects, DRM, privacy) Define a common ontology and semantic for describing eSafety services

EC Member states Local authorities Research community EC Member states Local authorities Research community EC automotive industry suppliers service provider

Promote SOA to open legacy systems along the business needs of the eSafety services. Only add new interfaces where required (no complete IT change required, only partial updates) End to End seamless service orientation should be preferred; it offers a unified way of operation / governance.

The technology to implement SOA oriented systems is available today and should be used. (e.g. BEPL4WS, XML, WSDL, Web services, SOAP, UDDI, OSGI, Java(6),…)

Support a business oriented new approach to interoperability in CEN/ISO (as specified in the “Archetypical approach to the standardization” presentation made by N. Curci on behalf of UNI/UNINFO in ICTSB/ITSSG #14 held in November 2008). 44

EC Member states automotive industry suppliers service provider Research community EC Member states automotive industry suppliers service provider Research community EC Member states Standardisation for a Research community

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group 8

Testing, validations s& certification are core features of eSafety SOA and should supported by stakeholders from beginning

45/ 50

EC Member states automotive industry suppliers service provider Research community Services should be designed with suitable automotive industry granularity, with well defined functionality allowing suppliers for good service orchestration and performance service provider Research community - A good analysis of own core business (be it automotive industry existing or desired) is crucial for modelling of suppliers services and interfaces service provider Concentrate SOA interfaces on business processes automotive industry and transactions support as a variety of dedicated suppliers telematics centred protocols have emerged that are service provider well suited and specially designed to fulfil e Safety Research community requirements Support the evolution of SOA for ITS/eSAfety by EC supporting projects which implement a core Industry European registry of eSafety/ITS services Research community (UDDI, Broker, ontology . .) Promote the use of SOA test bed for validation and certification (ITS test beds project)

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

46/ 50

References, Links.

“SOA for Automotive” Initiative "SOA For Automotive", a joint activity of University of St. Gallen, BMW AG, Hella KGaA, Magna Steyr Fahrzeugtechnik, Siemens VDO, Supply On and ZF Friedrichshafen AG, currently investigates a Service-oriented approach for process integration between OEMs and suppliers. The project builds on SOA concepts and the idea of making Web Services available to external partners: The group has been leveraging the emerging VDA recommendation 4965 on Engineering Change Management for defining a "public process". This process definition was then translated into a Web Service design which allows for coupling IT systems based on SOA concepts and open internet standards. Starting in October 2005, the group came up with their "interoperability profile" this summer - consisting of the public process, an organizational and informational model as well as the ECR (Engineering Change Request) Business Service. Piloting has started in October and the participating companies are now in the process of implementing the interoperability profile using SOA platforms and PLM systems from different vendors. Ultimately, the group intends to demonstrate that service-based process integration will help Automotive companies to become more interoperable. The project partners expect the interoperability profile to reduce the need for bilateral agreements and to thereby minimize costs and effort of electronic B2B integration. However, this approach requires the combination of business standards (on the level of crossorganizational business processes and business semantics) with open web service standards. http:// soa.iwi.unisg.ch http://new.eiccommunity.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=144&Itemid=417 A Service Oriented Architecture Based eCall Implementation (Presentation session by Oracle at “the fully networked car”, please contact Oracle for further information)

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

47/ 50

The Volkswagen collaboration platform: http://www.vwgroupsupply.com/b2b/vwb2b_folder/supplypublic/en/platform.html

Municipal Infrastructure Data Standard (MIDS) Keynote Interop-ESA 05: Enterprise Interoperability and ICT, an EU perspective By Gérald Santucci, DG Information Society and Media – D5 ICT for enterprise networking. http://www.explore-soa.de The SOA blog of T-Systems http://www.oracle.com/technologies/soa/index.html A starting point towards Oracle’s SOA offerings http://www.esafetysupport.org/ Home page of eSafety support http://www.oracle.com Home page of Oracle (Co-chair) http://www.t-systems.com Home page of T-Systems (Co-chair) http://www.ngtp.org The NGTP homepage http://www.soa-know-how.de A good introduction to SOA http://www.whatissoa.com/ Good and detailed overview of SOA concepts and components http://www-01.ibm.com/software/solutions/soa IBMs view on SOA

http://www.bitkom.org/de/wir_ueber_uns/18151.aspx The German Bitkom SOA working group http://www.sap.com/platform/soa/index.epx A starting point towards SAP´s SOA view and offerings

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

48/ 50

List of figures

Figure 1 - Generic SOA roles ................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2 - SOA advantages and exemplary technologies .............................................. 13 Figure 3 – Example on GST eSafety Entity relations ...................................................... 15 Figure 4 - Traffic Information system................................................................................. 28 Figure 5 - eCall Voice / Data flow ...................................................................................... 31 Figure 6 - SOA based eCall ................................................................................................ 32 Figure 7 - SOA based ITS test environment .................................................................... 35 Figure 8 - SOA based ITS test environment: system overview .................................... 36 Figure 9 - GST domain model (Munich example) ........................................................... 37 Figure 10 - Accessing services while roaming................................................................. 38 Figure 11 - Seamless End2End services architecture ................................................... 39 Figure 12 - The eSafety value chain ................................................................................. 41

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

49/ 50

List of members of the WG-SOA and cc: recipients

Bohnert, Thomas Michael Calado, João Camolino, Rui Dias Carrotta, Alessandro Curci, Natalino Cyran, Yolande Davila - Gonzalez, Emilio

thomas.michael.bohnert@sap.com jcalado@sapo.pt Rui.Camolino@brisa.pt a.carrotta@esafetysupport.org n.curci@polidream.it yolande.cyran@ec.europa.eu Emilio.DavilaGonzalez@ec.europa.eu Emmanuel.Bloch@t-systems.com info@esafetysupport.org howard.foster@imperial.ac.uk gaillet@ygomi.com Thomas.Helbig@bmw.de Jan.Gacnik@dlr.de Hartmut.Janssen@toll-collect.de ericjm.kenis@mow.vlaanderen.be p.kompfner@mail.ertico.com joachim.mayer@daimlerchrysler.com davidmcclure@sbd.co.uk Frederic.Mehl@t-systems.com Hans.Michel@bmw.de thomas.mundin@t-systems.com potters@connekt.nl Juergen.Rataj@dlr.de wr@acea.be francesc.rosines@atosorigin.com / francesc.rosines@atosresearch.eu m.ruggiero@cobra-at.com fulvio.sansone@oracle.com klaus.schild@toll-collect.de i.silva@esafetysupport.org Sabine.Spell@volkswagen.de patrik.g.stenberg@volvo.com Tomas.Trenor@robotica.uv.es d.valtchev@prosyst.com h.vandekraats@imabenelux.com evermassen@nimera.net volker.vierroth@t-systems.com Marta.Vila@robotica.uv.es mwiecker@ford.com

Emmanuel Bloch eSafety Support Foster, Howard Gaillet, Jean-François Helbig, Thomas Helbig Jan Gacnik Janssen, Hartmut Kenis, Eric Kompfner, Paul Mayer, Dr. Joachim McClure, David Mehl, Frédéric Michel, Hans-Ulrich Mundin, Thomas Potters, Paul Rataj, Jürgen Reinhardt, Dr.Wolfgang A. Rosines, Francesc Ruggiero, Michelangelo Sansone , Fulvio Schild, Dr. Klaus Silva, Irina Spell , Dr. Sabine Stenberg, Patrik Trenor, Tomás Valtchev, Dr. Dimitar van de Kraats, Henri Vermassen, Erwin Vierroth, Volker Vila, Marta Wiecker, Martin

Final report of the Service Oriented Architecture Working Group

50/ 50

Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group

Final Report and Recommendations of the Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group v1.0

Date: October 6, 2010

II WG Final Report

CONTROL SHEET

Version

Date

Main author

Summary of changes

V0.1 V0.11

25-11-2009 20-01-2010

F. op de Beek F. op de Beek

V0.12

09-02-2010

V0.2

03-03-2010

V0.21

31-03-2010

V0.22

12-04-2010

F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers, R. Kulmala F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers, R. Kulmala

First draft Change of chapter definition; Add input from partners; The input consists of separate pieces, which still need to be integrated. Integration of separate pieces in report

V0.23

16-04-2010

V0.3

20-04-2010

V0.31 V0.32

29-04-2010 10-05-2010

V0.4

02-06-2010

V0.41

10-06-2010

R. Kulmala

V0.42

14-06-2010

V0.43

15-06-2010

P. van der Kroon, F. op de Beek, R. Kulmala F. op de Beek

V0.44

14-07-2010

F. op de Beek

V 0.45 V 0.46

19-07-2010 20-07-2010

P. van der Kroon F. op de Beek

V 0.47

24-08-2010

E. Jonkers

V0.48 V0.49

24-08-2010 26-08-2010

E. Jonkers P. van der Kroon

V0.50

15-09-2010

F. op de Beek

V0.51

28-09-2010

F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers

F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers, R. Kulmala F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers, R. Kulmala R. Kulmala F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers, R. Kulmala F. op de Beek, E. Jonkers, R. Kulmala

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Changes after Working Group meeting 18-022010 Chapters 5-7 edited for consistency Comprehensive editing from chapter 5 onwards, inputs from M Kloth, W Reinhardt, M Jandrisits, G Pellischek Further editing on basis of feedback from P. vd Kroon and Rui Camolino to Chapters 5-12 Editing for typos and a paragraph moved for improvement and consistency Corrected at the IIWG meeting on 29 April 2010 Marking of duties for updates and additions to the report Updated on the basis of input from M Kloth, S Hoadley, S Gouvras, T Alkim, M Jandrisits, Peter Jesty, Richard Bossom and editing team Updated on the basis of ASECAP input to recommendations Editing of the conclusions and recommendations Updated on the basis of input from G. Pellischek, include recommendations based on the results of the IIWG meeting of 06/07/2010 Rearrange recommendations Updated document according to remarks made in the IIWG meeting and afterwards. Updated on basis of input from R. Kulmala, M. Kloth, G. Pellischek, I. Fraser. New lay-out, input from W. Reinhardt Include a paragraph on Legal Issues; some small changes Update on the basis of telcon meeting 08/09/2010 Update on basis of WG meeting of 20/09/2010

Legal notice............................................................................................................................ 5 Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 6 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 11 1.1

Context ................................................................................................................................. 11

1.2

The establishment of the eSafety Forum and IIWG ............................................................. 11

Objective of this report.................................................................................................. 13 2.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 13

2.2

Focus is on cooperative systems ......................................................................................... 13

2.3

The key questions to be answered ....................................................................................... 13

The Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group ................................................................ 14 3.1

Terms of Reference .............................................................................................................. 14

3.2

Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 15

3.3

Working method ................................................................................................................... 16

The Definition of Intelligent Infrastructure ..................................................................... 17

Identification of Intelligent Infrastructure related services.............................................. 20

5.1

Selected services ................................................................................................................. 20

5.2

Status of services ................................................................................................................. 23

5.3

Service related issues .......................................................................................................... 26

Added value of Intelligent Infrastructure ....................................................................... 28 6.1

Potential added value of Intelligent Infrastructure ................................................................ 28

6.2

Socio-economic assessment of II services .......................................................................... 29

6.3

Issues related to added value............................................................................................... 34

Road categories and related services per category ...................................................... 36 7.1

Categorisation of urban roads .............................................................................................. 36

7.2

Categorisation of non urban roads ....................................................................................... 38

7.3

Quality of services ................................................................................................................ 42

7.4

Issues related to road categories ......................................................................................... 42

(Basic) requirements for Intelligent Infrastructure services ........................................... 43 8.1

User requirements ................................................................................................................ 43

8.2

Prerequisites: business modelling ........................................................................................ 47

8.3

Requirements from cooperation projects ............................................................................. 51

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Issues related to basic requirements .................................................................................... 51

Current and future intelligent infrastructure ................................................................... 53 9.1

What is already available ...................................................................................................... 53

9.2

Example of existing intelligent infrastructures ...................................................................... 53

9.3

Issues with current infra/Identification of problems .............................................................. 59

9.4

Future Intelligent Infrastructure............................................................................................. 61

9.5

How to grow to Intelligent Infrastructure ............................................................................... 62

9.6

Legal issues .......................................................................................................................... 65

9.6

Issues related to future Intelligent Infrastructure .................................................................. 69

The Intelligent Vehicle .................................................................................................. 70

10.1

Definition of Intelligent vehicle .............................................................................................. 70

10.2

The II link with Intelligent Vehicles........................................................................................ 71

10.3

Deployment of intelligent vehicles ........................................................................................ 72

10.4

Requirements by electric vehicles ........................................................................................ 75

Architecture, protocols and standards .......................................................................... 77

11.1

Introduction to system architecture ...................................................................................... 77

11.2

European ITS Communications Architecture ....................................................................... 80

11.3

Specifications and standards................................................................................................ 83

11.4

Issues related to Architecture and standards ....................................................................... 87

Recommendations for the deployment of Intelligent Infrastructure ............................... 88

12.1

Services ................................................................................................................................ 89

12.2

Technologies ........................................................................................................................ 90

12.3

Stakeholders ......................................................................................................................... 91

12.4

Value network and business models .................................................................................... 91

12.5

Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 92

12.6

Development and implementation strategies ....................................................................... 93

Annex 1: Result of questionnaire definition of II Services ..................................................... 95 Annex 2: Relevant developments and projects..................................................................... 99 Annex 3: Definition of services ........................................................................................... 101 Annex 4: References and documents used ........................................................................ 107 Annex 5: 2G and 3G coverage in Europe ........................................................................... 112 Annex 6: Participants of IIWG ............................................................................................ 116

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

8.4

Legal notice by the European Communities, Information Society DirectorateGeneral

This report was produced by the eSafety Forum Working Group for Directorate-General Information Society of the European Commission. It represents the view of the experts on the Intelligent Infrastructure in Europe with eSafety systems. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the European Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the European Commission’s or its Information Society DirectorateGeneral’s view. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof. In addition, the European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in this publication.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

LEGAL NOTICE

This report starts explaining its context, the e-Safety and the Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group (IIWG) creation, and clarifying its objective: define Intelligent Infrastructure. To achieve that, the report analyses the services expected to be delivered and defines the minimum levels of equipments/systems required to supply those services focussing in different cooperative systems, I2V and I2I, always including the infrastructure component. Finally, the main five questions to be answered are identified as being: - What means Intelligent Infrastructure? - Which services contribute to the implementation of the Intelligent Infrastructure? - Which technological resources are necessary for above referred services and which business areas need to implement them? - Finally, what needs to be done to assist/promote the implementation of those technological resources and services? - What is the relation between Intelligent Infrastructure and Intelligent Vehicles? A reference is made to the IIWG, namely its terms of reference, objectives, focus, organisation and structuring of the work, stakeholders and the working method adopted to achieve this report. It started by getting a common definition of Intelligent Infrastructure as: “The Intelligent road Infrastructure is the organization and technology of the roadside and back office for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based (cooperative) traffic and transport services beneficial for road users and/or road network operators.” And explaining the understanding of main terminology used and its context. Then a survey was conducted to understand the Intelligent Infrastructure (II) related Services that should be taken into account when dealing with the II and also identifying the main stakeholders involved in them. This has been identified globally for the universe of people answering the questionnaire, but also for CEDR as there are some discrepancies between both, and, finally the same was considered for the Full Electric Vehicles (FEV) thanks to the cooperation of ELVIRE project. Service status is then analysed and a typical roadmap for theses type of services is identified. Finally, it is concluded: • The list of relevant Intelligent Infrastructure services identified should be used in further work. The use of the list will differ among communities, regions and countries due to differences in traditions, problems and policies. • The list reflects mainly solutions for ITS for the upcoming five years and mostly considers solutions providing information and warning only. It should be noted that the list is a dynamic, living list, because priorities will change all the time due to changes in economy and policies. Therefore attention should be paid to extension of

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The added value of II Services was analysed and allowed to identify that: • Today, the estimates of the added value of II services are very positive with regard to the policy objectives of safety, environment and throughput. The estimates are, however, largely based on the impacts assessed for autonomous versions of the same services and for individual services. It is likely that cooperative systems will provide substantial impacts, especially when deployed in an integrated manner on the efficiency, safety and energy consumption of the transport system. • It seems that an individual service will rarely be economically viable, but bundling of services likely makes it possible to reach positive business cases while providing complementary services supporting the policy objectives. • Demonstrating the added value of cooperative services and systems by means of impact assessment on large-scale FOTs is important for the decision-making processes of all road authorities. • There is an urgent need to have robust and statistically reliable data on the socioand private economy impacts of cooperative systems, both for individual services and especially for bundles of services complementing each other in terms of functionalities and impacts. Following chapter has done the categorisation of urban and inter-urban roads identifying the associated levels of services and their respective services. Two main points came up: • The services to be provided and their quality will depend on the operating environment or road category. On top of the basic services provided on almost all roads, three main types of services can be distinguished: those provided on roads with frequent flow problems, those provided on roads with safety problems, and those provided on some critical spots or parts of the road network. • Environment is not specifically used in classifying the road network for intelligent infrastructure. It is, however, embedded in the categories as especially accidents and congestion will increase emissions. On the identification of user requirements both ETSI and CVIS were used as basis for information of different users, namely: • Road users; • Road operators/authorities; • System and service providers. After analysing the pre-requisites for business modelling, and the requirements from cooperation projects the issues related to basic requirements demonstrated that those concerning intelligent infrastructure are determined by the services provided and their related stakeholders, the users and road operators / authorities. There is a wide range of requirements, which focus from the political environment, regulatory framework, future requirements/compatibility and technology. Business and organisational models are of utmost importance as a tool to bring the different stakeholders together. A firm ground is Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

the scope to a larger time period and to a wider capability of the eSafety and cooperative systems work in providing active driver support. The foreseen growth of electric vehicles associated to their specific demands may lead to the development of special services/applications

Current and future Intelligent Infrastructures are addressed, firstly, looking for what already exists and giving two examples, the ASFINAG infrastructure after COOPERS project and also a general description of urban networks according to POLIS, before looking into their issues and problem identification. Secondly, after looking into what will be the future Intelligent Infrastructures, the different ways that may be used to achieve it are analysed and also some legal considerations are formulated, before discuss their issues where it was found that: • The intelligent infrastructure and related services involve many combinations of organisations and technologies. The complex multi-stakeholder deployment and operation require new kind of thinking and new business models. • At least in a smaller local, regional or national scale, the deployment can be accomplished as illustrated by many examples. The strategy of deployment will differ by country depending on the existing road side equipment - countries with a large installed base of legacy equipment may be much slower than those which can start from scratch. • Larger-scale European deployment faces many challenges and today, many possible paths exist with different organisational and financial models. These paths will differ by country and by type of system/infrastructure. We need to develop business models capable of dealing with the financial issues during the whole life cycle of the systems. • Other major deployment issues such as privacy aspects and legal aspects should be solved already in the design phase. When data protection is taken seriously in system design and operational structures, no insurmountable barriers in terms of privacy will be encountered when implementing applications. Electronic security (eSecurity) is an important instrument for this. • The issue of liability is definitely existent but seems to be manageable for the foreseeable Driver Information Applications and overideable ADAs. Taking into consideration the current development situation of Full Electric Vehicles, the report analyses the meaning of Intelligent Vehicle and the II link with them, before make a point on its deployment in the market. Resulting requirements from the EV are incorporated and allows concluding that:

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

needed of the benefits and value for money for both public and private sector to start investments needed to start the deployment if the intelligent infrastructure as part of cooperative services.

• •

•

The strong link between intelligent vehicle and intelligent infrastructure means that the development of intelligent vehicles will influence the intelligent infrastructure on one hand by setting requirements to the infrastructure and on the other hand by providing new elements in the infrastructure and replacing some conventional parts of it in the long run. In the end, the intelligent vehicle and infrastructure will be fully integrated. Nomadic and aftermarket devices will have strong roles in the deployment during the next decade as these facilitate much faster deployment and fleet penetrations than OEM systems. This will influence the deployment strategies considerably. It needs to be considered that changes to intelligent vehicles are usually commercially driven and can thereby be quick in comparison to changes in intelligent infrastructure. This in turn will thereby need to be future proof as the stakeholders responsible for the intelligent infrastructure are not willing to remake the infrastructure investments due to each intelligent vehicle technology change.

The systems architecture, protocols and standards are analysed starting with an introduction to systems architecture, before addressing the European ITS Communication Architecture, nowadays already defined as a standard, and the European standards approved and under elaboration mainly under Mandate M/453. Accordingly, CEN and ETSI have already divided the necessary human efforts for defining the required standards and agreed a timetable for their approval. The main issues identified with the architecture and the required standards are: • A robust architecture is an essential prerequisite in integrating the diverse range of applications and services new technologies can deliver to ensure efficient and managed operation and a satisfactory end user experience. There is a strong need to ensure that full and seamless interoperability exists at each of the organisational, functional, physical, security and communication levels. A sound architecture is key in meeting this objective, both now and for the future. • These harmonised solutions should be formalised into standards making all stakeholders committed. Road authorities and operators should be more involved in the standardisation process. • It is essential that different standardisation bodies work in good cooperation and aim towards global standardisation concerning technologies and solutions for intelligent vehicles and infrastructure. Mandate M/453 invited the European Standardisation Organisations - CEN, CENELEC and ETSI – to prepare a coherent set of standards, specifications and guidelines to support European Community wide implementation and deployment of Co-operative Intelligent Transport Systems. Finally the main recommendations were identified as being the following ones: 1. Cooperative systems/services should be regarded as a tool supporting the policy objectives of public authorities and strategic objectives of the private sector. The choice of the priority services should reflect a balance of both objectives with an emphasis on those of the deployment partners 2. Special attention should be paid to the growth of electric vehicles and their related requirements for the intelligent infrastructure 3. Clustering of services is recommended to introduce cost-efficiency Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

The report is concluded with some Annexes concerning: • Annex 1 – Questionnaire Results • Annex 2 – Relevant Developments and Projects • Annex 3 – Definition of Services • Annex 4 – References and Documents Used • Annex 5 – 2G and 3G Coverage in Europe • Annex 6 –Participants of IIWG

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

4. Infrastructure operators and the automobile and device manufacturers need to ensure sound and sustainable solutions for the collaborations 5. Road authorities and/or operators should take a leading role in the intelligent infrastructure deployment 6. Facilitate future deployment of services. It should create a • common vision covering the importance of Cooperative services for each stakeholder • business models covering the interests of all strategic stakeholders for the implementation of the various CS and a road map which: • provides understanding of I and V on how each party participates in the process • explores the common denominators • agrees on converging visions, and Related strategy (ies) • establishes attuned objectives and • selects the first generation joint cooperative services 7. A strategic long-term cooperation platform should be established to facilitate undelayed start of deployment of cooperative services

Introduction

1.1

Context

Within the general road safety framework, eSafety is a joint industry-public sector initiative aiming at well-established targets related to safety and efficient management by using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Advanced Information and Communication Technologies contribute significantly to road safety and efficiency by enabling the development of sophisticated intelligent vehicle and Infrastructure systems and also taking a more and more important role in energy efficiency and sustainability.

1.2

The establishment of the eSafety Forum and IIWG

The establishment of the eSafety Forum was one of the key recommendations of the EC to promote and develop deployment and use of intelligent e-Safety Systems in Europe. It aims at removing the bottlenecks that prevent Intelligent Vehicles and Infrastructure Systems entering the market, through consensus building among stakeholders and recommendations to the Member States and the EU. Constitution of the Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group The e-Safety Forum confirmed in its Plenary Session in Ljubljana on 25th April 2008 as main objectives of the draft EU ITS Action Plan: A. Green transport a. Target 1: Optimised use of infrastructure: better European Road Traffic Management including the interaction with other transport modes b. Target 2: Less congestion on European freight corridors and in cities by developing European solutions for demand management (tolling and road pricing, congestion management). c. Target 3: Enhancing the use of more environmentally friendly and energy efficient transport solutions B. Safety and security a. Target 4: Improve safety/security of commercial transport operations (including control/respect of regulations on the social side, dangerous goods, etc.) b. Target 5: Improve road safety with Driver Assistance Systems such as ESC, e-Call, ACC, Lateral Support, Driver hypo-vigilance systems, “speed alert” Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

C. Mobility priority of people and goods a. Target 6: Providing more reliable real-time traffic and travel information in a safe way. b. Target 7: Improving the efficiency of logistics chains These objectives led the e-Safety Forum Steering Group of 28 May 2008 to propose the constitution of an Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group, with co-chairs from CEDR and ASECAP, with the first tasks: 1. To work out the Terms of Reference and elaborate on the organisation and structuring the work 2. To invite representatives from Road Authorities, Road Users and Automotive and ICT Industry to support the working group

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

and “alcohol-lock”.

2.1

Objective of this report Introduction

This report is a first attempt to define ‘what is the Intelligent Infrastructure’. It elaborates on what services one may expect to be delivered by the road infrastructure. It will give the road operators and administrators a definition of the minimum level of required technical infrastructure in order to make the delivering possible of defined cooperative services. The report is largely based on results from other studies and actions. Parts directly taken from such studies have been marked in italics throughout the document.

2.2

Focus is on cooperative systems

The Terms of Reference for this Intelligent Infrastructure working group define a focus on the road infrastructure side of cooperative systems. Within this context all aspects related to "Infrastructure" which means V2I (vehicle to infrastructure), I2V (infrastructure to vehicle), I2I (infrastructure to infrastructure systems) and in the near future also the link to nomadic devices (pedestrians and cyclists); With respect to this road infrastructure this means all the ICT systems at the roadside as well as the back-office systems (e.g. traffic management centre, data warehouses, etc.).

2.3

The key questions to be answered

The key questions this report should answer are: - What means Intelligent Infrastructure? - Which services contribute to the implementation of the Intelligent Infrastructure? - Which technological resources are necessary for above referred services and which business areas need to implement them? - Finally, what needs to be done to assist/promote the implementation of those technological resources and services? - What is the relation between Intelligent Infrastructure and Intelligent Vehicles? Following chapters will be devoted to answer as completely as possible these five questions.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

The Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group

3.1

Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for the eSafety Forum Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group (IIWG) were discussed and agreed upon at the eSafety Steering Committee of 23 October 2008. A summary of the main items is highlighted in this chapter.

3.1.1

Objectives

1. Contribute to the general objectives of the e-Safety Forum; 2. Identify the expectations towards intelligent infrastructure; 3. Achieve a balance between the goals of the road operators, administrations and the industry; 4. Identify issues, which need to be solved at infrastructure level, in order to ensure the implementation of cooperative systems on the road infrastructure side with a focus on the trunk road network and the final objective to improve safety and contribute to clean and efficient mobility; 5. Reach consensus amongst its working group members on discussed issues, and to produce specific, detailed recommendations for the e-Safety Forum Steering Group as well as the Forum Plenary. 6. The IIWG aims at developing detailed recommendations. For this purpose, the IIWG will organise Workshops and Expert Meetings.

3.1.2

Focus

1. On the road infrastructure side of cooperative systems; 2. To all aspects related to "Infrastructure" which means V2I, I2V and I2I and in the near future also the link to nomadic devices (pedestrians and cyclists); 3. On both the ICT systems on the roadside as well as the back-office systems (e.g. traffic management centre, data warehouses, etc.). Explanatory remarks: 1.

Cooperative means in this context cooperation or communication among systems. This communication can be between vehicles (V2V), between vehicle(s) and Infrastructure (V2I), Infra to Vehicle (I2V) and infra-infra (I2I). The IIWG focus to all aspects related to "I" who means V2I, I2V and I2I.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

3. This will safeguard the future building of a holistic approach of cooperative systems having as ingredients: the road infrastructure side, the vehicle side and the infrastructure-vehicle communication. 4. The recommendations coming from the eSafety Working Groups, especially the Implementation Road Maps WG will be considered. Such issues can be technical or related to other deployment aspects, such as regulation, taxes and incentives, standardisation and harmonisation, liability issues, privacy, security and business models.

3.1.3

Organisation and Structuring of the Work

The IIWG is co-chaired by the representatives from ASECAP and CEDR. The co-chairs are nominated by the eSafety Forum Steering Group following proposals from ASECAP and CEDR respectively. The IIWG meets three to four times per year. The IIWG will contribute to the setting up of Workshops related to specific topics on the infrastructure side of the cooperative systems. These workshops are organised in coordination with the ongoing R&D projects on cooperative systems and the other eSafety WGs. The IIWG will also organise targeted Expert Meetings, as necessary. The IIWG meetings will normally take place in Brussels; eSafety Support will support the IIWG as the other WGs, as described in its Description of Work.

3.2

Stakeholders

The IIWG is a European Group, open to all active participants. It will focus its membership on the Road Authorities/Road Operators, Road Users and Automotive and ICT Industry stakeholders interested in cooperative systems. • Road Authorities: CEDR members, POLIS members: • Road Operators: ASECAP members; • Road Users: FIA, IRU, IRF/ERF; Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

2. Within the near future the U (User system/device) as nomadic devices brings communication devices also to pedestrians and cyclists (in addition to bringing the system into the vehicle with the driver), enabling them to communicate with vehicle or infrastructure embedded systems. This will significantly improve e.g. intersection safety systems.

Automotive Industry: ICT Industry:

• • •

Int’l Laboratories: Universities; Cooperative Projects:

II WG Final Report

• •

ACEA, Clepa and their members; Oracle, Arsenal, Vialis, Cobra Automotive Technologies; VTT, INRETS, TNO; Madrid and Lisbon Universities EASYWAY, COOPERS, CVIS, SAFESPOT, COM E-SAFETY, European Architecture for Cooperative Systems, COM WG, SOA WG,

ICT for Clean and Efficient Mobility WG, NEARCTIS;

3.3

Working method

The IIWG elaborated on the approach how to achieve the objectives. The agreed approach is rendered in the picture below (Figure 1), and the results of this process are reproduced in this report.

Figure 1: IIWG approach

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

The Definition of Intelligent Infrastructure

The terms “Intelligent infrastructures”, “Intelligent Highways”, road experts and managers, car manufacturers, equipment providers largely use “Intelligent Roads” today. Surprisingly, there are not so many explicit definitions of these terms. The need for a definition for Intelligent Infrastructure is in first instance for the Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group (IIWG) itself. To be able to discuss the topics as mentioned in the IIWG Terms of Reference and also to have discussions with external stakeholders it is important to have a common understanding and also a common framework. The results of the IIWG, and in this respect the Intelligent Infrastructure definition, can be promoted for further and broader use.

The increasing demand for mobility (both people and goods), the environmental problems and road safety require a high performance road transport system where road users, vehicles and infrastructure are integrated into one reliable, efficient and smart transport system. These objectives can be realised by services and systems supported by an integrated approach of intelligent vehicles and intelligent infrastructure supporting the driver. These intelligent systems and the interaction between vehicles and roadside are today enabled by advanced information and communication technologies. These services/systems are dealing with: • Up-to-date traffic information, traffic management, demand management, congestion reduction, improved mobility • Increased road safety and security, • Reduction of environmental problems, • Development of sustainability. The intelligent infrastructure is the key component in the support, management and interaction between the road users/vehicles and the network operator. Various steps in the development (roadmap) of the Intelligent Infrastructure can be distinguished: from the ‘not intelligent’ infra (only asphalt) via the intelligent roadside (applying sensors, VMS, etc.) till the interactive/integrated intelligent infrastructure (communication with vehicles and back office). Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

The Intelligent road Infrastructure is the organisation and technology of the roadside and back office for Information and Communication Technology (ICT) based (cooperative) traffic and transport services beneficial for road users and/or road network operators.

That the Infrastructure is Intelligent and provides ICT based technology results in responsive, interactive and if needed pro-active services and systems. In this definition: • Organisation means the cooperation between all stakeholders in the service value chain necessary to operate all roadside and back office based services and systems. It also includes the necessary context such as the legal framework, business model etc. in which the organisation should act; • Technology means all dedicated Intelligent Transport Services/Systems (ITS) along the roadside and in back offices to support the (cooperative) transport services. This includes all ITS systems along the roadside, the communication between fixed systems and service/traffic management/operator centres as well as the system in the back offices providing the necessary information management and support to the services, and the utilised technology platforms such as the future internet; • Roadside and back office means the fixed infrastructure along and beyond the road not being the in-car technical infrastructure/systems. It includes the road pavement, borders, until the control/service centres (the back-office/end) • ICT-based road traffic and transport services mean those road traffic/transport services provided from the roadside directly to the road users via roadside systems (e.g. VMS, ramp metering, warning and signalling) and to the vehicle via short/long range communication (as information to the driver or data for the in-vehicle systems). Also data (e.g. sensor data) back from the cars to the roadside is part of this. It also includes data to and from Nomadic devices. • Cooperative means in this context cooperation or coordination among systems. This coordination is between vehicle(s) and Infrastructure (V2I), Infra to Vehicle (I2V), Nomadic devices to Infrastructure (N2I), Infrastructure to Nomadic devices (I2N) and infra-infra (I2I). Vehicle to Vehicle is not excluded because this communication can, in first instance, be provided via the infrastructure as intermediate step V2I>I2V. • Communication means both short and long-range communication via all different media. The definition must be read in the following context and is based on the following characteristics:

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

The following definition is proposed for Intelligent Infrastructure:

•

• •

• • • • • • • • • •

•

Future intelligent/cooperative vehicle and infrastructure systems necessitate the cooperation of various stakeholders (e.g. public organisations, telecom and service providers, car manufacturers, etc). The concept of an ‘intelligent infrastructure’ will develop with the integration of invehicle technologies and systems that can interact with the already existing roadside and back office infrastructure as well as with technology platforms such as the future internet. Collect data from the standard vehicles (measured by on-board sensors), fixed traffic or meteo stations, monitoring devices, etc. via wireless or fixed communications; Collect aggregated information from vehicles or fleets of vehicles, fixed traffic or meteo stations, monitoring devices via wireless or fixed communications; and /or Access services offered by vehicles or fleets of vehicles (including public transport), fixed traffic or meteo stations, monitoring devices, etc. via wireless or fixed communications Store/compute/consume, in a centralised or distributed computing infrastructure including cloud computing, these data/information/services Process all these data/information/services to produce relevant aggregated information and value added services; Provide new and customized services to all users as well as to the road managing authorities. Communicate with all “intelligent vehicles” (based on standardized wireless communication technologies) Understand data coming from these vehicles, with their localization (thanks to standardised or otherwise harmonised data format) and/or Understand information coming from these vehicles (thanks to standardised or otherwise harmonised information schemes) and/or Consume services coming from these vehicles (thanks to standardised or otherwise harmonised service description schemes) Process these data together with data coming from other sources (fixed stations, monitoring devices, embedded sensors, etc) Use information and services coming from vehicles, or other sources Generate location-based (relevant for a specific position) aggregated information and services useable to improve traffic fluidity, safety, security and environmental impact Offer to vehicles and other users the relevant services, at the right time and the right location

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

5.1

Selected services

The IIWG carried out a survey about which services should be taken into account when discussing the current and future Intelligent Infrastructure requirements. It was also asked which stakeholder (road operator/authority, service provider, car manufacturer) is the leading/prime stakeholder. Finally, the views on the maturity of the services were also gathered. A list of services was composed taking into account the services defined within the eSafety Implementation Roadmap studies, the existing list from the EasyWay project and ideas from CEDR and ASECAP themselves. At a later stage of this stocktaking a list with ITS services from ETSI was taken into account. This list was checked with the existing list and those services relevant and in line with the Intelligent Infrastructure definition was included in the list. Finally a survey took place with the members of CEDR Thematic domain Operations. At a final stage the service requirements identified in the EU project ELVIRE for the electric vehicle in the grid were included. Annex 1 presents the results from the two questionnaires. In total 19 persons were interviewed: 11 from NRA’s and 8 not from NRA’s. The following list of services is regarded being relevant for the Intelligent Infrastructure (according to more than 80% of the persons who participated in the questionnaires, so more than 15 persons). In the second column the leading/prime stakeholder (output from the questionnaires) is given. Table 1: Services relevant for II – outcome questionnaires Service Travel information services RT (Real Time) event information RT traffic condition information Travel time information Weather information Speed limit information Parking information and guidance Local hazard warning Multimodal traffic information

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Leading/prime stakeholder Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities (service providers also high score) Service providers (road operator/authorities also high score) Road operator/authorities Service providers Road operator/authorities Service providers

II WG Final Report

5 Identification of Intelligent Infrastructure related services

Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities

Road operator/authorities

The non-road authorities consider Parking information and guidance a less relevant service for Intelligent Infrastructure than the NRA’s do. The other services both groups ‘agree’ on. Besides the above-mentioned list, additional services relevant for Intelligent Infrastructure came up as result from the CEDR questionnaire outcome, according to more than 80% of the persons from NRA’s (more than 8 persons) (note: these services were mentioned by less than 80% of the non NRA’s): Table 2: Services relevant for II – outcome questionnaires CEDR Service Travel information services Predictive traffic conditions information Dynamic route guidance Emergency vehicle warning Wrong way driving warning Limited access warning, detour notification Traffic Management services Strategic traffic management for corridors and networks Recommended speed profiles Priority lane Requested green/Signal priority Other services e-Call Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)

Leading/prime stakeholder Road operator/authorities Service providers Road operator/authorities (service providers also high score) Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Road operator/authorities Service providers / car industry Car industry

NRAs proposed additional services relevant for Intelligent Infrastructure to the list. One of these, the slippery road information system, is already an element of the local danger warning. The second, road condition information system is mainly related to road maintenance activities rather than road user services as such. Intersection safety was also proposed, especially with regard to urban areas.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Traffic Management services Traffic management of sensitive road segments Incident Management Road user charging Traffic management services / systems > ramp metering, traffic controllers, etc Freight and logistic services Intelligent truck parking

Table 3: Fully Electric Vehicle (FEV) services Prime Service Energy Services Range Extension Energy Notification Charging

Driving Services Unplanned Drive without defined destination

Planned Journey with defined destination Call Centre Support

Generic Services Pre-Trip Services

Roaming

Security Administrative Services

Constraints/Governmental Incentives

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Subset Services Quick Charge Allocation Battery Switch Allocation During Driving During Charging Charge Spot Allocation Multiple User Freedom of Choice (CO2, Price, renewable, provider, contract, roaming, ..) Smart Route Monitoring Route Planning Route Guidance incl. Re-routing Roadside Assistance Emergency Calls Breakdown Services Remote Assistance Safety Notification Pre-driving route planning Route adaptation while driving Inclusion of vehicle settings User roaming Billing models Charging independence Authentication Privacy & Data Protection Charging spot registration/booking Billing review Review & saving of travel route User Preferences No congestion charge on EVs Diamond Lanes (Bus lanes etc.) Congestion-free zones

II WG Final Report

The following list of services addresses the specific requirements for a typical use case of driving and charging a fully electric vehicle within an Intelligent Infrastructure. In essence, the survey covers the “Energy Service Needs”, “Driving Service Needs”, as well as the “Generic Service Requirements”. The discussion about the possible impact of electric vehicles on the Intelligent Infrastructure was taken on board at a later stage and regarded as important. However the consequence was that it was not taken into account at all relevant topics in this document.

5.2

Status of services

The current status was estimated for the services that are indicated to be relevant for Intelligent Infrastructure, including FEV services. This status is based on information from the survey combined with the Monitoring Report 2009 from the Implementation Road Maps Working Group [1] and the roadmap of the Dutch ministry [2]. Note that the estimates deal with the services, as they are today, and not necessarily their cooperative versions. In fact, all of the Intelligent Infrastructure Services listed exist also as a non-cooperative version. Technologies are available and being provided in Europe already today as well as other prerequisites of many of the services. Some are in the development phase, where the practical technology solutions are settled along with the institutional, legal and business model issues. Some services are still in a research phase. Most FEV services are in the research and development phase. Also, since all FEV services will enable environmentally friendly and zero-carbon mobility, they do not easily comply with the classification of the other Intelligent Infrastructure services. Therefore, in the roadmap in Figure 2, FEV services are indicated as a cluster in the upper right part, and they are further illustrated in Figure 3. Some II services are also FEV services, this is indicated with **.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

For future Electric Vehicles their co-existence with conventional (ICE) and Hybrid powered cars has to be taken into account, as well as the considerable additional needs for assisting services during their market introduction phase.

II WG Final Report

Charging Mode Service (Fast, Optimum, Swap) Charging & Credit Authentification

Mobility Roaming & Charging Services Improve environment

Intelligent truck parking Multimodal traffic information

Parking information

Grid Integration Service Reverse Chanrging Service Accounting & Billing Service

Road user charging User Authentification

Predictive traffic condition information

RT traffic information **

Dynamic route guidance

RT event information **

Fun Driving Services

Various E-Horizon Services E-Charge Spot Indication Re-routing Services Charge-Spot spotter & Bookiung Assist

Route Planning Assistant Car/Battery Condition Assistant Safety Alert & Support Services

Limited access warning, detour not.

Travel time information **

Priority lane

Improve mobility (throughput, accessibility, efficiency)

Strategic TM for networks

Requested green Various TM services (ramp metering, traffic control) Recommended speed profiles Speed limit information Weather information

Traffic Management of sensitive road segm.

ISA

Emergency vehicle warning Wrong way driving warning

Improve safety Local hazard warning

eCall Incident Management

Use

Travel information services

Deploym ent

Traffic Management services

Development

Freight and logistics services

Research

Innovation

Fully Electric Vehicle services

tim e

Other services

** behind a service indicates that it is also a Fully Electric Vehicle service

Figure 2: Status of Intelligent Infrastructure services

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Charge-spot services

Charging Mode Service (Fast, Optimum, Swap) Charging & Credit Authentification Accounting & Grid Services

Mobility Roaming & Charging Services

Various E-Horizon Services E-Charge Spot Indication Re-routing Services Charge-Spot spotter & Bookiung Assist

On-trip monitoring & guidance services Fun Driving Services

Effecitiveness Related Services

Grid Integration Service Reverse Chanrging Service Accounting & Billing Service

Post driving services

Route Planning Assistant

Pre-driving services

User Authentification Safety/Security Related Services

Car/Battery Condition Assistant

On-trip monitoring & guidance services

Safety Alert & Support Services

Research and Technology Development incl. FOTs

Pre-Driving Services

Figure 3: Status of Fully Electric Vehicle services

Below a figure can be found (based on a figure from the eSafety Forum) which shows a road map for a service. When services are beginning developed into their cooperative version, some services go back into the research and development phase. 2020

Awareness campaigns Incentives Media Security provisions Field operational tests Impact assessment Pilots Legal issues Funding Standardised interfaces & protocols

2015

Impact Assessment Organisational frameworks Business models Innovation 2010

Overall ITS architectures Innovation

Research

Development

Deployment

Use

Figure 4: road map for a service (eSafety Forum)

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

•

• •

•

Service related issues Cooperative systems are a tool rather than a goal in itself. From this perspective it is important how this tool can contribute to reaching to the strategic objectives of the stakeholders or deployment partners. To public authorities such objectives are usually related to the safety, reliability, throughput, energy consumption or emissions of the transport system, or the promotion of public transport, and nonmotorised traffic. The choice of the priority services should naturally reflect the objectives of the deployment partners. For many partners, safety is a specific goal, and there should be a division between safety critical features/services and others. The functionalities of the services should be described in an illustrative manner highlighting the impacts of the systems on the users as well as on the policy objectives. The technologies are just technical means to realise the functionalities. The priority lists of services should be agreed upon by the deployment partners, but with a reservation that any such list is a dynamic living document as priorities will change all the time due to changes in economy and policies as well as regional and country-wide differences between countries having different traditions and transport problems, etc. It seems highly useful to set up a forum or other mechanism to allow the assessment of a new service provided by one stakeholder by all deployment partners including national road authorities and operators, industry partners and user associations. This would facilitate a continuous scrutiny of the different solutions that may come up to the market and a quick adoption by a natural selection of the main deployment stakeholders. The foreseen explosive growth of electric vehicles associated to their current limited energy autonomy, may lead to the development of special applications in order to minimise likely problems. These applications could indicate to an electric vehicle, at every place where it may be, its distance to the nearest energy supply points in all possible travelling directions as well as an accurate estimate of the maximum number of Kms possible to reach based on existing battery charge and known traffic conditions. Such applications will require developments from both infrastructure operators and vehicle manufacturers operating in good cooperation.

Conclusions The list of relevant Intelligent Infrastructure services identified should be used in further work. The use of the list will differ among communities, regions and countries due to differences in traditions, problems and policies. The list reflects mainly solutions for ITS for the upcoming five years and mostly considers solutions providing information and warning only. It should be noted that the list is a dynamic, living list, because priorities will change all the time due to changes in economy and policies. Therefore attention should be paid to extension of the scope to a larger time

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

5.3

The foreseen growth of electric vehicles associated to their specific demands may lead to the development of special services/applications

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

period and to a wider capability of the e-Safety and cooperative systems work in providing active driver support.

Added value of Intelligent Infrastructure

6.1

Potential added value of Intelligent Infrastructure

The CVIS, SAFESPOT and COOPERS projects have compiled the added value of intelligent infrastructure in combination with cooperative services. There are several main mechanisms of added value provision. First, accurate and individual real-time traffic information provided in the car supports safe, efficient and ecological friendly ways of driving. Second, aggregated and interpreted FCD, considering the overall road network, is giving benefit to all road users. Third, with the support from the intelligent infrastructure, vehicle drivers gain benefits irrespective of the penetration rate of equipped cars. Fourth, the cooperative services are more flexible in terms of services offered than those relying on conventional technologies and services like VMS. Fifth, the road operators gain more safety on their roads with the help of information services. The following added values (benefits) of Intelligent Infrastructure are listed in [8] (note that italics illustrate that the text is directly taken form a report): • • • • • • • • •

increased road network capacity reduced congestion and pollution shorter and more predictable journey times improved traffic safety for all road users lower vehicle operating costs more efficient logistics improved management and control of the road network (both urban and inter-urban) increased efficiency of the public transport systems better and more efficient response to hazards, incidents and accidents

Electric vehicles In addition to the current vehicle fleets on the roads, the intelligent infrastructure has added value to the electric vehicles. The number of electric vehicles is increasing, and by 2015 there will be approximately 1.3 Million electric vehicles on European roads. The electric vehicles need intelligent infrastructure to • allow reliable voyages across European roads free from concerns of getting stranded • navigate to the next available socket for a quick-charge in case of electricity shortage • enable the drivers to “Google” the electricity provider (in fact, this needs to be done by the vehicle, automatically) and to pay for the energy via a service provider, who is supported by an intelligent infrastructure • relate the various service providers with the “Smart Grid” operators, as well as with the utilities

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

6.2

support the charging and reverse charging processes (as appropriate), as well as the respective communication systems and business models operate within a “secure” Intelligent Infrastructure respecting and protecting the privacy and individual rights of the citizen.

Socio-economic assessment of II services

Various projects have assessed the benefits and costs of the existing II services. An overview of these results is given in Table Z. Table 4: Colour coding Services table Effect range (negative value means a reduction, so positive effect) < -10 % -10 – -2 % -2 – +2 % no estimates available

Normative scale

Benefit/cost

-0 unknown

likely >3 >1 >0.5 unknown

Table 5: Estimated impacts of the II services on safety, congestion and greenhouse gases as well as estimates of their benefit-cost ratios. In case of absence of quantitative estimates, a small expected reduction is denoted by “-“ and a considerable expected reduction by ‘—‘. [20]…[40] Intelligent Infrastructure services

Travel information services RT (Real Time) event information RT traffic condition information Travel time information Weather information Speed limit information Parking information and guidance Local hazard warning Multimodal traffic information Predictive traffic conditions info Dynamic route guidance Emergency vehicle warning Wrong way driving warning Limited access warn., detour notif. Traffic Management services TM of sensitive road segments

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Impact on fatalities/ injuries

Impact on congestion

Impact on CO2

Benefit/ Cost

-2...-4% -2...-10% 0 -2...-10% -

-1...-15% -1...-15% -1...-15% -2...-10% -2...-10% -1...-15% --

-1...-10% -1...-10% -1...-10% -2...-10% -1...-10% --

1...2.5 2...6 2...6 3...8

-6...-30%

-5...-10%

10...72

0.7...12

II WG Final Report

•

--10...-20%

-5...-20% -10...-20% -10...-30%

-5...-15% -10...-20% -10...-30%

2-4 >1 4...27

0 -

----1...-2%

--1...-3%

2...15

-1...-8% -10...-20%

-0.5...-3% -2...-10%

-2...-10%

II WG Final Report

Incident Management Road user charging TM services/systems, e.g. ramp ctrl Strategic corridor/network TM Recommended speed profiles Priority lane Requesting green/signal priorities Freight and logistic services Intelligent truck parking Other services ECall Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)

0.7...7.5

0.5...3 5-17

Note: impacts are for the drivers of the vehicles or for the road sections equipped with the systems or services. Note also that the CO2 impacts are closely related to energy efficiency impacts.

It needs to be noted that the figures above are all based on some detailed specification of the system in question, similar systems with different technology set-up or different content quality may have largely deviating estimates of effectiveness with regard to safety, efficiency, mobility and environment. There are few evaluation studies related specifically to cooperative system technologies so far. However, the methods used to evaluate cooperative systems will follow those used in evaluating all ITS systems. The types of studies that are performed are based on [15]: • Results from evaluations similar systems or functionalities combined with statistical transport data in desktop studies for ex-ante assessment • Simulation studies / studies based on models: for example, some small scale examples exist for applications within the CVIS project; • Studies from driving simulators (for example to test HMI interaction); • Studies from questionnaires: for example, those seen to test user-acceptance (though for small samples) within the CVIS project; • Field operational tests All relevant impacts of cooperative systems should be covered. Usually the systems affect safety, traffic flow, mobility, environment, and socio-economy. Existing modelling results are generally from micro simulation. Models will always have to make some assumptions, and in order to model the possible effects of cooperative systems; the penetration rates of equipped vehicles must be estimated. Studies differ in their approach to this, with some deciding on a figure or range (based on other studies, expert guidance) on which to base their study (e.g. CODIA report [5]), and some looking at different penetration rates, and different possible impacts due to the different penetration rates (for example ISA report [16]). Because of the importance of penetration rates, the uncertainty of future rates, and the impact that this has on evaluation, it is important that different values are taken into consideration, or at least good reason is given for why a given rate is used. Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

More ambitious evaluation of cooperative system technology awaits future research such as the results of the studies from projects such as iTetris (www.ict-itetris.eu, a project that aims to develop advanced large-scale computing analysis to analyse wireless technologies), and from field operational tests. [15] Restricted field operational tests or rather pilots have already been carried out. The figure below indicates that a cooperative congestion warning would result in a 10-20 km/h speed reduction of individual vehicles approaching the end of the queue.

Figure 5: Speeds of vehicles approaching end of queue in the case of cooperative congestion warning on (solid lines) and off (dotted lines). [43]

Currently, very few quantitative estimates of the impacts have been produced concerning cooperative systems and services. The ex-ante assessments by CODIA [5] and eIMPACT [41] projects have studied the potential safety effects of some cooperative systems. The results from CODIA concerning the safety effects of five systems are the following for the whole Europe, if 100% of the vehicles and the relevant infrastructure would be equipped [5]:

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Other assumptions used in micro simulation models, as well as in cost benefit analysis are: the costs of the equipment and the effects of the technology on the driver (this is along with standard assumptions used in transport modelling: the costs of injury / death / emissions etc; the classes of users modelled and their value(s) of time; the fact that road users are utility maximises; etc). [15]

II WG Final Report

Table 6: Safety effects – results from CODIA

System Speed adaptation due to weather conditions, obstacles or congestion (V2I and I2Vcommunication) Reversible lanes due to traffic flow (V2I and I2V) Local danger / hazard warning (V2V) Post crash warning (V2V) Cooperative intersection collision warning (V2V and V2I)

Effect on road fatalities -7.2

Effect on road injuries -4.8

-0.0 -4.2 -1.4 -3.7

-0.0 -3.1 -0.7 -6.9

It should be noted that these are "global effects" and that in the actual locations, where the systems are used, the effects are much larger. The cooperative reversible lane control will in fact reduce fatalities and injuries by 8.5% and 4.2% respectively on the sections equipped, whereas the non-cooperative reversible lane control has often been found to increase crash risks. The cooperative intersection collision warning system was estimated to reduce fatalities and injuries at junctions by 18% and 16%, respectively. The intersection system is the only one, where the cooperative option is the only valid functionality. The evaluation of cooperative systems will be more robust when the penetration rates, system costs and effects on the users are better known. So far, only standalone cooperative systems technologies have been considered, but the benefits of cooperative systems will become greater when take-up is widespread and several applications are run in parallel on the cooperative systems platform. [15] For instance, all benefit-cost ratios estimated in CODIA and eIMPACT were at most around 2, but these were calculated for isolated systems. In the highly likely case of several systems bundled in a cooperative system packages utilising the same communication solution, the benefit-cost ratios would be considerably higher. In the U.S., the cooperative systems have been developed and investigated in the framework of the Vehicle-Infrastructure Integration (VII) Program. A benefit and cost study assessed the deployment of 5.9 GHz communication based cooperative system deployment through the United States. The eleven cooperative applications included in the deployment were evaluated for their benefits and costs in [6]. The applications were: • Signal Violation Warning • Stop Sign Violation Warning • Curve Speed Warning • Electronic Brake Lights • Advance Warning Information • Localized Weather/Road Condition Warning • In-vehicle Signing • Ramp Metering • Signal Timing and Adjustment Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Traveller Information Winter Maintenance

The total costs and the benefits of the systems were distributed according to the following tables. Note that the analysis covered a 40 year period 2010-2049, assuming that the decision to implement the VII deployment programme would be taken in 2010. The costs were estimated assuming the current availability of fixed communications and electrical power by the roadside. A useful economic life of seven years was assumed for the roadside equipment. [6] In Europe, this is assumed to be longer. Table 7: System lifetime costs (1000 M$) in the VII cost-benefit analysis [6]

Total Governance (administration) Roadside equipment Network On-board equipment Applications

1.0 9.3 3.7 12.4 0.8

Initial (startup) 0.3

Operations & maintenance 0.7

3.7

5.6 3.7 3.2 0.8

9.2

Table 8: The benefits (1000 M$ of the systems studies in their lifetime [6]

System Curve Speed Warning Electronic Brake Lights Signal violation Warning Stop Sign Violation Warning Traveller Information Winter Maintenance Ramp Metering Signal Timing

Benefit Estimate 14.7 13.8 11.2 2.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3

The applications would reduce about 1% of all crashes and 1% of all congestion if fully deployed. The basic benefit-cost ratio was 1.6. The estimates were regarded as conservative, because of narrowly defined use cases (e.g. Ramp Metering application envisioned only for existing ramp meters), exclusion of environmental benefits, exclusion of second order effects on economic growth, inventory and logistics costs, etc. [6] It is claimed that ICT/ITS can also contribute to energy savings and related CO2 emission reductions [54]. The iCARS Thematic Network ICT for Energy Efficiency has done studies and collected data. Some of their results are also related to the Intelligent Infrastructure. The following results are mentioned:

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

• •

• • • • • •

•

6.3 •

•

The estimated reduction potential from eco-driving and eco-driving support will be around 20% for 2020 car fleet, based on 2010 figures when 80% of all drivers follow the “golden rules” of eco-driving For busses and trucks the reduction potential could stay at a sustainable 10% with ITS solutions and driver feedback systems and corrective actions Additional fuel reduction from ITS/ICT solutions related to electrical vehicles are in the magnitude of a few percentage points only Public transport services can benefits between 3-10% in overall fuel consumption when implementing a general Fleet Management System With a diffused deployment of ITS cooperative systems, traffic management in medium-large cities can save 15% of local total consumptions. On EU27 highway (HW) network savings can be of the same order. Current Access Control (AC) schemes act on limited urban flows; savings < 1%. AC based on CS and integrated in Control Centres (and Galileo full operative), with appropriate EU27 legislation on urban road charging, can raise savings to significant levels. General fleet management & freight logistics can contribute to an overall reduction in fossil fuel in the transportation sector in the range of 20-25% by 2020 when stateof-the art ICT and ITS is adopted Model calculations in Slovenia have shown that energy efficiency could be improved by around 8% when information created by modelling and forecasting was transmitted to traffic participants

Issues related to added value Assessment is a key aspect in the deployment of intelligent vehicle and infrastructure systems and services. The assessment will provide the necessary information of the benefits and costs of the systems and services during their life span to facilitate the deployment partners to decide on their investments and other contribution to the deployment of the systems. The assessments should cover the impacts of the systems on the mobility, efficiency and safety of the travellers and haulers, as well as on the throughput, energy and environmental impact of the transport system. The assessments should also measure how the new systems perform in comparison to the existing ones with regard to cost, availability, reliability, extra features or services, ease of maintenance, etc. The roles of cities should be strengthened in all development and testing activities; including large scale and complex field operational tests (FOTs) to make sure local policy objectives are taken into account both in the applications developed and in the evaluation. The relevance of direct involvement of local authorities in demonstrating the added value for dissemination of benefits of cooperative systems to other cities in Europe should not be underestimated. So far, the assessment has focused on stand-alone functionalities and systems. It is essential to assess also and especially integrated systems or system bundles,

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

Conclusions Today, the estimates of the added value of II services are very positive with regard to the policy objectives of safety, environment and throughput. The estimates are, however, largely based on the impacts assessed for autonomous versions of the same services and for individual services. It is likely that cooperative systems will provide substantial impacts, especially when deployed in an integrated manner on the efficiency, safety and energy consumption of the transport system. It seems that an individual service will rarely be economically viable, but bundling of services likely makes it possible to reach positive business cases while providing complementary services supporting the policy objectives. Demonstrating the added value of cooperative services and systems by means of impact assessment on large-scale FOTs is important for the decision-making processes of all road authorities. There is an urgent need to have robust and statistically reliable data on the socio- and private economy impacts of cooperative systems, both for individual services and especially for bundles of services complementing each other in terms of functionalities and impacts.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

combining several functionalities complementing the impacts of individual services while utilising the same basic service prerequisites. This will be a feasible way of deploying the services, and the impacts of such integrated bundles need to be investigated by independent experts. The FOTs play an important role in demonstrating the added value of systems and services in large-scale use. An important role of the FOTs is to provide statistically robust and independently produced data on the impacts of the systems and services on travellers, haulers and the society.

7.1

Road categories and related services per category Categorisation of urban roads

The situation in the urban road network is very complex and it is difficult to summarise all different possible situations in just a few categories. In urban cases, the roads tend to be classified according to their function rather than the physical road design as often done for inter-urban roads. This was the choice in the categorisation of the table below. Table 9: Road categorisation urban roads Category Primary distributor roads

Function Transit function; urban through roads

District distributor roads

Transit function; links between local districts

Local collector roads

Place function (where neighbourhood and community function dominate, such as retail, recreation) rather than transit function Place function; residential roads

Access roads

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Infrastructure, types of traffic, and problems often physical segregation between • vehicles and cyclists/pedestrians; no frontage access to shops/housing; no on-street stops of public transport, often dedicated bus lanes • including tunnels and bridges • usually traffic flow and/or safety problems due to higher traffic volumes and higher speeds • often high environmental impact (air quality, noise) significant movement of public transport • vehicles and cyclists (segregated or on-road), and pedestrians crossing at certain spots (shops, schools, etc.); sometimes dedicated bus lanes and/or relevance as freight routes • traffic flow and safety problems occur at certain stretches or spots, e.g. due to on-street un/loading activities or at highly frequented intersections which due to space limitations cannot be designed in the most appropriate way • often high environmental impact (air quality, noise) all transport modes; significant movement • of pedestrians and cyclists; residential and commercial frontage • traffic flow or safety problems only at certain spots

• •

mix of modes, low speeds no traffic flow problems

II WG Final Report

The general mapping of the urban road categories with regard to the Intelligent Infrastructure services to be provided has been carried out in the table below. However, the level of intelligent infrastructure and services that is needed will depend on a variety of factors, which cannot easily be presented in the form of a few categories. These factors include for example the relevance of a road for public transport and freight transport, the mix of transport modes in combination with the physical design of the road (e.g. existence of segregated cycle lanes, one-way roads), and access restrictions (e.g. low-emission zones, areas around hospitals or schools). [Polis] Table 10: Road categories and the II services for urban roads Urban road category All road categories

Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads

Primary and district distributor roads Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads with 2+2 lanes or more Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads with signal control Primary and district distributor roads with separated carriageways All roads with local safety problems Primary and district distributor roads with flow problems

Primary distributor roads with flow or safety problems Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Intelligent Infrastructure service TIS: Weather information TIS: Limited access warning, detour notification TMS: Road user charging Other: eCall Other: Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) TIS: Speed limit information TIS: Parking information and guidance TIS: Multimodal traffic information TIS: Emergency vehicle warning TMS: Traffic management of sensitive road segments TIS: RT event information TMS: Recommended speed profiles F&L: Intelligent truck parking TMS: Priority lane

TMS: Signal priority/Requested green TIS: Wrong way driving warning TIS: Local hazard warning TMS: Traffic management services / systems > ramp metering, traffic controllers, etc TMS: Strategic traffic management for corridors and networks TIS: Dynamic route guidance TMS: Incident Management

II WG Final Report

From a traffic management perspective however, many cities have defined a strategic road network or a system of road priority, which do not necessarily correspond with these function-based categories.

TIS: RT traffic condition information TIS: Travel time information TIS: Predictive traffic conditions information

Most intelligent infrastructure services are provided on the primary and district distributor roads, especially on those with traffic flow problems. Some services even concern access or residential roads. These are services covering or related to the whole urban area. Perhaps worth noting is that intelligent truck parking is especially connected to terminals, ports and other locations within ports where goods are loaded or unloaded, and where trucks need to wait before the goods are processed. In urban areas, the truck parking service is also relevant for retail centres. Intersections are a specific safety concern in urban areas.

7.2

Categorisation of non urban roads

For the non-urban roads, the road classification should be done on the basis of the EasyWay project's Operating Environments [7] as these are already adopted on the European level. EasyWay has classified the roads according to the following criteria [7]: • physical characteristics of the road • network typology • traffic flow characteristics • existence of safety problems Table 11: EasyWay operating environments for the Core European ITS Services [7] C1 critical or black spots, local flow-related traffic and/or safety problems T1 motorway ( link), no flow-related traffic problems and no critical safety problems T2 motorway (link), no flow-related traffic problems, safety problems T3 motorway (link), daily flow-related traffic problems, no critical safety problems T4 motorway (link), daily flow-related traffic problems, safety problems R1 two-lane roads, no flow-related problems, no critical safety problems R2 two-lane roads, no flow-related traffic problems, safety problems R3 two-lane roads, seasonal or daily flow-related problems, no critical safety problems R4 two-lane roads, seasonal or daily flow-related traffic problems, safety problems R5 three-/four-lane roads, no flow related problems, no critical safety problems R6 three-/four-lane roads, no flow related traffic problems, safety problems R7 three-/four-lane roads, seasonal or daily flow related traffic problems, no critical safety problems

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Primary distributor roads with flow problems

S1 motorway corridor or network, seasonal flow-related problems S2 motorway corridor or network, daily flow-related traffic problems N1 road corridor or network, seasonal flow-related problems N2 road corridor or network, daily flow-related problems P1 peri-urban motorway or road interfacing urban environment

The mapping of the EasyWay operating environments with regard to the Intelligent Infrastructure services to be provided has been carried out in the Table below. Table 12: Road categories and the II services for main roads outside urban areas Road category (EasyWay operating environment)

Intelligent Infrastructure service

All road categories (C1-P1)

TIS: RT event information TIS: Emergency vehicle warning TIS: Weather information TIS: Speed limit information TMS: Recommended speed profiles TMS: Road user charging F&L: Intelligent truck parking Other: eCall TMS: Traffic management of sensitive road segments TIS: Wrong way driving warning

All road categories, especially C1 and those with safety problems All road categories except 2-lane roads (C1-T4, R5-R8, S1-S2, P1) All non-motorways (R1-R8, P1) Critical spots, motorways (C1, T1T4, S1-S2, P1) Critical spots and urban networks (C1, P1) All roads with signal control (C1, R1-R8, N1-N2, P1) Roads with flow problems (C1, T3-T4, R3-R4, R7-R8, S1-P1)

Roads with flow or safety problems (all expect T1, R1) Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

(TIS = Traveller Information Service, TMS = Traffic Management Service, F&L = Freight and Logistics Service)

TIS: Parking information and guidance TMS: Priority lane TIS: Limited access warning, detour notification TMS: Signal priority/Requested green TIS: RT traffic condition information TIS: Travel time information TIS: Multimodal traffic information TIS: Predictive traffic conditions information TIS: Dynamic route guidance TMS: Traffic management services / systems > ramp metering, traffic controllers, etc TMS: Strategic traffic management for corridors and networks TMS: Incident Management

II WG Final Report

R8 three-/four-lane roads, seasonal or daily flow related traffic problems, safety problems

TIS: Local hazard warning Other: Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)

Many of the services are provided in all road categories or on roads with flow-related problems, i.e. recurring congestion. The relevant road types, for urban and non-urban roads, are shown for each intelligent infrastructure service.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Roads with safety problems (C1, T2, T4, R2, R4, R6, R8, P1)

Intelligent Infrastructure service (TIS = Traveller Information Service, TMS = Traffic Management Service, F&L = Freight and Logistics Service) TIS: Weather information TMS: Road user charging Other: eCall TIS: Emergency vehicle warning TIS: Speed limit information TMS: Traffic management of sensitive road segments TIS: RT event information TMS: Recommended speed profiles F&L: Intelligent truck parking TIS: Wrong way driving warning

TIS: Parking information and guidance TMS: Priority lane TIS: Limited access warning, detour notification TMS: Signal priority/Requested green TIS: RT traffic condition information TIS: Travel time information TIS: Predictive traffic conditions information TIS: Multimodal traffic information TIS: Dynamic route guidance TMS: Traffic management services / systems > ramp metering, traffic controllers,... TMS: Strategic traffic management for corridors and networks TMS: Incident Management TIS: Local hazard warning Other: Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)

Urban road category

Non urban road category (EasyWay operating environment)

All road categories

All road categories (C1-P1)

Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads Primary and district distributor roads

All road categories (C1-P1)

Primary and district distributor roads with separated carriageways Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads with 2+2 lanes or more All road categories

All road categories, especially C1 and those with safety problems All road categories (C1-P1)

All road categories except 2-lane roads (C1-T4, R5-R8, S1-S2, P1) All non-motorways (R1-R8, P1) Critical spots, motorways (C1, T1T4, S1-S2, P1) Critical spots and urban networks (C1, P1) All roads with signal control (C1, R1-R8, N1-N2, P1)

Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads with signal control Primary distributor roads with flow problems

Roads with flow problems (C1, T3T4, R3-R4, R7-R8, S1-P1)

Primary and district distributor roads, local collector roads Primary and district distributor roads with flow problems

Roads with flow problems (C1, T3T4, R3-R4, R7-R8, S1-P1) Roads with flow problems (C1, T3T4, R3-R4, R7-R8, S1-P1)

Primary distributor roads with flow or safety problems All roads with local safety problems

Roads with flow or safety problems (all expect T1, R1) Roads with safety problems (C1, T2, T4, R2, R4, R6, R8, P1) Roads with safety problems (C1, T2, T4, R2, R4, R6, R8, P1)

All road categories

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Table 13: Road categories, where each II service is typically provided, within and outside urban areas

Quality of services

It is obvious that even if the same service is provided in different operating environments or road categories, the quality level of the service will depend on the operating environment as well as other conditions. It is likely that e.g. real-time event information concerning a tunnel or another critical spot or a very busy motorway section is expected to be much more accurate and in real time than similar information concerning a two-lane road with low traffic volumes. On the other hand, a weather information service may be expected to have a higher standard on a two-lane road with less traffic in an area where adverse road weather is the most crucial road safety factor than on busy but safe tunnels and motorways with practically no adverse road weather problems. Such quality recommendations have been proposed e.g. by EasyWay [10].

7.4

Issues related to road categories

Road networks and infrastructure evolve during time, and road categorization may define the steps a road takes to achieve a mature state. The intelligent infrastructure services to be implemented depend primarily on the current category of the road. Different approaches exist according to whether the road is an inter-urban or urban one. This basic characterization of the roads must be considered as a fundamental one, because it makes the pre-assumptions quite different.

Conclusions The services to be provided and their quality will depend on the operating environment or road category. On top of the basic services provided on almost all roads, three main types of services can be distinguished: those provided on roads with frequent flow problems, those provided on roads with safety problems, and those provided on some critical spots or parts of the road network. Environment is not specifically used in classifying the road network for intelligent infrastructure. It is, however, embedded in the categories as especially accidents and congestion will increase emissions.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

7.3

8.1

User requirements

The requirements are here addressed from the user point of view. Three types of users can be identified: • Road user • Road operator / authority • System and service provider On the basis of ETSI [3] and CVIS [8] user requirements, the following can be identified for the road users: Benefit and value for money • service provides benefits and value to the user, whereas the costs of purchase and use of the service are reasonable, especially with regard to the value provided for the money. When relevant, the user can select from one of a number of suppliers of the same service. Consistent and continuing quality • the service meets in a consistent and continuous way its quality levels as indicated by the service provider with regard to relevant criteria such as e.g. communication performance, positioning performance, availability, coverage, veracity, and timeliness of information, etc. Understand ability • the services will enable given geographic locations as well as road and traffic conditions to be understood in the way intended by the road users Privacy and security • the service respects the privacy of the user and the user can remain anonymous at his/her will. The security of the user is not endangered, and the liabilities of the user and the other stakeholders are made clear Adaptability and compatibility • when relevant, the service should be adaptable to accommodate for e.g. the needs of disabled and elderly persons, different topographical domains, geographical regions, service organisations, user interfaces and available communication networks. The services enable their continuous upgrading, and the systems and services can be maintained easily. All systems are able to operate in all potential climatic and traffic conditions Safety • the system will monitor each safety-related component (including software), warn the user in case of problems, and disable it, or reduce it to a safe state. The service

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

8 (Basic) requirements for Intelligent Infrastructure services

The relevant user requirements for the road operator and/or authority are the following [3], [8]: Benefit and value for money • the services support the road operators/authorities in reaching their objectives. The service provides societal economies and business value to the road operator/authority. The costs of investment, maintenance and operation of the service are reasonable, especially with regard to the value provided for the money. The service provides a global return on investment in a sufficient time frame. The services use the most cost-effective means of data acquisition and communication available. The services will enable operating costs to be reduced whenever possible, when compared with the systems that they replace. Consistent and continuing quality • the service meets in a consistent and continuous way its quality levels as indicated by the service provider with regard to relevant criteria such as e.g. communication performance, positioning performance, availability, coverage, veracity, and timeliness of information, etc. Well functioning markets • when relevant, the road operator can select from one of a number of suppliers of the same service or equipment. A good interaction between services provided by private and public bodies exists. The services that require payment from a user are able to manage fees/fares Organisational and legal framework • current organisational responsibilities and legal liabilities are retained. The services comply with the traffic laws and regulations that apply in Europe, and conform to relevant MoU, European directives and guidelines, and European (de facto-) standards. The services also comply with current European and National laws concerning data security, user anonymity and the protection of individual privacy. The temporary or permanent use of radio frequencies may require specific licences. Adaptability and compatibility • when relevant, the service should be adaptable to accommodate for e.g. different topographical domains, geographical regions, service organisations, user interfaces and available communication networks. The services enable their continuous upgrading, and the systems and services can be maintained easily. Data exchange can be operated easily and securely between different stakeholders while permitting all traffic management systems, existing or future, to receive and to use specific parts of the information. Data exchange will enable given geographic locations as well as road and traffic conditions to be understood by all stakeholders. The services enable their continuous upgrading, and the systems and services can be operated and maintained easily. All systems are able to operate in all potential climatic and traffic conditions Safety

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

operates in a manner that does not generate a safety hazard for its users nor encourage unsafe behaviour. The service is ultimately under the control of the user.

the services will provide also the non-equipped users with, as much as possible, safety-related information available in the service. The services neither operate in a manner that does not generate a safety hazard for their users nor encourage unsafe behaviour. The services are able to detect errors in operation, when higher integrity is required, e.g. for financial, security or safety reasons. All safety-related systems are fault-tolerant. All systems are reliable with respect to the legal and/or quality requirements necessary for each application. The systems are capable of surviving accidental and intentional attacks on their integrity and of providing protection against unauthorised access

The requirements of the system and service provider are, based on [3] and [8]: Benefit and value for money • the service provides business value to the system and/or service provider when considering the investment, maintenance and operation costs of the service. The service provides a global return on investment in a sufficient time frame. The most cost-effective means of data acquisition and communication available are used Organisational and legal framework • interaction between services provided by private and public bodies exists. The current organisational responsibilities and legal liabilities are retained. Suitable organisations must be in place to ensure the interoperability of ITS systems, to provide support to security protection and to ensure the distribution of global names and addresses in vehicles. The availability of a legal framework, appropriate standardisation of systems and ITS stations, and the availability of product / service conformance and system interoperability testing should be in order. Availability of intelligent infrastructure • sufficient capabilities and performance of radio communication, network communication, vehicle absolute positioning, vehicle interface, sensors and navigation as well as vehicle communication security need to be available as well as a common, consistent applications and use cases naming repository, and applications/use cases addresses directory. The availability of an IPv6 address allocation scheme usable for V2V/V2I communication is required. Standardisation and interoperability • use of modular and flexible designs, so that manufacturers can produce their own versions of equipment and systems may be scaled to cover different range of functionality. Various suppliers provide the equipment performing the same service. Data exchange can be operated easily and securely between different stakeholders. Data exchange will enable given geographic locations as well as road and traffic conditions to be understood by all stakeholders Consistent and continuing quality • all information systems provide data with a stated accuracy, either as additional information or as part of the documentation, at all times. All systems check all input data for validity, whenever possible, and report any failures. All systems also check data values by comparing different sources, when available, so as to ensure highaccuracy and completeness. All systems manage local/regional/national databases in a consistent way Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

For all user groups, implicit user needs are that the systems comply with common system architecture and that a sufficient penetration of the systems and services exists to provide the expected value and benefit to all user groups. Most of the requirements are valid for all II services, but especially the needs of the road users as well as road operators/authorities differ with regard to the benefit and value required or expected from a specific services. For instance, by utilising the results of CVIS [13], we can identify the following requirements for road users and road operators for event information [13]: road users: • Journey planning (come to a journey plan with an acceptable and reliable travel time and ditto travel costs) • Preparation of and containing the journey (be well prepared for the conditions which can be expected during the journey annex vehicle trip) • safeguarding condition of passengers and vehicle during the journey (keep the vehicle, vehicle driver and passengers in an appropriate condition during the trip) • handle incident situation (have a safe and fluent trip, with no unintentional violation of actual traffic rules; anticipate on the traffic situation on the forthcoming road segments; • handle incident situation (support the PSAP and traffic manager and thereby incident manager in shortening the time between occurrence and detection & notification of the accident / incident; prevent second order collisions such as e.g. bump into already collided vehicles, bump into cargo fallen of a lorry, run into a ghost driver; prevent the emerge of a shock wave; road operators (traffic managers): • Balanced use of the road network (balanced use of the road network in time and space; acceptable and reliable travel times over the road network) • Enhance situation awareness of vehicle drivers (reduce the number of blockages on roads due to incidents in order to enhance the road safety and reduce the risk for accidents and achieve reliable travel times over the road network)

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

For manufacturers of electrically chargeable vehicles, there are some additional requirements market penetration depends on [60]: • Customer acceptance of specific characteristics of new technologies (driving and recharging requirements) • Build up of recharging infrastructure by energy sector • Fiscal incentives during the introduction phase • Vehicle energy storage systems innovations • Development of battery costs • Attractive vehicle design, safety and comfort standards • Low carbon energy production

8.2

Manage incidents and accidents (reduce the number of blockages on roads due to incidents in order to enhance the road safety and reduce the risk for accidents and achieve reliable travel times over the road network)

Prerequisites: business modelling

Cooperation and roles There are many actors involved in the deployment of cooperative systems. For a business model to be created, each stakeholder must see a business opportunity in the deployment of cooperative systems: this makes the business models complicated, to say the least, as different stakeholders have different perspectives. Three primary supporting stakeholder groups can be distinguished: • road infrastructure providers and operators • in vehicle and nomadic devices providers and operators • commercial service and telecom providers and operators These primary stakeholder groups support the major stakeholder group of users. The stakeholder groups consist of different stakeholders e.g. lease, freight/fleet and private users. There is a strong need for the sustained cooperation of stakeholders in the development and deployment of cooperative systems. Given the nature of cooperative systems deployment, which often involves long lead times to implementation and the ultimate realisation of benefits, long term commitment of stakeholders is at risk due to several factors, including financial climate and political change. The ITS Action Plan and Directive will no doubt have a strong influence in maintaining momentum. Dependent on the situation one primary stakeholder group is at the helm and the other groups are supporting. This also depends on the stage a service like design, realisation or operation. Business modelling supports the discussion and definition of these roles and responsibilities. Business Modelling Business modelling is a tool for the communication and discussion between stakeholders. It provides insight in the coherence and facilitates in the realisation of the objectives of the various parties involved. It gives structure to all aspects, which need to be discussed and negotiated. The key objective of business modelling is to support the decision (if) regarding an intervention (or launch of a new service) and understand how it is produced (what and how) and what its effects are. In short Business modelling should give answers to

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

Who is the (end) user? Which roles/activities are required to make & deliver the service? What is the added value of each activity/role?

Relations

Who delivers what to whom? (products, information) What is the flow of money, information?

II WG Final Report

Activities

Which party is best capable to perform a certain role? Organisation Are there combination of roles possible that can be performed by one or another party? Technology

Power

What technology is used in what activity / relation? Are there alternatives? What are the implications Where is the power in the web? Which roles are required to get started? Which cooperations are essential for a good service delivery?

Figure 6: Answers business modelling should provide

The process of business modelling is divided into three phases: business model: A business model describes the way in which an organisation or network of organizations works together, wants to create added-value and achieves its political/strategic objectives and/or earns money by applying technology business case: The term ‘business case’ mostly refers to a financial (cost/benefits) analysis. It applies a business model to a specific situation (location with any existing infrastructure, characteristics, specific partners, etc.) business plan: A ‘business plan’ is the total (step-by-step) approach to bring the service into operation and to convince decision makers and investors.

Business Model

Business Case

Business Plan

Figure 7: The three phases of business modelling

A service (or business), and in our context ITS service, comprises four domains which are heavily interrelated. These domains are each part of the three phases in a high or low degree. Service domain describes the service, which is provided to a specific customer/end user in a specific market segment Technology domain describes the technical architecture and functionalities that are required to realise the service Organisation domain describes the roles, activities, responsibilities of the required parties/stakeholders (a value web) to develop and operate the service and to create added value for a customer/road-user Financial domain describes the way an organisation wants to generate business for a specific service. Important elements: revenue/benefits, costs, risks and investments. Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Service

Technology

Organisation

Outcome

Finance

Figure 8: The four domains of focus in business modelling and societal outcome

These domains interact: the choice of a specific technology will incur a specific cost, and involvement of particular suppliers. It also incurs the possibility to easily create new services or to collaborate/combine with other services (e.g. combine Real-time Travel and Traffic Information and Incident Management). Another service definition or technology can result in a different organisation with different stakeholders and a possible other (strategic) position for stakeholders to act. In each of the business modelling phases a different level of detail is achieved. In the business model phase the emphasis is on the service and the organisational roles. In the business case phase the focus is more on technology and finance, e.g. in a cost/benefit analysis the cost of production (technology, organisation) is weighed against benefits, e.g. revenues. In the last phase full detail on all of the domains are included to be able to realise and deploy the service. The cost/benefit analysis, especially in the public domain, typically involves outcomes on the societal level, e.g. reduction of lost hours due to traffic jams, reduction of emissions, reduction of accidents and deaths. In the business model phase, the definition of the service, the configuration of technology, organisational roles and business models not only the monetary consequences but also societal outcomes need to be considered, as a kind of service level. Added value of business modelling The output of a business-modelling framework that is particularly useful in the context of development of ITS services from the different stakeholders perspective. The framework is tested on various European and national ITS services. The framework has the following characteristics: • Strategic support: the conceptual simplicity of the framework helps to pass on policy and strategy towards realisation. At the level of realisation it helps to integrate services that live in the same context (e.g. can use the same technological platform Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

• •

•

Business models for cooperative systems Recently, business and service models have been developed and analysed by some projects. In SAFESPOT [44], the models of the following table were used. Table 14: SAFESPOT Business and service models [44] Reliance Only Public Public/ Private

Only Private

Public/ Private

System/configuration Basic/User will be able to have only SAFESPOT functions, fully paid from general fiscality Basic/As above, but partially paid from general fiscality with a user contribution

Pricing V2V

Pricing V2I

free

The user has to pay partially the SAFESPOT system

Basic/ only SAFESPOT functions, The user has to pay the fully paid by the users SAFESPOT system Plus/In marketing or commercial point of view, open to new integrations. User will be able to have SAFESPOT functions and other services - partially paid from general fiscality with a user contribution

Plus/In marketing or commercial point of view, open to new integrations. User will be able to have SAFESPOT functions and Only Private other services - fully paid by the users

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

The user has to pay partially the SAFESPOT system. The user has to pay, according to the pay per use criteria, the connection to the other services like: traffic information, automatic road toll payment and parking reservation The user has to pay the SAFESPOT system, and, according to the pay per use criteria, the connection to the other services.

The user has to pay partially the SAFESPOT system and a toll for the roads equipped with SAFESPOT The user has to pay the SAFESPOT system and a toll for the roads equipped with SAFESPOT. The user has to pay partially SAFESPOT System and a toll for the roads equipped with SAFESPOT. The user has to pay, according to the pay per use criteria, the connection to the other services. The user has to pay the SAFESPOT system, and, according to the pay per use criteria, the connection to the other services. In addition the user has to pay a toll for the roads equipped with SAFESPOT.

II WG Final Report

•

and/or address the same travellers or stakeholders etc.) (integration of e.g. RTTI and eCall). Positioning: At the tactic and realisation level the framework also supports collaboration, because roles and exchanges are addressed in the value web. The value web approach supports a structured way of thinking in determining the position of stakeholders in the development and deployment of ITS services. Communication: It supports the discussions and negotiations with other (external) stakeholders public and/or private. Holistic: the concepts in the framework help to identify non-technical aspects of developing a service and understanding interactions between them as well as outcomes on a societal level. This supports identifying white spots, relevant trade/off and risk assessment between alternative interventions. Process support: The framework identifies the different relevant domains. In each of the phases these domains are addressed with different levels of detail. It will be very helpful in the definition, development, realisation and deployment of future and complex systems, such as cooperative systems.

Requirements from cooperation projects

Within the context of the three IPs studies within the 6th Framework Project took place related to the deployment needs for cooperative systems. Experience from projects (CVIS) is input to basic requirements [55]. The overall deployment model and framework for CVIS covers the main elements and stakeholders needed for a working CVIS system equally distributed over the stakeholders of costs, benefits, risks, liabilities and control over policy decisions. Starting from the drivers where external influences such as public demand for safe and efficient traffic of people and goods, to commercial transport needs to the individual need for personal mobility. In the model these are identified as external influences driving the overall need for the cooperative system, while network enabled CVIS services are the link between the users’ needs and the network that enables the services. The technology core of the system is then modelled as separating the roadside equipment from the vehicle equipment, connected through the CVIS-system as defined in the other sub-projects of CVIS. As conclusion this white paper can be used a starting point for continued work to support the deployment for cooperative systems in general. It has been suggested an approach to continue the work in various forums covering the vast number of topics needed to enable the deployment of future services. A pragmatic approach is to start from the already emerging services that are locally deployed providing necessary support and guidance together with clear directives when needed.

8.4

Issues related to basic requirements

The intelligent infrastructure needs, typically, to be equipped with an adequate communication typically an optical fibre network covering main road networks and able to interface RSEs (Road Side Equipment) and Operation Control Centre(s). RSE will also include the communication means necessary to establish the communication link with the vehicles platform. Today these communications are mainly based on CALM M5, but they are expected to evolve. Infrastructure operators and the automobile and device manufacturers need to ensure sound and sustainable solutions and cooperation. For monitoring the current and anticipated status of the road network, the road operators need to have systems able to characterize the traffic conditions at any time in both directions and per lane. This requires, in addition to the basic communication infrastructure, back-office equipments and applications to be installed in the Operation Control Centre according to the intelligent infrastructure services requirements. Considering the quick deployment of navigation systems, it is likely that operation control centres can predict with some reliability the final destination of the different vehicles driving on their roads. Based on their information and on the data exchange among different road operators, travel plans could be done to all vehicles and immediate forecast of travel duration and conditions (congested road segments, higher pollution level segments, time Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

8.3

There is a clear need for business models for complex multi-stakeholder value networks. These business models should provide sufficient flexibility to permit varying by country and system/service. The business models depend typically on the service provider. Service providers may be: • Road operators, public and private; • Vehicle manufacturers and sub-suppliers; • Telecom operators, traditional Telco’s and radio diffusion operators; • Value added service providers. It should be defined clearly which services should be provided by the service provider free of charge to the user, and what can by chargeable services. Typically, services provided by private stakeholders are paid services, except if supported by other means like advertisement. Nevertheless, these other means must be such that they do not interfere with the primary driving task of the drivers. The value networks are becoming very complex and involving a multitude of different stakeholders. This is also a result of the recent trend of both public and private sector stakeholders to focus on their essential tasks and outsource all other tasks. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that today, the primary stakeholder of intelligent and cooperative vehicle systems from the vehicle point of view is the OEM, the vehicle manufacturer. For the intelligent infrastructure side, the road authority or operator has the leading role. The partners of the value networks have to be able to rely on the other partners of the networks so that they feel financially secure enough to invest in the value network for their part. This requires openness of the stakeholders concerning their plans, even commercial ones, and also their commitment to provide their added value for the network for at least a specific time period.

Conclusions Basic requirements for the intelligent infrastructure are determined by the services provided and their related stakeholders the users and road operators / authorities. There is a wide range of requirements, which focus from the political environment, regulatory framework, future requirements/compatibility and technology. Business and organisational models are of utmost importance as a tool to bring the different stakeholders together. A firm ground is needed of the benefits and value for money for both public and private sector to start investments needed to start the deployment if the intelligent infrastructure as part of cooperative services.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

foreseen per segment and/or alternative routes, etc.) may be displayed to the driver when entering the vehicle.

9.1

Current and future intelligent infrastructure What is already available

Currently, the European roads are covered with quite a lot of ICT infrastructure especially with regard to the major roads. The Trans-European Road Network (TERN) is covered by different traffic management systems and traffic, travel time and road weather monitoring systems. Different traffic management services cover in most countries more than 10% of the TERN, and in some countries well over 50% (AT, CH, FR, NL, PT, UK). Traffic status and road weather monitoring systems cover more than 50% of the TERN in most European countries, and travel time monitoring also in some (IE, NL, UK). [1] Traffic centres (i.e. traffic control or management or information centres) are also an important back-office part of the "roadside" infrastructure. Currently, there are ca 100 national or regional traffic centres responsible for operating the TERN and the II services provided on the TERN. In addition, numerous local traffic centres are in operation. The ICT infrastructure systems implemented so far also rely on communications; usually connecting the roadside equipment to the servers and information management systems operated at the traffic centres. A large part of the TERN is equipped with fibre optic cables for quick broadband communications. At the same time, a large part of the ICT infrastructure on the TERN is communications via other fixed communications, and increasingly via cellular communications. The coverage of the TERN by 2G or GSM communications is ca. 100% but so far, the 3G-communication coverage is smaller. In most West-European countries, the TERN is almost totally covered with 3G except for roads in the sparsely populated areas, but in East-European countries, the coverage is very low. For details see Annex 6. The infrastructure for two-way communication based cooperative II services is usually only existing in urban areas for • floating car data collection combined with taxi or truck/van or bus fleet management systems (often based on 2G/3G communications) • signal priorities for public transport and emergency vehicles (including usually shortrange communications)

9.2

Example of existing intelligent infrastructures

In addition, some cooperative II service test sites are in operation in 2010 such as the Helmond test site in the Netherlands, the INNOVITS ADVANCE test site in the UK, the SIM-TD test site in Germany and the COOPERS test site in Austria. The last-mentioned is described in detail to give an example of the roadside infrastructures implemented. The intention of the Helmond test site is to set-up a FOT area available for all national and Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

COOPERS, Austria The COOPERS test corridor covers the A12 Inntal Motorway (78 km) as well as the A13 Brenner Motorway (36 km) from the Austrian/German border Kiefersfelden/Kufstein via Innsbruck to the Austrian/Italian border on the Brenner pass. On the total corridor a Traffic Management System including traffic and weather sensors, VMS, information panels and Traveller information services is in operation. The 2+2 -lane (at parts 3+3 -lane) corridor includes 3 interchanges, 25 exits, 1 tolling station, 11 tunnels and 16 bridges. The corridor has different types of gantries. Gantries with VMS are equipped with one VMS per lane for the speed limits as well as with one VMS between two lanes for warnings. The gantries with information panels are equipped with one VMS (freely programmable) as well as with 3 lines of text (alphanumeric characters). These gantries are all overhead mounted.

Figure 9: Gantries COOPERS test corridor Austria

Infrastructure - Telematics and electronic/electric systems (Inventory) The services are based on the traffic control system TCU Tirol, an important step on the path of ASFINAG in the implementation of the traffic management and information centre. This system was set up for two reasons: First, efficient traffic management in the corridor Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

international projects related to cooperative systems. Roadside equipment from the Amsterdam showcase 2010 will be shifted to this location. Current projects, which are doing tests, are CVIS, SAFESPOT, SPITS, GCDC, CCC/CACC and planned projects are DRIVE and the development and test of new national RSU, which include the cooperative systems functionality. Note that the ICT infrastructures are mostly implemented due to the provision of II services with one-way communication rather than due to cooperative services utilising two-way communication.

All roadside sensors are overhead sensors using three technologies for detecting the traffic (average speed per lane, number of vehicles by class). All existing and planned video systems are integrated in a digital video management, in order to observe particularly critical road sections as well as intersection areas and further to enable future traffic monitoring with the support of automatic video image detection. This centralised video management provides access to all integrated video systems not only from the TMIC, but also from the motorway maintenance agencies, as well as from the command & control centres of the regional police. Furthermore it enables the provision of the video images of all integrated video systems for internal and external users, the distribution of digital video streams to communication networks and the application of Austria wide standardized video subsystems. Cameras have been and are being installed for the introduction of automatic video image detection, in order to register “ghost drivers” (vehicles driving against the traffic), lane blocks, traffic jams and traffic congestions, as well as stop-and go traffic and also in order to refine the camera technology. Current and predicted weather data is provided 24 hours a day by Austro Control – Osterreichische Gesellschaft fur Zivilluftfahrt GmbH. Short-, medium- and long-term road weather prognoses are generated in hourly intervals, in order to provide safe driving conditions to the road users. Currently there are 137 SOS boots along the corridor. The Corporate Network ASFINAG (CN.as) is available on the Brenner Corridor. CN.as is a fibre optical network with SDH implemented. Access points are normally available on the A12 and A13 near the VMS gantries. Currently, no wireless network is available on the A12 and the A13 on the Brenner corridor. Electric power supply is available at all tolling stations, and wherever Variable Message Signs or traffic sensors are installed. An electronic toll system based on the Microwave DSRC technology as free flow multi-lane concept is in operation in the corridor. Every lorry >3,5t needs the so-called GO Box, which is used for the transaction. Tolls for vehicles whose maximum admissible weight exceeds 3.5 t will be collected electronically. Communication of the small unit that is mounted on the inside of the windscreen and the toll gantries is based on microwave technology, while the vehicle that is subject to pay toll passes underneath the gantry. The COOPERS corridor is covered with the free to air RDS-TMC plus service operated by the Austrian broadcaster ORF. ASFINAG is also acting as service provider with its internet based internet services like the “Road Pilot” (www.asfinag.at). The internet-based tool allows to access traffic information services coming from ASFINAG and ORF, web cams can be accessed and furthermore the LOS of certain road segments can be accessed. For the road pilot also a version for mobile devices is available to the public. Furthermore

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

has absolute priority, due to the high rate of international traffic. Second, for reasons of environmental and residential protection, it is a priority concern to monitor the rate of traffic flows flexibly, not only dependent on the traffic volume, but also dependent on weather conditions, as well as pollutant and noise emission.

The highway police operate on a “Lander” level and have access to the Traffic Management Centre of ASFINAG (via direct phone connection and can access all the information of ASFINAG TCC). The police can carry out speed measurements, and administer fines when asserting a malfeasance; and they can also directly access the infrastructure of the highway operator (cameras, traffic loops, weather information) for their information. The influencing of the VMS must happen via the TCC of ASFINAG. The police are also involved in incident management. In collaboration with network operators in neighbouring countries, as well as in large cities within Austria, national and international linking of system technology is planned as precondition for the development of cross-border strategies. Therefore the functionalities traffic statistics and traffic prognostics are of substantial importance. In the TCU-areas sub centres are established, from there all data is transferred to the traffic management and information centre (TMIC) in Wien-Inzersdorf. From this central monitoring point, the required algorithms are recalled and then applied at the particular sub centre, the control unit for the route concerned. At first each TCU has to be configured and parameterised according to the local conditions, so that at all times the information panels show the correct traffic signs for an optimum flow of traffic. Due to the ongoing flow of data from the measuring panels, the stored data in the TMIC, the “data warehouse”, grows rapidly. The stored data is processed, analysed and evaluated by data mining to provide short-term forecasts of traffic, road weather, effects of road works and events, etc. The data is displayed in maps. The „data warehouse“ is a significant basis for national and international network monitoring and traffic and co-operation management on the one hand, and for controlling and quality assurance of traffic technology on the other hand. The services and systems are operated by TCU operators (7 days a week, 24 hours) with the help of automatic and semi-automatic operator decision-making support systems. The actual cooperative systems with short-range communication of cooperative service messages are demonstrated on the A12 on a 17 km section with 2+1 configuration (2 lanes and the hard shoulder). This section has 8 overhead VMS gantries. All of these gantries will be short-range communication points for cooperative service messages via the use of CALM-IR infrared transceivers. A single transceiver covers one lane only and has to be placed centred above the lane with a maximum deviation from the middle of one meter. As the transceivers had to be mounted in a front-fire position directly at the passing traffic – something that was not possible in a centred position at the front due to the VMS mounted there – some special mounting equipment had to be used. These Cantilevers together with a pivot arm are attached on the backside of the gantry and allow proper positioning for the infrared transceiver (See figure below).

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

ASFINAG provides together with the federal railway company ÖBB and the Austrian air traffic controller an intermodal traffic information service under www.verkehrspilot.at.

II WG Final Report Figure 10: Fixing of the CALM-IR transceivers on a VMS gantry at the Austrian COOPERS test site

POLIS, European cities [45] The main transport policy objectives pursued by an urban transport authority are, in typical order of priority, lessening the environmental impact of transport, improving road safety, reducing congestion and enhancing accessibility. More and more cities are introducing demand management measures to restrict car-based journeys in the city centre, through access restrictions, environmental/low emissions zones, parking policy and to a lesser extent, road user charging. These measures are typically enforced using intelligent transport systems such as VMS and CCTV. Road network saturation is no longer confined to the typical morning and afternoon rush hour but can be found at other times of the day. Modal shift from car to sustainable modes (public transport or soft modes) is probably the single-most important transport objective of any city authority and is often accompanied by policies to encourage a reduction in transport demand. More and more city authorities are developing specific strategies and measures to minimise the impact of the transport of goods in urban areas, notably consolidation centres, small electric delivery vehicles and quiet night deliveries. There is a trend towards an improved understanding (and management) of people and goods movement rather than vehicle movement. The traffic management strategies in urban areas are designed to keep traffic flowing, to minimise delay and to maximise vehicle throughput at intersections. Measures to enhance the service performance of public transport are widespread, including bus lanes and bus priority at traffic lights. In order to increase the efficiency of the road network, integrated, multi-modal network management (mobility) centres are being set up which bring together the many agencies with a stake in road transport and mobility services, i.e., the traffic controllers, the public transport controllers, the transport police, travel information service providers, etc.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Traffic is monitored and managed mainly in urban centres and at important junctions in other parts of the city, mainly through roadside equipment such as loops, Automatic Number Plate Recognition and CCTV are used for monitoring, and traffic signals and VMS for traffic management purposes. A large part of the urban road network is not monitored/managed due to the high cost of installing, operating and maintaining infrastructure. Novel ways of gathering traffic data are starting to be implemented to complement and enhance existing tools, including, floating vehicle data (GSM, GPS and probe vehicles), CCTV and Automatic Vehicle Location data from public transport vehicles and taxis. Adaptive traffic management is common in the larger cities. This enables traffic controllers to manage intersections in an optimal way (i.e., maximising throughput) by adapting signal cycles based upon prevailing traffic volume and flow. The public and increasingly private sector are offering a wide range of travel information services. Pre-trip intermodal journey planners are offered by the larger cities and are starting to be taken up in the smaller cites. This service is not real-time (i.e., it is based on static public transport information and does not take account of prevailing traffic conditions). There is a growing interest in adding an emissions calculator to this service to enable travellers to know the CO2 impact of a journey. Real-time public transport information (bus/tram arrivals, etc) is becoming widespread and is mainly delivered to bus/tram stop information displays. Steps are being taken to provide such real-time information for intermodal trips. Information databases are used to establish a base for mobility management measures and Travel Plans (e.g. selection of potential users of car-pools; reservations for car-sharing schemes; creating mobility centres). Information to car drivers on traffic conditions comes in various forms: online congestion maps (provided mainly by the traffic control centre), VMS, radio broadcasts and satellite navigation systems. In order to provide journey time reliability to car drivers, traffic authorities are increasingly delivering travel times on important corridors. This is deemed more useful to drivers than simply saying that there is heavy congestion. In addition to providing information on traffic conditions and travel times, VMS also deliver other useful information including route guidance advice (avoiding environmental zones for instance), parking guidance, dynamic lane management (e.g., bus lane only in the event of heavy traffic) and speed advice (for safety and/or environmental reasons). Other non-information type mobility services using ICT include integrated ticketing and Smart cards, the operation of schemes such as public bicycles and car sharing. ADAS-type applications help drivers to drive more safely also in urban areas, although to identify the impact of these applications in the urban environment more detailed research

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

There is a growing desire among road authorities for traffic management systems to become proactive rather than the current reactive situation, e.g., predicting traffic flow and volume and taking pre-emptive measures to avoid incidents (traffic build up, air pollution peaks, etc) rather that reacting to traffic situations. This requires far greater infrastructure intelligence than currently exists, notably in terms of data collection, fusion and analysis; short-term traffic forecasting, modelling and decision support systems, etc.

9.3

Issues with current infra/Identification of problems

CEDR has compiled some basic experiences of national road authorities related to the deployment and operation of intelligent infrastructure and related services from the past. On the basis of this, CEDR has listed a number of "lessons learned" [14]. The CVIS project has identified a number of issues in current intelligent infrastructure and the potential of cooperative systems to solve them [15]. The following problems and issues were identified with also recommendations for addressing them has been compiled below. Corporate steering and view The experience is that the development of ITS was in the beginning a technology driven development. At several place within organizations staff started to deploy forms of ITS applications that meets with local problems. Local/Regional units procured their own developed systems by the industry. This implies in many cases a vendor lock to the supplier that helped in developing the systems in the first place. [14] Infrastructure has been deployed for standalone systems that are designed only for one purpose. [15] When at a later stage one realises that the problems become more (network) wide it appears to be extremely difficult to tune-up the different systems so that they can work together in an integrated way. [14]. The same problems also arise when the infrastructure is to be used for updated or totally different systems. [15] Hence, it is of extremely importance to steer top down and cooperate in the total developments and implementing of ITS. To increase the possibility of compatibility between systems and decrease the danger of a vendor lock one should develop a national and preferably international architecture on ITS. This makes it possible to have the same kind of equipments on the whole network. Another positive element is that there is the possibility to procure in cooperation with other road authorities (economy of scale). [14] The benefit of a cooperative systems platform in comparison to the existing infrastructure is that several applications can be implemented on the same cooperative platform, which require the same infrastructure: thus applications such as routing, tolling, or signal priority etc. currently requiring different infrastructures can all be implemented with the same cooperative platform. Additionally, the platform is designed for easy upgrades and changes to applications. [15] Financial ITS can have a high positive cost benefit rate. However, the systems and services have completely different technical and functional lifespan from what we are used to in our civil Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

are needed. Integration of applications to protect vulnerable road users, detect blind spots, are under development.

Normally maintenance and investments of roads and structures are in the budgeting. It is good to realise that due to the relatively high life-cycles costs of ITS application a separate budgeting for ITS applications is to be advised. [14] Improved quality By enabling intelligent infrastructure and the possibility of collecting floating car data, there are possibilities to collect more precise real-time data. Experience with taxis in Vienna shows that benefits for traffic management already become apparent when just 5% of the total fleet act as floating car data. This is in comparison to existing methods, which collect traffic flow data as average values based often on loop data, which provide a less precise picture of the network at specific spots only. Other methods to collect data from static count data provide an even less realistic picture of the network, which ultimately make traffic management more difficult. [15] Currently, video systems are used in order to keep track of traffic conditions in potential problem areas. Cooperative systems can help in this area by supplementing the information to better identify where problems are occurring on the whole network. [15] Vulnerability ITS systems are not made of concrete but ICT based applications. Similar to a desktop computer, they are generally reliable but vulnerable to failure, if they are not properly maintained. The applications operate in the somewhat harsh roadside environment, exposed to extremes of temperature and weather, which is usually when we need then to work at their best. [14] The consequences of the vulnerability of those systems need to be taken into account in the organization and towards the (road) users. [14] Communications Intelligent infrastructure services and the emerging cooperative systems will increase the use of the communications and radio communication frequencies. This may result in inadequate capacity of the communication networks especially in incident and congestion situations and when the services are utilising general-purpose communication networks instead of dedicated networks. As incident situations especially require well-functioning communication networks, the provision of sufficient communications capacity and bandwidth needs to be ensured.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

engineering practices. On top of that, the systems and services need to be operated, maintained and up-dated regularly. Consequently for ITS solutions one needs to take into account the whole life-cycle costs of the measures.

Future Intelligent Infrastructure

The development of new technologies in the areas of location, communications, sensors and control has been fast during the past years and will continue to do so in the next decades. In the domain of tags, sensors and communications, some key technologies being developed and taken into use in the next years are radio-frequency identification devices (RFIDs), smart-dust, 4G communications, mobile ad-hoc networks, wireless sensor networks, and sensors such as electrochemical, optical, semiconductor, bio- and nanodot sensors to be used e.g. for detecting the presence and magnitude of substances of different types on the road surface. Other key technologies are those for satellite, mobile phone and cellular network positioning, use of probe vehicles or Floating Car Data, pattern analysis, data mining, data fusion, information management, short and medium term prediction of transport related phenomena including road weather, artificial and ambient intelligence, driver and vehicle surveillance, real-time multimodal mobile information services, intelligent infrastructure management, autonomous and co-operative vehicle systems. Building on the advances in cooperative systems based on Vehicle-to-Vehicle and Vehicleto-Infrastructure communications and brought about by the paradigm shift in the connectivity of the vehicles, including wireless broadband and IPv6, we are fast moving towards an ubiquitous society, where everything is connected, through concepts, applications, services and Future Internet technologies, including Internet of Services, Internet of Things, Cloud Computing (Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service and Software as a Service) as well as other, currently abstract to the transport domain. The process is expected to be accelerated by leveraging European research investments on Future Internet technologies through developing comprehensive network infrastructures and service platforms. The all-pervasive comprehensive development should also drive the costs and prices down, allowing more cost-efficient deployment and operation of II services and the infrastructure required by them. This will open new horizons for Intelligent Infrastructure and related new services. The monitoring of the transport systems including the infrastructure, vehicles, goods and travellers as well as the services being operated will become more comprehensive and real-time resulting in more accurate current and forecasted information of the transport system and network status. This in turn will enable increased variety of II services as well as the enhanced quality of the services, which will in the end result in improved safety, mobility and environment for the people and goods. The roles and tasks of back office functions of the intelligent infrastructure such as traffic centres will also change. Currently, traffic management and information centres are the Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

9.4

9.5

How to grow to Intelligent Infrastructure

To deploy the intelligent infrastructure financial and legal issues need to be solved. A big problem with intelligent infrastructure is that the intelligent infrastructure and related services are provided and deployed by several stakeholders in a complex value network, which will change from one service to another. For this reason, an II service will not be deployed until all stakeholders required are willing to take the necessary steps towards deployment. Financing of the intelligent infrastructure is one of the critical issues due to the fact that the deployment will not start before substantial investments have been made to facilitate the communications and to establishing system that can be communicated with. The financing will depend on the value network of the specific service or services in question. This problem of every stakeholder waiting until the other stakeholders have decided to invest, resulting in a stalemate, is known as the chicken-and-egg problem. Some basic strategies from the infrastructure provider point of view can be identified for initiating the deployment of II services by improving the business model and case for the deployment at least for some of the stakeholders considerably, and thereby solving the chicken-and-egg problem: • start with the locations where the customers are o it is feasible to start a deployment of a service at locations, where many customers are concentrated in a restricted geographical area such as big cities or urban areas. This offers the possibility for large quantity deployment at a small area. o These areas are often also attractive for paid services (in combination with free of charge) offering various financial schemes. These area are also attractive to start with the intelligent infrastructure with moderate investments, and in many cases some infrastructure elements are in place already • start with the infrastructures available o for best cost efficiency, it is feasible to start with services that can utilise the existing communications and other infrastructures, such as e.g. the existing 2G/3G or GSM+GPRS/UMTS networks and the existing navigation devices and data bases. Often these infrastructures have been deployed where also the customers are, i.e. the first locations will be similar to those from the previous one. Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

nerve centres of most intelligent infrastructure services. In the future, many services may be outsourced by the public sector, including some of the traffic centre functions. Network operation by the traffic centres are likely taken to a different level than today, partly higher due to improved comprehensive data on the real time mobility of people and goods on the network level and partly also lower, more detailed due to possibility to target specific road user and traveller groups with cooperative services. We can also expect to see managed access to urban areas become the norm, as well as more focused management of parking and scheduled major events. [46]

•

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Investments will initially focus on the development of services itself creating momentum. Based on the created momentum additional services using the II can be developed having less risk and already customers avoiding the chicken and egg for additional investments. start with the locations where the problems are o in order to achieve maximum impacts, it is usually feasible to start with locations having exceptionally severe problems needing to be solved. Examples are intersections, which are accident black spots, tunnels and other sensitive spots where any incident may have critical consequences, and sections with recurrent congestion. This is especially the case for road authority services aimed to achieve policy goals, which are usually related to reducing the extent of road fatalities, congestion, greenhouse gases, mobility problems etc. o financing schemes within the context of policy objectives and safety give easier a positive cost/benefit ratio needed for road infrastructure investments. start with most important roads o road operators and authorities have a network operation policy and a road hierarchy, where key parts of traffic demand will be served with the most safe and efficient roads. For transport policy reasons, road operators need to attract as many road users to these highest road hierarchies such as the Trans-European Road Network or motorways in general. For private motorway operators, this is a natural policy. II services, which will make the roads equipped more attractive to use, would thereby be feasible to deploy especially on the high-class roads. o Economic important national and international roads offering services for efficient and reliable traffic should result in a positive business case and investments for the II. utilise opportunity linked to infrastructure replacement or development o the additional costs for new intelligent infrastructure are relatively small, if they are deployed to replace obsolete or faulty existing intelligent or unintelligent infrastructure, which must be replaced anyhow. Hence, in order to minimise deployment costs for new intelligent infrastructure, the deployments should be timed to coincide with the replacement of old infrastructure. o Building new transport infrastructure, the additional cost of intelligent infrastructure tends to be quite moderate and form only a fractional part of the infrastructure investment, which makes it easier to justify the additional investment. start with locations managed by visionaries o some persons and/or organisations are more open towards new ideas than others, and willing to invest in new solutions, which have the potential of fulfilling their objectives as well as improve their image. In many cases, the deployment has started with piloting and small-scale deployments supported by visionary road operators/authorities, service providers, and industry partners. o

In the deployment of intelligent infrastructure in practice, both roadside units and the back office (central system, traffic management centre) need to be looked at in coherence to achieve consistency. [15] In order to reduce costs and take advantage of existing infrastructure, cooperative roadside units can be adapted from existing roadside units. This way, legacy systems can be phased

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

Intelligent infrastructure services involve a multitude of stakeholders usually operating in a complex value network. In order for a service to get deployed, a shared responsibility will likely fail or lead to very slow deployment. Hence, there is a need for a leading stakeholder. The leading stakeholder can naturally vary also according to the life-cycle phase of the service in question. Concerning the stakeholders taking the lead, there are also a number of possibilities: • policy or regulator lead o the policy decision makers (EU, national governments) mandate the system/service or make the business case for II services more attractive by tax incentives or regulations concerning e.g. the grants or licences for proving communications or other infrastructure. This could be a feasible option for services having a considerable positive impact on policy objectives, but with high initial costs expected to drop drastically with largescale deployment • road operator or authority lead o the road operators and authorities decide to invest in intelligent infrastructure assuming that their initial investment will act as a catalyst for the other stakeholders to invest due to reduced risks and lower costs. This is a feasible option for all services having a considerable impact on the road operator/authority objectives in cases, where the necessary other stakeholders are available and have an interest in the services • public-private partnership (PPP) lead o the key public and private sector stakeholders in a value network of an II service or a group of II services decide together to invest in the deployment and operation of the service(s). The grouping of services to reach optimal portfolio of added value to the user as well as having the same infrastructure and main stakeholders is likely very important to a good PPP. PPP could be feasible in cases, where some of the services or parts of the service are essential for public policy objectives whereas the rest of the service(s) provide room for making business. • private stakeholder lead o a private stakeholder decides to invest in the intelligent infrastructure to facilitate the stakeholders own service provision and/or to make the infrastructure available to other stakeholders against a fee or royalty. This could be feasible in cases, where the service business potential is very high but the road operators/authorities and public sector actors are unwilling or unable to invest at least in the short term.

The different elements of the intelligent infrastructure have different lifecycles, some drastically shorter than the others. To make it trickier, these differences are not always easy to identify as they change on emerging technology solutions, the market penetrations of which can be surprisingly quick and comprehensive. In any case, the maintenance and possible replacement of ageing technology solutions must be prepared for financially. The central system or traffic management centre must be able to collect and process data (including fusion of data from different sources, cooperative and non-cooperative), and to communicate data to the RSU and the vehicles, which is readily usable by the driver. Existing traffic management centres can be upgraded with the necessary components for communication and data processing. [15] It is likely that when cooperative systems are deployed, they will be deployed step-wise as described above, with different starting points. For a local authority, the quick-win solution may be to include a priority application introduced over a particularly problematic stretch of road with several junctions: this way the local authority is required only to equip a few junctions, and thus only to provide a few roadside units. The vehicles, which are to gain priority, must install the equipment on board. This might be the quick-win solution for a local authority, but would be different for other stakeholders such as fleet managers. [15] The coverage of roadside units for cooperative systems depends on [15]: • The communication media used in the roadside units: communication media differ by price and range of communication e.g. cellular communication is expensive but wide-ranging, infrared is very short range but cheap. • The applications that are foreseen. • The network / roads in question (this will differ on urban / interurban roads dependent on the needs for the particular part of the network). • The legacy systems which are in place

9.6

Legal issues

Legal issues may also affect the deployment. Three main types of such issues are connected to intelligent infrastructure and related services: contractual, liability and privacy issues. These have been comprehensively analysed by e.g. SAFESPOT [47] and COMeSafety [9], which lists the following reasons for increased risk of legal issues for cooperative systems: • There are more parties involved, all with their own responsibilities for the proper functioning of elements of a co-operative system. • Growing technical interdependencies between vehicles, and between vehicles and the infrastructure, may also lead to system failure, including scenarios that may be characterised as an unlucky combination of events (“a freak accident”) or as a Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

out, and used until the end of their useful life. It is important to note that cooperative roadside units can be converted – and indeed work alongside – existing roadside units. [15]

Apart from questions of compensation of the losses of road users or other “third parties”, which are governed by non-contractual law (which was the primary focus of previous research projects addressing legal aspects of ADAS), as or even more important is the question of how risks will be distributed between the actors in the chain of manufacturing, service delivery and operation of cooperative systems (system manufacturers, suppliers, service providers, road managers, content providers, etc.) which is mainly governed by contract law and insurance. This question will also relate to types of damages of a more commercial nature such as losses of sales, recall costs, and business interruption. [47] Furthermore, the concept of data communication between vehicles and/or the infrastructure triggers questions about trace ability/storage of data (errors) and accompanying issues of legal evidence and privacy. Although these questions have been flagged in relation to ADAS, they have not been investigated thoroughly and are very relevant for cooperative systems. [47] A key question is how relevant information will be gathered, processed and certified and how ‘intelligence’ will be distributed between vehicles and infrastructure. Ideally, legal aspects should be evaluated based on detailed view of the roles and responsibilities of each actor in each application, what data is exchanged and how they all interact on a technical/functional basis. [47] The development of cooperative systems takes place in an international arena. Although some areas of law have been harmonized to an important extent (for example type approval standards for vehicles and product liability law), other areas such as liability of drivers/car owners (traffic liability) and road managers (liability for public roads) are still the exclusive domains of national law and substantial differences between national liability systems might exist. [47] The privacy issues are currently analysed by the eSafety Forum's eSecurity Working Group in collaboration with experts from the Data Protection Offices of the art. 29 Working Party on Data Protection, in order to produce a Code of Practice with recommendations on how to deal with privacy and data protection issues in the design of in-vehicle telematics and cooperative systems. The eSafety Forum’s eSecurity Working Group has developed a view on the main legal issues affected by cooperative systems [58]. This is a global view because exactly which elements characterize cooperative systems remains unclear at this point and this leads to difficulty of being unable to state exhaustively which legal consequence cooperative systems (also called interactive systems) will create in the future. Furthermore, specific legislation does not currently exist in this new field.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

failure for which the exact cause simply cannot be traced back (because of the technical complexity). Risks that cannot be influenced by the people who suffer the consequences tend to be judged less acceptable by society and, likewise, from a legal point of view.

Non-Privacy Legal Issues Interactive systems serve a number of purposes such as traffic safety, improving mobility, environmental protection, and comfort. In most cases – and this is relevant in terms of applications in the focus of eSafety – the purpose is to influence “driving” in a very broad sense. Such influence can be indirect via information provided to the driver. This is already the case with Driver Information Systems (e.g. navigation devices). Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) goes one step further by assisting vehicle control. This assistance currently remains overridable at any time. The legal situation for Driver Information Systems as well as ADAS has mostly been discussed in terms of the hampering effect the product liability risk will have. The PReVENT project1 developed ‘Response3’, a Code of Practice on safe ADAS development that can substantially minimise factual risks in terms of product liability for ADAS. This is achieved by applying knowledge from the past to the design of new technologies. Simply stated, the idea is mainly based on maintaining ‘controllability’ so that the driver can take over control in case of malfunctions. It also proposes an organisationally safe development process, which is described in detail. To a certain extent, this approach can be transferred to 1

http://www.prevent-ip.org

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

The Privacy Issue of Interactive Systems Some kind of Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) or Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) interaction or communication is a main characteristic of future interactive systems. Along with this type of interaction or communication goes the handling of data beyond the boundaries of single vehicles. In such applications, data might thus be collected inside and outside of vehicles, transmitted to and processed in special units in order to, for example, provide the driver or other vehicle systems with additional information not otherwise available. The data processed for this purpose can feature information closely linked to the sphere of the individual driver as well as the passengers. Therefore data protection legislation or rights, generally referred to as privacy issues, must be met during the design process and when running such applications. Use cases on existing in-vehicle road traffic systems therefore illustrate the effect that the principle of ‘privacy by design’ may have on system architecture and circumscribe the legal measures that have been identified or taken in terms of privacy for specific applications in the past. Future applications will increase the number of electronic systems processing data both inside and outside of vehicles. Therefore it is important to consider all personal data processing that a user will be confronted with, in both current and future systems, in order to assess specific demands for “privacy by design" in individual cases. On the other hand, it is important to note that the processing of personal data as such is permissible according to existing data protection regulations. Much, however, depends on how this is realised in an individual case. As long as data protection is taken seriously in system design and operational structures, no insurmountable barriers in terms of privacy will be encountered when implementing applications. In this respect, electronic security (eSecurity) is an important instrument that can improve privacy considerably by securing the processing of personal data against illegitimate access.

Enforcement of cooperative systems will become a specific issue and needs to be discussed and studied. It is not experienced in practice how in-car services offering strict guidance/information by authorities can/should be enforced. Experience could be obtained from the German Tolling/Mautsystem. Basically, legal aspects are a basic design element of the intelligent infrastructure and related services. The possible issues should be addressed also in the design phase, depending on the service, its value network and the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders involved. For instance, if each stakeholder has its won restricted liability, an auditable trace of events should be stored for eventual legal proceedings in case of accidents or malfunctions to detect the responsible stakeholder(s). [52]

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

‘interactive’ applications, even though the Response 3 Code of Practice was not initially issued for this purpose. The development of interactive applications will, as is presently foreseeable, take the same development path and start off by simply informing the driver, and then at a later stage contribute to the operation of “assisting” applications. This leads to the strong conclusion that interactive applications in vehicles will not bring about product liability risks too large to be handled. However, what is new in the case of interactive systems is the existence of technical devices beyond the vehicle itself, e.g. computing at the roadside or within service-providing organisations that are possibly integrated into the wireless communication network. These technical structures will probably be at least as subject to failure as current purely vehiclebased systems. In case of failure, depending on the architecture chosen, the provider of these services might well run the risk of being charged with liability. This would, in most cases, be based on a negligent or intentional breach in the execution of a service provider’s duty. For example, in Germany such claims might be based on section 823 paragraph 1 BGB (German Civil Code) [59]. Yet this possibly critical finding must be considered with the above-mentioned experience on Driver Information Systems and ADAS: Until now the driver must be considered responsible for driving. He is therefore obliged to react with attention to information, even if its faults are not immediately recognisable. Therefore any excessive reactions to information provided by ‘interactive’ applications that lead to damage must – as is the case for Driver Information Systems or ADAS – be considered contributory to the negligence of the driver. In most cases, this will, if not achieved otherwise, relieve the manufacturer as well as the service provider completely from being charged with liability. Therefore the issue of liability is definitely existent but can be estimated to be manageable for the foreseeable Driver Information Applications and overridable ADAS. A close assessment of the actual risk should, however, be made on the basis of every specific application’s design and designated architecture, as the rough estimation at hand can only be considered a first approximation. It is therefore recommended to make further investigation on liability issues when interactive applications beyond informing systems, such as those with immediate impact on driving, are considered. This is needed to understand and monitor the effects that systemintroduction will have.

Issues related to future Intelligent Infrastructure

As evident from the work of the eSafety Intelligent Infrastructure Working Group, there is not clear single deployment strategy all over Europe. There is a clear need to have some “champions” as the starters up and drivers of the deployment. For the infrastructure operators, the investments tend to have much longer life span than to commercial system and service providers. The current status of infrastructure operator and authority economies emphasise the need to find cost-effective deployment strategies. It is likely very wise to look both locally and nationally for suitable "windows of opportunity" that suddenly may appear facilitating quick start-up of deployment. The "low hanging" fruit should be picked up first, e.g. the systems based on existing technologies and equipment. In this respect, nomadic and aftermarket device based solutions may offer faster deployment potential than other solutions. It seems worthwhile to discuss, develop and try out new effective strategies for the total chain from research to deployment to avoid discontinuities and organisational problems and to achieve a long-term commitment from all key stakeholders in the service development and deployment. New governance and financial structures are essential themes in this context. ELSA is an initiative trying to develop such strategies.

Conclusions The intelligent infrastructure and related services involve many combinations of organisations and technologies. The complex multi-stakeholder deployment and operation require new kind of thinking and new business models. At least in a smaller local, regional or national scale, the deployment can be accomplished as illustrated by many examples. The strategy of deployment will differ by country depending on the existing road side equipment - countries with a large installed base of legacy equipment may be much slower than those which can start from scratch. Larger-scale European deployment faces many challenges and today, many possible paths exist with different organisational and financial models. These paths will differ by country and by type of system/infrastructure. We need to develop business models capable of dealing with the financial issues during the whole life cycle of the systems. Other major deployment issues such as privacy aspects and legal aspects should be solved already in the design phase. When data protection is taken seriously in system design and operational structures, no insurmountable barriers in terms of privacy will be encountered when implementing applications. Electronic security (eSecurity) is an important instrument for this. The issue of liability is definitely existent but seems to be manageable for the foreseeable Driver Information Applications and overridable ADAs.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

9.6

10.1 Definition of Intelligent vehicle It is usual to talk about “intelligent” vehicles or “intelligent infrastructures”, when technologies are used, integrated and applied, which can be characterised as “intelligent”. Intelligent vehicle technologies comprise electronic, electromechanical, and electromagnetic devices – usually silicon micro-machined components operating in conjunction with computer controlled devices and radio receivers. These intelligent technologies have precision repeatability, emergency warning validation, communication between vehicles or between a vehicle and an infrastructure, instantaneous road information and they monitor, gather information, measure against thresholds/limits, evaluate, inform, suggest, adapt, or interfere according to how they have been programmed. A key starting point has been safety. The architects of intelligent vehicle have used the time-horizon-to-crash approach of the figure below when classifying the intelligent vehicle and infrastructure applications.

Figure 11: Classification of applications for intelligent vehicle and infrastructure [picture ACEA]

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

10 The Intelligent Vehicle

Some of the systems are deployed with pure market mechanisms, whereas some of the systems have been mandated or have been targeted for regulations and recommendations. The status of some of the systems is given in the figure below.

Figure 12: The classification of systems according to the regulation mechanisms (green = recommendations for use, brown = regulated when fitted, red = regulation/mandating, (P) = regulation is planned [picture ACEA]

10.2 The II link with Intelligent Vehicles Intelligent vehicles require an intelligent infrastructure but also an educated and trained driver. A poor physical infrastructure (like many roads in underdeveloped markets but also still in many areas in Europe) can never be compensated by intelligent vehicles and only partly by experienced drivers. Similarly, the benefits of an intelligent infrastructure are not exploited by very simple, robust, and mechanical transport means. Intelligent vehicles and intelligent infrastructure require well-trained and responsible drivers to arrive at safe mobility as misbehaviour and violation of traffic rules can only be indicated but not fully compensated by technologies. Strict control and enforcement of a legal framework are, consequently, also elements of safe mobility.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

A detailed description of intelligent vehicle and infrastructure related systems has been given in the eSafety Forum's Implementation Road Maps Working Group [1].

Car connectivity is a step further when vehicles form an information- and communication network with parts of an infrastructure or among themselves (V2V, V2I) in order to support the driving task. The connected traveller is guided with real time and dynamic travel and traffic information around the clock in order to reach his destination in less time, with less energy, and less risk based on better information. In the long-term future the driverless car concept embraces an emerging family of highly automated cognitive and control technologies, ultimately aimed at a full “taxi-like” experience for car users, but without a human driver. Developments, tests and demonstrations are taking place in the field towards automated driving and with the current objective of reducing shockwaves. Example is the experiment, which took place in February 2010 on the A270 highway between Helmond and Eindhoven. The aim of the experiments was to demonstrate the potential of cooperative systems intended to improve the traffic flow on highways. These experiments show that cooperative systems can help reducing congestion. During the experiments a cooperative advisory system is used that communicates between vehicles. The results of the experiments are unique. The traffic flow of the vehicles with the advisory system increases on average with 12%. In some experiments the traffic flow benefit of the vehicles with the advisory system is over 25%! Together with alternative propulsion, it is seen by some as the main technological challenges and advance in car technology in the decades to come. Many problems are still to overcome in the areas of sensor technologies, navigation, motion planning and control but also in the social acceptance area.

10.3 Deployment of intelligent vehicles Concerning deployment of the applications and services described above no reliable statistics are available. Nevertheless, some trends can be identified. Concerning an intelligent infrastructure the EU is far behind its objectives; Galileo is considerably delayed even though some progress seems to be made in the recent months. Private road operators or PPPs were the first to upgrade infrastructure while most public authorities have been lagging behind. Current EC green and white papers have no real binding character and due to further public budget restriction not much can be expected short-term. Concerning vehicle equipment, the following deployment status information is available [Info ACEA)]: Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

In the past the vehicle was only communicating to the driver via its on-board systems (e.g. road surface sensor was warning of “ice on the road”). Vehicle sensors first measured the immediate vehicle environment to warn the driver accordingly but are now expanded to cover greater distances (e.g. obstacle warnings, distance warning). Connection to the outside world took place via an integrated or mobile phone or by receiving relevant information via broadcast.

II WG Final Report

Table 15: Deployment status vehicle equipment

System ABS (Anti-locking Brake System) ACC (Adaptive Cruise Control), ADAS, Lateral support Adaptive headlight ECall ESC (Electronic Stability Control) Navigation systems

Speed Alert

Deployment status Almost 100% penetration in spite of no regulation Penetration still below 1%, started with higher level vehicles About 15% equipment rate of new vehicles (2007) but strong growth expected Currently only private service with below 1% car park penetration. Mandatory introduction not expected before 2014 More than 50% of all new vehicles, mandatory by 2012 for new vehicles 15% of new vehicles with on-board navigation systems (2006) plus 12 million nomadic systems; Strong growth for PNDs (2007 up 46% to 18 million devices sold in Europe) (globally 39 mil. +132%); From RDS TMC -> TPEG* -> TAP (TPEG Automotive Profile)** Currently mainly speed limiters, CC, ACC systems; Low penetration but growth expected due to speed enforcement cost; Almost all new PNDs have speed warning information

As also indicated in the table above, one way to bring intelligence to the vehicle is to have the driver (or traveller) to bring the intelligence with him/herself in a nomadic device - a navigator, smart phone, etc. It is apparent that such devices will be increasingly applied also in traffic and transport applications. As the prices of such devices are relatively low, the deployment of some intelligent infrastructure services such as the traveller information services is expected to be drastically accelerated via the nomadic devices. So far, nomadic devices are also the only feasible alternative to equip pedestrians and two-wheeled vehicles with many of the intelligent systems and services. Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) allows electronic payment of toll for motorways or allows imposing specific road pricing on mobility in particular urban or interurban areas. ETC was one the first cooperative services ever deployed and nowadays it is, more and more, considered as a mature technology. Today ETC is still the only successful “cooperative” application that was able to reach several million users having an On Board Unit. This kind of technology cuts queues/delays on toll stations and consequently avoids the pollution from the “stop-and-go” traffic. The roadside equipment checks all vehicles, it discriminates whether the cars passing are equipped with on-board units or not and starts the enforcement process for those vehicles Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Figure 13: Penetration of ETC on-board units in national markets

Concerning the actual cooperative systems, different deployment road maps have been drafted by different R&D projects. The road map by SAFESPOT is shown below indicating the move from driver support in the strategic level with information and navigation towards driver support in the operational level with time critical systems and services. At the same time, the enabling infrastructures in the form of the cooperative platform must be developed and deployed to facilitate this change. According to this, for example, cooperative safety warning systems may first be provided on nomadic devices using long-range cellular networks for communication.

See http://www.asecap.com/english/documents/ASECAP_ENCHIFFRE_000.pdf

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

that are not. Vehicles that have a valid on-board unit are charged with the due amount (through the bank accounts of the contract owners) without stopping the vehicle. Figure 13 shows the penetration of ETC in European markets according ASECAP statistics.

II WG Final Report

Cooperative platform Cellular + short range

Cellular communication GPS (50m/5m)

Dual frequency GPS (1m/5cm)

Static digital map

Local Dynamic Map

tactical

warning

seconds

Navigation with RTTI Local hazard & Incident warning

operational

time critical

Dynamic speed limit warning

Cooperative Emergy breaking

CRASH!

2005

Intersection safety warning

SAFESPOT

Service centre + intelligent RSU’s

CVIS & Coopers

Factory fit

Service centre (centralised)

msec. 1 sec.

strategic

information

minutes

Nomadic + factory fit

2010

2015

2020

Figure 14: Cooperative system deployment road map as proposed by SAFESPOT [57]

10.4 Requirements by electric vehicles Electric vehicles (EV) have specific requirements from the Intelligent Infrastructure. An Intelligent Infrastructure for EVs needs to include: • the vehicles as such that will emit, process and receive specific information; therefore all on-board systems must be compatible with the II technology and comply with the respective standards • the service providers in terms of roadside telecommunication installations, process centres, smart grid & service providers, accounting services, navigation-, traffic management and control centres, etc. • the electric energy providers with particular focus on renewable sources (wind, solar, water, etc.). At the outset of a journey, the EV needs to communicate the vehicle’s “pre-trip” constellation, such as battery capacity & status, load/weight, and destination to a service provider (via II and Control Centres) in order to initiate a trustworthy Grid to Electric vehicles (G2EV) -inclusion and data transfer from service providers to EVs; traffic navigation & floating car data will seamlessly be transferred via this link. “On-trip”, the II will assist in comparing the battery status and average E-consumption rate against the traffic situation on the selected route and recommend the nearest free socket for a quick-load and book the socket, if necessary (E-Horizon, E-Navigation). Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

It is obvious that the II services must be able to operate in real time mode, process multiparameter information (hierarchical and distributed intelligence) that is distributed in space and time (spatio-temporal signal processing), it must be scalable (varying number of vehicles) and it calls for specific standards regarding operation as well as legal and privacy issues. The II equipment should include self-learning architectures that allow the prediction of the behaviour of system participants. Further specific features of the II for EVs comprise the: • predictive maintenance of EVs • coupling with the Smart Grid • connection to the energy efficient buildings (where, when, how much) • support the choice of energy (green power, etc.) Conclusions The strong link between intelligent vehicle and intelligent infrastructure means that the development of intelligent vehicles will influence the intelligent infrastructure on one hand by setting requirements to the infrastructure and on the other hand by providing new elements in the infrastructure and replacing some conventional parts of it in the long run. In the end, the intelligent vehicle and infrastructure will be fully integrated. Nomadic and aftermarket devices will have strong roles in the deployment during the next decade as these facilitate much faster deployment and fleet penetrations than OEM systems. This will influence the deployment strategies considerably. It needs to be considered that changes to intelligent vehicles are usually commercially driven and can thereby be quick in comparison to changes in intelligent infrastructure. This in turn will thereby need to be future proof as the stakeholders responsible for the intelligent infrastructure are not willing to remake the infrastructure investments due to each intelligent vehicle technology change.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

After switching-off the motor, the II will provide the requisite dockside services, such as “post-trip” charging, accounting and possible reverse charging (E-Infrastructure, EAccounting).

11.1

Introduction to system architecture

The long-term objective is to have intelligent infrastructure services operating and benefiting their users seamlessly across geographical and organisational borders in Europe, and preferably globally. To reach this kind of interoperability, one clear prerequisite is system architecture. System architecture is also helpful in making the systems as future proof as possible. The main objectives for preparation of the system architecture for ITS (called ITS architectures) are the efficient implementation of ITS as an integrated system, securing of the common use of information, system expandability, and promotion of domestic and international standardisation and tools. According to EasyWay [10], the promotion of the importance of using systems architecture in deployment projects aims at: • Formation of shared views about ITS • Identification and confirmation of stakeholders' aspirations for the services that the ITS implementation is going to deliver • Study of alternative system configurations that can deliver the services and identification of any issues surrounding their use in the eventual deployment • Selection of the most appropriate system configuration to deliver the services and reasoning for it having been chosen • Outline (high-level) plans for ITS development and deployment • Promotion of standardisation activities A key issue in the deployment of services by European ITS is what makes a service European. Usually the national or regional implementations of such European services must contain a number of common elements at least for the users, but the national deployments would certainly also benefit from other commonalities, which result in standardized or at least harmonised solutions and Europe-wide competition in the provision of such services. In other words, European ITS services require common open systems architecture on a suitable and acceptable level for all major stakeholders. [10] It should be noted that new architectural approaches are assuming a collaborative perspective for European ITS architectures. This emergent perspective is based on a growing expectation for solutions offering integrated services and involving a network of transport related stakeholders. These stakeholders are already organized in collaborative networks (based on ad-hoc or proprietary cooperation mechanisms), and offer added value services promoting the full utilisation of existing infrastructures and systems. As an example, an insurance company might use an advanced on-board-unit (OBU) connected to the vehicle CAN bus to access insurance probe data, supporting thereby innovative insurance models. However, such collaborative networked stakeholders perspectives require further research and development considering the cooperation among multi-vendor systems deployed by the participating stakeholders and considering both road and backIntelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

11 Architecture, protocols and standards

Another European development aims at a European-Wide Service Platform (EWSP). The EWSP will potentially fulfil the expectations and needs of all travellers in Europe, wherever they are geographically, whatever access terminal they are using, and whatever the transport mode. The service deployment of the EWSP consists of subsystems like service development, service offerings, service discovery and operations as well as of authorisation/ authentication, subscriptions/ identification, payment/ billing/ charging and CRM in order to have full independence from existing service concepts of today. [48] The framework ITS architecture comprises - to different levels of details typically the following components: [10] • Assessment of user needs based on stakeholder aspirations • Functional viewpoint with identification of the functionality needed to fulfil the stakeholder aspirations • Physical viewpoint showing where the functionality will be located and the components to be used for its implementation • Communication viewpoint that identifies the requirements for the links between the functionality in the physical locations and with the outside world, which includes the users • A high-level Information or Data architecture and data management requirements, including such things as the need for security and privacy • Organisational viewpoint that identifies the issues arising from the ownership, operation and regulation of the components identified in the physical viewpoint • High-level deployment plan showing when the deployment each component and communications link will be needed and what should happen to any existing components and communications links • Cost-benefit studies for the ITS implementation, including an outline financial profile based on the high-level deployment plan • Risk analysis identifying what could go wrong with the whole ITS implementation and who should be responsible for taking action to mitigate the impacts Some key components of the ITS architecture are described shortly below [12]. Functional Viewpoint The Functional Viewpoint describes the conceptual structure of the logical behaviour of the system. The overall requirements are analysed and covered by several well-distinguished functionality that fulfil all the user needs that provide a formal description of the stakeholder aspirations. By determining a set of required functionality, duplicated processes are Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

office operations of the stakeholders. There may also be opportunities for the vehicle related data obtained by the insurance company to be shared with other ITS stakeholders, thus avoiding the same data being collected by different organisations, each using their own form of OBU and roadside infrastructure. Therefore in the future, an innovative intelligent infrastructure should address not only the cooperation among and between roadside and vehicle systems but also the collaboration among transport related stakeholders participating in mobility services on a pan-European basis.

Physical Viewpoint The Physical Viewpoint describes the allocation of the functionality described in the Functional Viewpoint to physical units (called components), and the communication paths between them. Functional areas are mapped and allocated within specific physical locations that are available for the deployment of ITS. Once the different physical locations needed by the components have been established, the necessity of certain communication links between the physical elements becomes clear. [12] Communications Viewpoint The Communications Viewpoint describes the requirements for the communications links needed between the components identified in the Physical Viewpoint. The requirements cover not only such things as estimated bandwidth, but also the need for the channels to allow the components to be mobile, required security and data privacy considerations. The Communications Viewpoint should enable the standards to which the links must conform to be identified and if none are suitable the need for the development of new standards. Organisational Viewpoint A large and/or complex ITS implementation may need to have an Organisational Viewpoint to identify the key stakeholders and show their relationships and responsibilities. The structure of this Viewpoint should reflect the high-level Functional and Physical Viewpoints so that the division of responsibilities takes place in a natural manner, with no gaps. For any ITS implementation, the key stakeholders can vary depending on local conditions and circumstances. There will invariably be some government involvement, for example, in relation to meeting relevant regulations, health and safety and environmental standards, and building consents etc. But when ITS is implemented on private sites (e.g. airports, leisure parks) it will generally be subject to less government involvement than ITS implemented on transport mechanisms to which the public has access. In addition the different political structures used in different countries will influence which particular authorities are responsible for overseeing that regulations are met, and managing the roads and public transport operations etc. And in most countries, different agencies are responsible for the national roads and the roads in cities. [12] For European ITS implementations the European ITS Framework Architecture (often called the FRAME Architecture) [49] provides the starting point for the creation of individual national, regional or project ITS architectures. Whilst It conforms to the precepts of subsidiary, and thus does not mandate any structure on a Member State, it covers most ITS applications and services that are currently being used or considered, and now includes the Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

avoided, and compatibility between all ITS implementations from the ITS architecture is ensured. The Functional Viewpoint also identifies what data should be stored for use by a number of functions and the access to it that these functions will require as well as what data will need to be gathered from the outside world and transmitted between the functions. At the end, ITS with a well-defined Functional Viewpoint is easier to implement, presents less drawbacks to expansion of the services, and covers efficiently all the requirements.

It is also important to note Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA). SOAs are software architectures that start with an interface definition and build the entire application topology as a topology of interfaces, interface implementations and interface calls. Such a SOA is also a relationship of services and service consumers, with both software modules large enough to represent a complete business function. Due to its design features like loose coupling, SOA seems especially suited for services deployment and usage from devices only sporadically linked to the Internet. Flexibility in partnering, use of services currently available, update of services to address regional or actual requirements is just some of the features provided by the use of service-oriented architectures. [51]

11.2

European ITS Communications Architecture

COMeSafety [9] has described the possible set of services and communications mechanisms that will be needed for the future implementation of ITS across Europe, particularly when it includes cooperative systems. The document [9] combines two approaches which have been performed in parallel: A top-down approach for an overall high level framework of a European ITS Architecture, i.e. the FRAME Architecture [XX], and a parallel technical proof of concept for single system definitions of that framework within the EU research and development projects COOPERS, CVIS and SAFESPOT. These projects are collaborative efforts of project consortia and therefore include varying levels of functionalities, depending on which partners have worked together in each consortium. For this reasons the technical and functional definitions have a “centre of gravity” for each of the projects. Apart from these centres of gravity, there is also in future space for further functionalities and elements of the system definition. The COOPERS project was focussed on bi-directional data network with strong centralized functionality. The operator of the data network (and road infrastructure network) has the main responsibility for collecting, processing, coding and distribution of high quality traffic information for road safety relevant information to the travellers. Therefore the operator assures service quality, continuity and improvements with the data network built and operated for this purpose and extended to be able to communicate traffic management information in the best and direct way to the driver. CVIS focussed on generally a peer-to-peer type of network with changing communications mechanisms, characteristics of responsibility and roles between partners involved. System responsibilities for set-up, service operation and improvement will be defined according to business and deployment models developed in the coming phases of the project. SAFESPOT emphasised a vehicular ad-hoc network (VANET) based on accidental meetings between network nodes (vehicles), which have roles in the data communication depending on the specific scenario. The main responsibilities will generally not be defined Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

functionality that supports the implementation of cooperative systems. It, and the tools to support its use, is freely available from www.frame-online.net.

Applications are classified in [9] as vehicle based applications and infrastructure-based applications. In the first case the vehicle is able to elaborate and fuse raw data from infrastructure, other vehicles and own sensors and then to define the warning to the driver. This kind of application could be seen as extended ADAS applications (e.g. cooperative collision warning). In the second case the vehicles are providing raw data to the infrastructure that elaborates specific warnings to be provided to the drivers. This second class is conceptually close to the COOPERS viewpoint. A SAFESPOT vehicle is able to manage contemporarily the two classes of applications. In case of multiple applications providing warnings at the same time it is the responsibility of the vehicle to present the highest priority messages according to a predefined classification. European ITS Communication Architecture components The European ITS Communication Architecture (see Figure 2) is a communication system designed for ITS and made of four physically separated subsystem components: • The vehicle subsystem component • The roadside subsystem component • The central subsystem component • The personal or mobile subsystem component

Figure 15: European ITS Communication Architecture - Components

These components are inter-linked by a communication network. The communication network is typically made of a backbone network and a number of edge networks and Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

for long periods but rather for short time frames related to a network session classified applications into two different categories.

The ITS Station Each of the four components described in Figure 2 contains an ITS Station (respectively Vehicle Station, Roadside Station, Central Station and Personal Station) and usually a gateway connecting the ITS Station to legacy systems (respectively Vehicle Gateway, Roadside Gateway and Central Gateway). An ITS Station comprises a number of ITSspecific functions and a set of devices implementing these functions (by ITS-specific we mean the necessary functions in order to communicate with other ITS communication architecture components and provide the required services). For the sake of clarity and referring to the bottom-left part of Figure 2 showing an example of an implementation of the ITS Station on-board the vehicle: the functions of a Vehicle Station may in one implementation be split onto several physically separated nodes communicating over a local area network (LAN) e.g. Ethernet within the vehicle. The communication function would be supported by a communication node (a mobile router) in charge of communication with outside the vehicle whereas the applications delivering the services may be supported by a number of other dedicated nodes (vehicle hosts). In another implementation instance, a unique node may support both the communication functions and the applications. Communication Scenarios The communication network allows for any ITS component to communicate with any other ITS component (in theory; in practice some scenarios wouldn't make sense with today's knowledge). The communication could be performed directly between two ITS component instances or indirectly multi-hopping via intermediate ITS component instances. For instance, vehicles could communicate with one another without involving any of the other components (ad-hoc type of communication); in another more general instance, vehicles could communicate with servers either directly reachable through the communication network or reachable through the roadside or even another vehicle (Internet-based type of communication). Each component has to obey to a number of rules in order to communicate with other components in a particular communication scenario. All components must be able to communicate with one another at some point in time in their lifetime in order to exchange some information, such as identifiers, credentials, security key, map update, toll payment, etc. For doing so, it is necessary that all components be inter-linked by a communication network using the same communication language, what is referred to as a protocol. This protocol must be of a widespread reach and use and must be independent from any of the wireless or wired access network technologies and must also accommodate all types of applications. Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

access networks. Communications are performed over a wide range of wireless or wired communication media. Any number of instances in each of the subsystems can be connected through the communication network. This means that there can be as many vehicles, mobile hand-held devices, roadside and central servers as needed for any specific purpose. Thus, the architecture allows both for direct vehicle-to-vehicle ad-hoc networks as well as infrastructure-based systems or any combination thereof.

11.3

Specifications and standards

According to CVIS [50], the presence of a consolidated set standards is unanimously recognized as one of the main enablers to make the ITS cooperative systems a deployable reality. Several actors are involved in standard related activities: • ETSI collaborates with the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) and the European Commission to secure the radio spectrum required for Intelligent Transport Systems. In 2008 ETSI created the Technical Committee on Intelligent Transport Systems (ETSI TC ITS) • In ISO, TC 204 is working on ITS and is linked to CEN TC278 through common working groups; • Also ISO TC22 is working on in-car equipment. • The European Commission has an eSafety initiative • CEN TC278 has developed the DSRC base standards, upon which the ETSI work is based. • ITU-R is developing recommendations on ICT use in ITS • ITU-T has a co-ordination group on Intelligent Transport Systems • IEEE is developing IEEE 802.11p (also known as Wireless Access in a Vehicular Environment (WAVE)), 802.16 • IETF has work on Network Mobility (NEMO)

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

The Internet Protocol (IP) serves this purpose. Using IP (Internet Protocol) for the European ITS Communication Architecture brings a number of benefits, including the possibility to interoperate ITS components with the legacy Internet. By decreasing costs and increasing revenue, it would ease the deployment of the ITS services. IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) is the version to be used due to its many benefits. The deployment of IPv6-based ITS communications is driven by: • operational and technical reasons, e.g. IPv6 provides the features that meet ITS requirements, and the current IPv4 is not capable of being expended to include the growing number of devices using the Internet, • economical reasons (interoperability with other communication systems; relatively few currently deployed systems operating in IPv4; off the shelf equipment available in IPv6 and wide-spread know-how in internet technologies as compared to a dedicated ITS network relying on another technology), • political reasons (incentives to deploy IPv6 in order to boost European competitiveness), and • societal reasons (the Internet is deployed everywhere and there is no reason why the ITS communication network would not be part of the overall Internet. It will ultimately simplify the living of everyone as it would allow the interoperability of the ITS communication system with other communication systems such as for example healthcare and emergencies).

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party 29 is working on harmonization of vehicle regulations and held a round table on ITS in 2004

The European Commission Mandate M/453 invited the European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) - CEN, CENELEC and ETSI – to prepare a coherent set of standards, specifications and guidelines to support European Community wide implementation and deployment of Co-operative Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). CEN and ETSI have formally accepted the Mandate. CEN and ETSI will develop standards (EN) and technical specifications and guidelines requested as far as possible within the timescale required in the Mandate. Mandate M/453 requires standardisation development within a short time frame including standards for, • technical specifications, • guidelines in the areas of communication • information, applications and security The first report of the ESOs based on the mandate will include [56]: • Objective and policy background • Definition of co-operative ITS • Spectrum issues –legal environment • Standardisation environment o CEN –ETIS activities o Relation to European R&D projects –FOTs and industry o Relation to other standards organisations •

Work program –minimum set of standards o Allocation of responsibility o Potential functionalities and economic impact o Roadmap for execution of plan o CEN-ETSI cooperation o Liaison and open consultation o Financial support requirements

The minimum set of standards will include • General Standards (number of standards: 4) o Architecture o Common data dictionary • Testing conformance and interoperability • Applications –V2V and V2I (10) • Facilities (15) o CAM and DNM o LDM o HMI support • Network and Transport (11) • Access and media (5) Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

•

Management (7) Security (12)

CEN and ETSI have agreed [56] to jointly develop the response and work programme under this Mandate. This work programme also defines an agreed split of responsibility between CEN and ETSI as well as a detailed description of the ongoing cooperation between the two ESOs. • General standards o Communication architecture > ETSI o Framework architecture > CEN o Common data dictionary > CEN +ETSI • Application standardisation > CEN with ETSI involvement • Facilities > ETSI with CEN involvement • Network –transport –GeoNetworking > ETSI • Access and media > ETSI • Management and Security > ETSI • Test specifications > ETSI As requested in the Mandate, the standardisation work will require extensive cooperation and liaisons with European and National R&D projects, European industry and other stakeholders including the automotive industry, road operators and road authorities in order to ensure that the results of ongoing R&D activities and stakeholder knowledge and experience are brought into the standardisation process. [50] ETSI has specified a roadmap for the standardisation process [56].

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

• •

II WG Final Report Figure 16: ETSI standardisation roadmap

The European Commission Decision (2008/671/EC) on the harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 5875-5905 MHz frequency band for safety-related applications of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) was adopted on 5 August 2008. Its purpose is to harmonise the conditions for the availability and efficient use of the frequency band 5.875-5.905 MHz for safety related applications of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in the European Community. Following the EC Decision, the Member States shall, not later than six months after entry into force of this Decision, designate the frequency band 5.875-5.905 MHz for Intelligent Transport Systems. This EU decision, by creating a regulatory certainty corresponding to market demand and policy makers’ expectations, indirectly, accelerated the ETSI TC ITS standardisation activity with the objective of achieving interoperability by identifying a common ITS network architecture, by consolidating vehicular communications such as geonetworking and by developing profile standards addressing PHY/MAC layers. [50]

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

A large-scale deployment of intelligent and cooperative vehicle and infrastructure systems and services will benefit from an agreed upon open service platform for both the vehicle and roadside. The intelligent vehicle domain must work seamlessly together with the intelligent infrastructure domain. Hence, we need the interoperability enabled by a common overall architecture and harmonised solutions. These harmonised solutions should then be formalised into standards committing the industrial partners as well as the authorities. Based on earlier examples such as TMC, we need in addition to the standards also guidelines and regulations on how the standard are to be applied. The technologies already widely available and used should be always utilised, where possible. Proprietary elements should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Technology is evolving continuously and providing improved solutions. This development should not be hindered. Open system architecture with well-defined, future-proof interfaces between service modules and elements will enable future-proof solutions. Conclusions

A robust architecture is an essential prerequisite in integrating the diverse range of applications and services new technologies can deliver to ensure efficient and managed operation and a satisfactory end user experience. There is a strong need to ensure that full and seamless interoperability exists at each of the organisational, functional, physical, security and communication levels. A sound architecture is key in meeting this objective, both now and for the future. These harmonised solutions should be formalised into standards making all stakeholders committed. Road authorities and operators should be more involved in the standardisation process. It is essential that different standardisation bodies work in good cooperation and aim towards global standardisation concerning technologies and solutions for intelligent vehicles and infrastructure. Mandate M/453 invited the European Standardisation Organisations - CEN, CENELEC and ETSI – to prepare a coherent set of standards, specifications and guidelines to support European Community wide implementation and deployment of Co-operative Intelligent Transport Systems.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

11.4 Issues related to Architecture and standards

The primary objective is to support stakeholders to achieve their objectives to improve mobility, contribute to energy efficiency and increase road safety by deploying beneficial and cost-efficient Intelligent Infrastructure (II) services. Stakeholders should always keep an eye on the user; in the end these II services are being developed for the user. The recommendations in this chapter aim for large-scale deployment of the II services via the deployment of the II laying the foundation for the services. Without II, the services could not be provided. In order to reap the full potential of the introduction of II such efforts need to be complemented by the development and parallel introduction of intelligent vehicles, meaning intelligent in-vehicle and nomadic systems. The recommendations given in this chapter are not categorized per stakeholder, because most recommendations cover all or at least a number of stakeholders. Road authorities and/or operators should take a leading role in the intelligent infrastructure, but it is important for all stakeholders to find a good way to collaborate. The stakeholders have to cooperate in a strategic way, for example by establishing a platform aimed at the development of a common vision and business models. The figure below illustrates the different elements in the deployment process. Service

Technology Stakeholders Business model

Value network

Assessment

Agreement Development and implementation strategies

Figure 17: Deployment process elements

The recommendations given in this chapter follow this structure to a large extent. Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

12 Recommendations for the deployment of Intelligent Infrastructure

Services

12.1.1

Cooperative systems/services should be considered as a tool supporting the policy objectives of public authorities (related to safety, reliability, capacity, energy consumption and/or emissions of the transport system, or the promotion of public transport, and non-motorised travel) and the strategic and commercial objectives of the private sector i.e. stakeholders and deployment partners. The choice of priority services should reflect a balance of both objectives with an emphasis on those of the deployment partners. The categorisation/characterization of roads should be taken into account as fundamental criteria when providing/implementing Intelligent Infrastructure services Safety critical services should be implemented in conformity to appropriate safety standards The functionalities of services should be described in an illustrative manner highlighting the impacts on the users as well as on the policy objectives. The priority lists of services should be agreed upon at short notice by deployment partners. Currently, the PreDrive/EasyWay list is recommended. However any such list is a dynamic living document as priorities will change all the time due to changes in economy and policies as well as regional and country-wide differences between countries having different traditions and transport problems, etc. Ultimately the market will decide. The development of Nomadic devices will continiously influence the market due to the short lead-time. It is recommended to set up a forum or other mechanism of public and private actors and stakeholders to ensure the coordination of cooperative ITS development, assessment and deployment across Europe. This forum could be responsible for the assessment and certification of new core services. This would facilitate a neutral scrutiny of potential solutions before they come on the market and facilitate quick adoption by a critical mass of the main deployment stakeholders. Special attention needs to be paid to the service requirements that enable electric diving. C2C and C2I communication is important for conventional cars to reduce accidents and the number of road victims, but for E-Mobility, C2I is paramount for activating the charging infrastructure, which is the most important service to complement the eSafety services. Clustering/combining of services is recommended to introduce cost-efficiency, interoperability and widespread deployment. The approach how to cluster should be studied.

12.1.2 12.1.3 12.1.4 12.1.5

12.1.6

12.1.7

12.1.8

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

12.1

Technologies

12.2.1

The intelligent infrastructure needs to be equipped with adequate cooperative systems suitable to communicate with vehicles, RSEs, operation control centre(s), among other technical equipments/systems such as an adequate backbone communication network based on a fibre optic and/or other type of network able to support IPv6 and their expected developments Infrastructure operators, the automobile and device manufacturers and service providers need to ensure sound and sustainable solutions for the cooperation between Road Side Equipment (RSE) and vehicle platforms. Today this cooperation is essentially based on standard communications while needing novel advanced mechanisms to cope with the complexity of underlying distributed systems (cooperative systems). Standard communications today are understood to follow the COM e-Safety Architecture and are expected to rely on 2G, 3G and 4G cellular networks for long-range communication and a fundamental shortrange medium such as IEEE 802.11 (mobile wireless LAN) at 5.9GHz. It is recommended to use the ISO CALM standards and, in the future, their further developments to provide for flexible communication management and easy adaptation to new media. Communication solutions should be formalised into standards committing the industrial partners as well as the authorities. Based on earlier examples such as TMC guidelines and regulations on how the standard should be applied are needed. Deployment of intelligent infrastructure should be compliant with the common European cooperative ITS Architecture and with international standards. This offers a backbone to bring the worlds of intelligent vehicle and intelligent infrastructure worlds together seamlessly. A requirement for interoperability on the organisational, functional, physical and communication levels must be met in order to ensure implementation of harmonized solutions. The collaborative network organizations (CNO) research area is expected to bring valuable contributions. An open cooperative systems architecture with well-defined, future-proof interfaces between system modules should be developed to enable future-proof collaborative solutions for the recommended services Specific attention should be paid to the consistency of requirements for both the roadside infrastructure, communication and operation control centre for specific services. Example is monitoring the current and anticipated status of the road network, the road operators need to have systems able to characterize the traffic conditions at any time in both directions and per lane. This requires, in addition to the basic communication infrastructure, back-office equipments and applications to be installed in the operation control centre, and a coordination strategy for the complex cooperative infrastructure, to guarantee service quality levels. Technologies widely available and used should be utilised, where possible. The strategy should involve the integration of legacy and innovative proprietary systems providing they cope with architectural requirements and openness for

12.2.2

12.2.3

12.2.4

12.2.5 12.2.6

12.2.7

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

12.2

12.3

Stakeholders

12.3.1

The planning, deployment and organisation of intelligent infrastructure and related services should involve all interested organisations and technology providers. The area of the Collaborative Network Organizations (CNO) that studies these structures from business, social and technology perspectives might play an important role on the strategy to be defined to cope with the proposed recommendations. Road authorities and/or operators should take a leading role as provider of the intelligent infrastructure: - Road authorities and/or operators are seen as deployment partners responsible for promoting and implementing the necessary technologic infrastructures to support the establishment of new cooperative systems - Car manufacturers, suppliers and nomadic device manufacturers as well as intelligent system providers are important stakeholders playing a major role in the development of cooperative systems and to that extent are also seen as deployment partners - Remaining stakeholders are followers from deployment/development partners Four primary supporting stakeholder groups can be distinguished at national, regional and local level: - road infrastructure providers and operators - in-vehicle and nomadic devices providers - commercial service and telecom providers - private and commercial users.

12.3.2

12.3.3

12.4

Value network and business models

12.4.1

Road authorities and/or operators should take a leading role in the intelligent infrastructure. There is a recent trend of both public and private sector stakeholders to focus on their core business. For intelligent infrastructure this results in complex value networks and involves a multitude of different stakeholders. The primary stakeholder of intelligent and cooperative vehicle systems from the vehicle point of view is the OEM, the vehicle manufacturer.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

12.2.8

future use taking into account safety, certification and licensing for revenues. The evolvement of technology should not be hindered. Special attention should be paid to the growth of electric vehicles and their related requirements for the intelligent infrastructure. Special applications/services are required e.g. for the limited energy autonomy indicating to an electric vehicle, at every place where it may be, its distance to the nearest energy supply points in all possible travelling directions as well as an accurate estimate of the maximum number of Kms possible to reach based on existing battery charge and known traffic conditions.

12.4.3

12.4.4

12.4.5

A concept should be developed for a value network within which partners can rely on each other and feel financially secure to invest in their part of the network. This requires openness of the stakeholders concerning their plans, even commercial ones, and also their commitment to provide their added value for the network for at least a specific time period. Business models should be developed for complex multi-stakeholder value networks taking into account the whole life-cycle of the systems. These business models should provide sufficient flexibility to permit sufficient flexibility to take into account specific regional and/or service requirements. . The user – as well as the deployment partners – should know from start which services are charged and which ones are free. Also, it should be made clear how the information is made accessible. Typically, services provided by private stakeholders are paid services, except if supported by other means like subsidy or advertising. The strong link between intelligent vehicle and intelligent infrastructure means that the development of intelligent vehicles will influence the intelligent infrastructure on one hand by setting requirements to the infrastructure and on the other hand by providing new elements in the infrastructure and replacing some conventional parts of it in the long run;

12.5

Assessment

12.5.1

Assessment of systems and services should be stimulated to give input to and accelerate the decision making process. The assessment should provide the necessary information of the benefits and costs of the systems and services during their life span to facilitate the deployment partners to decide on their investments and other contribution to the deployment of the systems and services. Assessment should have a harmonised approach (such as FESTA) and should cover impacts of the transport system/service on mobility, efficiency, safety and environment. The assessments should also measure how the new systems perform in comparison to the existing ones with regard to cost, availability, reliability, extra features or services, ease of maintenance, etc. Where relevant, the assessment needs to take into account the differences between the described road categories, in particular with view to the urban and inter-urban level. Assessment should also include integrated/bundled services and systems utilising the same basic service prerequisites. The combination might have a different impact compared to individual systems or services. Assessment of Field Operational Tests should provide statistically robust and independently produced data on the impacts of the systems and services on travellers, haulers and the society.

12.5.2

12.5.3 12.5.4

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

12.4.2

Development and implementation strategies

12.6.1

A clear overall and for specific services deployment strategy for all over Europe taking into account national/regional differences should be developed with the involvement of some “champions” /key stakeholders as the starters up and drivers of the deployment. Nomadic and aftermarket devices will have strong roles in the deployment of some services (e.g. parking information) during the next decade as these facilitate much faster deployment and fleet penetrations than OEM systems. This will influence the deployment strategies considerably. However other services (especially safety related) depend more on OEM penetration. Infrastructure providers and operators should develop cost-effective deployment strategies for roadside equipment. Infrastructure equipment tends to have a much longer implementation process and life span than commercial systems (in-car and Nomads). Strategic (long term) cooperation platform in the field of cooperative mobility value networks should be stimulated and established among Deployment Partners. This enables future deployment of services in an early stage. It should create a - common vision covering the importance of cooperative services for each stakeholder, a global architecture and main communication standards to adopt. - business models covering the interests of all strategic stakeholders for the implementation of the various CS and a road map which: provides understanding of I and V on how each party participates in the process explores the common denominators agrees on converging visions, and related strategy (ies) establishes attuned objectives and selects the first generation joint cooperative services The roles of regions and cities should be strengthened in all development and testing activities, including large scale and complex field operational tests (FOTs) to make sure local policy objectives are taken into account both in the service definition and evaluation. The relevance of direct involvement of local authorities for dissemination of benefits to other cities in Europe should not be underestimated It is recommended to look both locally and nationally for suitable "windows of opportunity" that may appear facilitating quick start-up of deployment. F.i. the additional costs for new intelligent infrastructure are relatively small, if they are deployed to replace obsolete or faulty existing intelligent or unintelligent infrastructure, which must be replaced anyhow The "low hanging" fruit should be picked up first, e.g. the systems based on existing technologies and equipment From the infrastructure provider point of view some basic strategies for initiating the deployment of II services can be identified by improving the business case for the deployment considerably, at least for some of the stakeholders. Thereby the

12.6.2

12.6.3

12.6.4

12.6.5

12.6.6

12.6.7 12.6.8

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

12.6

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

chicken-and-egg problem can be solved, starting with locations where the customers are or where the problems are, or with the infrastructures available. 12.6.9 Safety, security and privacy are important aspects for the users, and should be addressed accordingly in the deployment strategies. Agreed principles should be applied to minimise risks and be cost-effective. Legal and privacy issues for intelligent infrastructure and cooperative ITS should be addressed, and data protection taken seriously already in system design and operational structures. 12.6.10 New effective strategies for the total chain from research to deployment should be discussed and developed to avoid discontinuities and organisational problems and to achieve a long-term commitment from all key stakeholders in the service development and deployment. New governance and financial structures are essential themes in such context of a European large scale action that will cut through the innovation cycle to achieve a pan-European Intelligent Infrastructure.

II WG Final Report

ANNEX 1: RESULT OF QUESTIONNAIRE DEFINITION OF II SERVICES Colouring: • EasyWay services are highlighted in light blue • Services with a high total score (result NRA’s + non NRA’s) for being relevant for Intelligent Infrastructure have their score highlighted in yellow (only last table).

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

part of Intelligent Infrastructure services

Road operators / service providers authorities

car industry

existing service

under development

EasyWay services are highlighted in blue Travel information services pre-trip travel information predictive traffic conditions information

on-trip travel information RT event information RT traffic condition information traveltime information weather information speed limit information Dynamic route guidance Parking information and guidance Local hazard Warning Curve speed warning Obstacle detection/collision warning In-car incident warning Emergency vehicle warning Wrong way driving warning Limited access warning, detour notification

11 11 11 11 11 9 11 9 8 8 8 9 10 10

10 10 8 6 7 3 6 7 6 1 3 4 8 8

4 4 5 7 4 6 5 1 1 1 0 3 2 1

1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 7 6 1 0 0

8 8 8 10 7 6 7 3 1 2 4 0 3 3

0 1 2 0 2 2 2 4 5 6 3 6 4 3

Co-modal travel information multimodal travel planning multimodal traffic information

8 10

2 2

8 8

0 0

4 5

5 4

9 10 10 11

9 10 9 11

0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0

4 4 6 5

1 2 2 3

10 9 9 10 10

10 6 2 9 9

0 2 4 0 0

0 0 5 0 0

8 1 0 3 3

0 5 7 3 4

8 10

9 5

1 3

0 1

4 1

3 7

6 4 10 5 7 4 5 6 4

0 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

9 8 6 8 8 7 8 5 7

0 7 6 4 1 2 4 2 4

6 2 4 2 6 5 3 5 3

4 8

0 2

1 6

7 3

5 3

2 5

Traffic Management Strategic traffic management for corridors and networks Traffic management of sensitive road segments Incident Management Road user charging Traffic management services / systems > rampmetering, traffic controllers, etc Recommended speed profiles eCall Priority lane Requested green (in a cooperative way) Freight & logistic services Access to abnormal and hazardous transport Intelligent truck parking

Other services Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (C-ACC) Adaptive cruise control (ACC) Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) Lane Keeping assistent Cooperative intersection collision avoidance Lane changing assistent Near Field Collision Warning Pedestrian detection Blind spot monitoring Emergency Braking/ Collision mitigation braking Decentralized floating car data

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

TOTAL RESULT ONLY NRAs

part of Intelligent Infrastructure services

Road operators / service providers authorities

car industry

existing service

under development

EasyWay services are highlighted in blue Travel information services pre-trip travel information predictive traffic conditions information

6 7 6 7 7 5 5 6 4 3 4 5 3 4

5 6 4 3 6 3 0 4 4 1 0 3 4 6

2 2 4 4 1 4 6 1 1 0 3 1 2 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 5 5 0 0 0

4 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 2 4 2 1 3 3

1 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 3 1 3 2 2 2

Co-modal travel information multimodal travel planning multimodal traffic information

5 6

0 0

6 7

1 0

4 3

2 3

6 6 6 5

7 7 6 6

0 0 1 1

0 0 0 0

5 4 3 3

1 2 2 1

6 4 5 4 5

6 3 2 6 5

1 1 5 0 1

0 1 0 0 0

4 1 2 3 1

1 4 3 1 3

4 6

3 4

1 3

1 0

3 2

2 3

5 1 4 2 4 0 1 2 1

1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5

0 3 1 2 0 2 2 1 2

5 1 3 2 4 2 1 3 2

0 4

0 1

0 3

5 1

3 0

1 3

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

TOTAL RESULT NOT NRAs

part of Intelligent Infrastructure services

Road operators / service providers authorities

car industry

existing service

under development

EasyWay services are highlighted in blue Travel information services pre-trip travel information predictive traffic conditions information

17 18 17 18 18 14 16 15 12 11 12 14 13 14

15 16 12 9 13 6 6 11 10 2 3 7 12 14

6 6 9 11 5 10 11 2 2 1 3 4 4 1

1 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 4 12 11 1 0 0

12 13 13 15 12 11 10 7 3 6 6 1 6 6

1 1 3 1 3 2 5 5 8 7 6 8 6 5

Co-modal travel information multimodal travel planning multimodal traffic information

13 16

2 2

14 15

1 0

8 8

7 7

15 16 16 16

16 17 15 17

0 0 2 2

0 0 0 0

9 8 9 8

2 4 4 4

16 13 14 14 15

16 9 4 15 14

1 3 9 0 1

0 1 5 0 0

12 2 2 6 4

1 9 10 4 7

12 16

12 9

2 6

1 1

7 3

5 10

11 5 14 7 11 4 6 8 5

1 0 4 0 3 0 0 3 0

1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

15 13 10 13 12 11 13 10 12

0 10 7 6 1 4 6 3 6

11 3 7 4 10 7 4 8 5

4 12

0 3

1 9

12 4

8 3

3 8

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

II WG Final Report

TOTAL RESULT ALL QUESTIONNAIRES

Starting list of “Relevant developments and projects”

I think that at least SIM TD, VII (U.S.) and SMARTWAY (Japan) should be mentioned Development / project name CVIS – Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems

COOPERS – COOPerative SystEms for Intelligent Road Safety and Safespot

EasyWay

Source (where it was mentioned) IIWG meeting #1, 2, 4, 6

IIWG meeting #1, 2, 6

Relevant links http://www.cvisproject.o rg

http://www.coopersip.eu

IIWG Contact person Paul Kompfner, René Jacobs

Marko Jandrisits

Relevant for e.g.

•

• • • • •

IIWG meeting #1. 2, 6

IIWG meeting #1, 2, 4, 5

http://www.safespoteu.org

http://www.easywayits.eu

Tom Alkim

Jacques Boussuge, Rui Camolino, Risto Kulmala and further colleagues FEHRL (Stefan Deix)

Service questionnaire Added Value of II Car-roadside communication Legal issues Service questionnaire Added Value of II

Also sup-project “SP6 – BLADE” was mentioned as input for chapter “business models”

•

Service questionnaire Added Value of II Business models Roads categorisation Service questionnaire Business models

•

Definition of II

The aim of INTRO was/is developing innovative methods for increased capacity and safety of the road network.

•

• • • •

INTRO – Intelligent Road

IIWG meeting #1, 2, 6

http://intro.fehrl.org

European ITS Framework Architecture • E-FRAME • KAREN Interproject Heavy Road COMeSafety

IIWG meeting #1

http://www.frameonline.net

•

IT architecture

IIWG meeting #1 IIWG meeting #1, 4

http://www.comesafety. org

• •

eSafety Working Groups • Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) • Implementation Road Map (IRM)

IIWG meeting #2, 3

IT architecture Service questionnaire Legal issues Service questionnaire

http://www.esafetysupp ort.org/en/esafety_activi ties/esafety_working_gr oups

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

Risto Kulmala

Remarks

II WG Final Report

ANNEX 2: RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS AND PROJECTS

• •

COMeSafety identified a list of technologies for different services Rista Kulmala is co-chair of the IRM group

IIWG meeting #2, 3

Pre-DRIVE C2X projects

IIWG meeting #4

FESTA – FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST SUPPORT ACTION

IIWG meeting #1

FOT NET

IIWG meeting #4

Information from the Car2Car Consortium (Service list of) ETSI

IIWG meeting #6 IIWG meeting #6 IIWG meeting #6

http://www.car-tocar.org http://www.etsi.org http://www.intellidriveus a.org/

IIWG meeting #6 Terms of Reference

http://www.elvireproject.org http://ec.europa.eu/ente rprise/sectors/automotiv e/competitivenesscars21/cars21/index_en .htm http://www.tomtom.com

IntelliDrive ELVIRE Cars21

TomTom

IIWG meeting #1

http://ec.europa.eu/tran sport/its/road/action_pla n_en.htm http://www.pre-drivec2x.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/infor mation_society/activities /esafety/doc/rtd_project s/fp7/festa_final_report. pdf http://www.fot-net.eu

•

II WG Final Report

EU ITS Action Plan

Service questionnaire

Paul Kompfner

Mentioned during WG meeting #4 as invitation for a joint workshop between EasyWay and Pre-DRIVE C2X

Melanie Kloth

The FOT-Net project aims to create a networking platform for anyone interested in Field Operational Tests, their set-up and their results. •

Chapter “The intelligent vehicle”

Willy Maes

•

Gloria Pellischek

•

Added value of II (Impact Assessment) Intelligent vehicles

The Nomadic device industry becomes more interested and becomes more important for data provision. E.g. TomTom made already contact with the traffic controller industry.

Remarks: 1. During the IIWG meeting #3 Wolfgang Reinhardt proposed a document about already existing projects in the context of service definition.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

100

Definition of “EasyWay services” are copied from document Core European ITS Services and Actions, ver. 0.91 Pre-trip travel information Predictive traffic conditions information services (EasyWay definition The service provides pre-trip forecast of information about the potential road traffic conditions to assist travellers to use the road network in a more efficient manner choice of route and potentially mode of travel). Examples of user interfaces are internet accessible maps displaying how conditions might change on a relevant road network at different time horizons On-trip travel information Real-time event information services. (EasyWay definition) The service provides real-time information about events (incidents, accidents, construction sites, etc.) occurring on the TERN with expected impact on traffic, safety or the environment. An example of user interface is RDS-TMC. Real-time traffic conditions information services (EasyWay definition) The service informs the driver/traveller about the current traffic conditions in order to support him in finding the best way to travel, thus assisting him in using the traffic network in a more efficient and safer way. Examples of user interfaces are maps showing the traffic conditions with colour codes, provided via internet Travel time information services (EasyWay definition) Travel time information services inform the drivers on their expected time to destination, complementary to the traffic situation, thus enabling travellers to optimize and better anticipate their journey ahead. An example of user interfaces is roadside information panels (VMS). Speed limit information services (EasyWay definition) A service which dynamically informs road users about prevailing speed limits, applied as well under normal as under special conditions, like at road work sites, in congestion etc. The service contributes to the reduction of incidents, and can be provided as well by roadside systems (VMS) as a complementary service or on-board navigation systems etc (speed alert). Weather Information services (EasyWay definition) The service provides the traveller with accurate and timely information related to the weather and road conditions. The service can influence the modal choice, route selection and the time of departure for as well long distance journeys as for daily commuting. The service is in general integrated in information services available for pre-trip planning, but Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

101

II WG Final Report

ANNEX 3: DEFINITION OF SERVICES

Dynamic route guidance: Due to the explosive growth of portable navigation devices, a high proportion of drivers now use route guidance as an aide for finding their way and, increasingly, also for receiving traffic information and avoiding congestion. All navigation systems, including built-in and portable devices, depend on a digital map of the road network. Most built-in systems and a growing number of portable devices use TMC technology to receive and display information on traffic incidents and suggest alternative routes. Other key features are real-time data about free/full parking facilities and weather information, etc. Parking information and guidance: Parking Guidance and Information (PGI) systems use variable message signs (VMS) to provide drivers with information on the location and the availability of spaces in car parks. A typical PGI system consists of monitoring equipment to establish the flow into and out of the car park, a central computer to process the counts and control the dissemination of information to the public via VMS or other media such as radio or a web site. VMS displays should be located at suitable decision points on the network, so that a driver’s journey time to a vacant space is minimised. Nowadays, advanced PGI systems can present a range of real time information, including waiting times and prices. These systems can also be developed jointly with other aspects related to traffic management that provide users with real-time information on road accidents, traffic congestion, traffic flow restraints and the location of parking facilities Local hazard/danger Warning: The local danger warning system provides in-vehicle, dynamic information to warn drivers of hazardous conditions like low friction and visibility, obstacle on the road or slow/stationary vehicle on highway. Curve speed warning: Curve Speed Warning warns driver if their speed is too high when approaching a curve. The application requires access to map data including information about road curvature. Other relevant parameters are vehicle weight, load point and road friction. These are used to calculate the most suitable vehicle speed for the curve in question. Obstacle detection/collision warning: Continuous supervision of the environment in front of the vehicle is carried out, with the aim to identify situations where a collision is about to occur. If such a situation occurs, the system intervenes by either retarding the vehicle or steering away from the obstacle. In-car incident warning; In-car warnings/information of incidents on the route in front (as direct warning signal) and on the planned route (to be able to plan another route)

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

102

II WG Final Report

real time weather warning can also be provided by road side systems (e.g. local road surface frost warning) as in-vehicle by radio broadcast and/or RDS-TMC

Multi-modal traffic information portal (EasyWay definition) A service provided to travellers through internet portals, offering a quality approved and well-structured access to multi-modal traffic information at the regional, national and European level. The information provided will foster modal shift and lead to a more efficient network operation as well as a better utilisation of the transport infrastructure. The internet service can be obtained both through static and mobile devices, which means that it can be obtained for planning and for real time information purposes equally. Multi-modal travel planning services (EasyWay definition) The service provides information on travel options by all alternative and combinations of transport modes, including road, rail, public transport and if applicable sea and air transport. Conurbation services can also include walking and cycling (door-to-door relations). Furthermore, cross-border connections can be integrated. The services allow travellers to make better choices as it simplifies the collection of information by providing access points assembling information on several transport modes. Traffic management Strategic traffic management for corridors and networks (EasyWay definition) This European Service provides strategies, plans and consequential physical deployments, at the regional and/or cross-border levels, for networks and key corridors on the TERN to handle a predefined scope of relevant traffic situations and events, including traffic incidents, weather, seasonal traffic, etc. and to control the real-time traffic through predefined measures. Traffic management plans contain pre-defined combinations of strategies and measures to cope with different traffic situations in the road network. Traffic Management of Sensitive Road Segments (EasyWay definition) This European Service provides harmonized traffic management to handle traffic on the main road network including urban and interurban interfaces in accordance with operational environment. A sensitive road segment is characterized by being local and subject to tactical actions. Typical examples are tunnels, bridges, road works, areas suffering from congestion, black spots and mountain passes. These roads are sensitive towards congestion, safety, weather conditions and environmental factors. Incident Management (EasyWay definition) This European Service provides access to information on incident management capacities on the TERN. To improve traffic flows and mitigate the negative impacts of incidents, effective incident management is required. Initially, there is a need to map the level of incident detection, notification, clearance, etc. in relation to each operational environment. The driver should know what level of service can be expected on the road. Road user charging: Road pricing generally has as its main objective the reduction of congestion by allocating the traffic to other less congested alternative routes and hours. Drivers have to pay for Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

103

II WG Final Report

Co-modal travel information

Traffic management services / systems > ramp metering, traffic controllers, etc: This are the (conventional) infrastructure related traffic management and control systems such as traffic controllers, ramp metering, tidal flow, hard shoulder running, measures. Recommended speed profiles: The key idea behind Recommended Speed Profiles for fuel consumption and emission reduction is to identify cases where the driver will have to slow-down or speed-up (e.g. because there is a bottleneck or a stop sign downstream, but the driver cannot see it because the road bends) and issue appropriate speed commands to the driver so that he/she smoothly accelerates or decelerates in order to avoid unnecessary “speed ups” or brakings which are responsible for a large portion of fuel consumption and emissions. eCall: The Pan-European in-vehicle emergency call system is known as eCall. The eCall system is based on either the automatic detection of an accident with a sensor or a manual emergency call made by pushing a button. In both cases a normal voice communication is opened to the emergency centre after a small delay, and accident vehicle location and identification as well as possible accident severity information are transmitted automatically. The automatic detection of an accident is based on the vehicle's sensors or the sensors built into the eCall device. The in-vehicle sensors can detect e.g. the triggering of an airbag, intense deceleration, vehicle roll-over or a sudden temperature increase. The data of the vehicle location and direction at the time of the accident is obtained from satellite positioning. Priority lane: Preferential lanes or roadways and supporting facilities and programs that optimize efficiency, performance and throughput by offering travel time savings and reliability through the application of management strategies including vehicle eligibility, pricing, and access control. Signal priority / Requested green (in a cooperative way): System that, if requested, gives a green light for special vehicles such as buses, ambulances or trucks with dangerous goods. Freight & Logistics services Access to Abnormal and Hazardous Transport Regulations (EasyWay definition) This service will give the hauliers and the truck drivers a single access point to information about abnormal and hazardous goods transport regulations. From this access point the user will be directed to the proper authorities in case a special permit for the transport is required.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

104

II WG Final Report

entering an area or part of the road network. The intention of the charge of money is to reduce congestion, to improve journey time reliability for car users and to make the distribution of goods and services more efficient.

Other services Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (C-ACC): CACC is an extension of Adaptive Cruise Control. In CACC, in addition to measuring the distance to a predecessor as it happens in ACC, the vehicle also exchanges information with its predecessor by wireless communication. This enables a vehicle to follow their predecessor at a closer distance under tighter control. With information of this type, the ACC controller is able to better anticipate problems, enabling it to be safer, smoother and more ‘natural’ in response. Adaptive cruise control (ACC): The ACC system keeps a driver-set speed or, in case the vehicle in front is slower, a driverset time (or distance) to this vehicle. The system is activated by the driver. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA): ISA is a system of in-vehicle speed limitation. ISA is the mandatory version of ISI. The speed of the vehicle is being limited at all times according to the ruling speed limits (e.g. by an intelligent gas pedal, automatic speed limiter). Lane Keeping assistant (LKS): LKA is a Lane Keeping Assistance system with active steering support. A lane keeping system for passenger cars and commercial vehicles supports the driver to stay safely within the “borders” of the lane. It determines the vehicle position relative to lane markings and combines this with recognition of driver intention or behaviour to check for unintentional lane departure. The system is for use on motorways and rural roads, and works under various road and driving conditions. There are two phases of development which reflect different objectives and situations. LKS is Phase 2: the driver is assisted by an active steering wheel trying to intervene in order to keep the vehicle on a correct path within the lane. Cooperative intersection collision avoidance: Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance refers only to cases 100% penetration ratios. In such cases, the vehicles (either by communication with infrastructure or through V2V communication) automatically adjust their speeds and trajectories so that they cross urban junctions’ intersections safely (i.e. by keeping their mutual distance larger than a prespecified bound (which may intersection- or speed-dependent) and, moreover, at a minimum time.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

105

II WG Final Report

Intelligent Truck Parking (EasyWay definition) The service aims at supporting the trucker in his planning of the trip respecting traffic and driving regulations, but also to assist him in finding socially acceptable resting facilities. Truck drivers and logistics planners shall have seamless access to information on available parking places for resting periods and may also make reservations in advance of arrival. In some cases the traffic management can use the parking area as a buffer for optimising access to ports, terminals and border crossing checkpoints.

Near Field Collision Warning: This system detects vehicles that are in close range such as in the blind spot. Warnings can be visual or audible. Pedestrian detection: The system detects vulnerable road users (vru) and enforces fully automatic emergency braking in a situation where a collision with a vru is unavoidable. Blind spot monitoring: A blind spot monitor is a vehicle-based sensor system that detects other vehicles located to the driver’s side and rear. Warnings can be visual or audible. Increased warnings indicate potentially hazardous lane changes Emergency Braking/ Collision mitigation braking: EBS is a fully automatic system that avoids or mitigates longitudinal crashes by braking. When driver strongly presses the brake pedal, the system enhances the braking effect significantly to mitigate or avoid a crash.

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

106

II WG Final Report

Lane changing assistant: The Lane change assistant (warning) system enhances the perception of drivers in lateral and rear areas and assists them in lane change and merging lane manoeuvres through three functions: o rear monitoring and warning: to improve driver attention and decrease the risk of collision in the rear area of the vehicle, particularly in case of limited visibility or critical workload of driver attention; o lateral collision warning: to detect and track (in general moving) obstacles in the lateral area and to warn the driver about an imminent risk of accident (e.g. collision); o lane change assistance with integrated blind spot detection: to assist the driver in lane change manoeuvres while driving on roads with more than one lane per direction.

[1] eSafety Forum 2009. Implementation Road Maps - Monitoring Report 2009, The Implementation Road Maps Working Group. 28 December 2009 [2] Actielijn 1 uit Beleidskader Benutten – Visie, Strategie, Road Map en Uitvoeringsprogramma, Rijkswaterstaat, ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat [3] ETSI 2009. Draft ETSI TR 102 638 v1.0.7 – Technical report, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); Vehicular Communications; Basic Set of Applications, June 2009 [4] U.S. DoT 2005. Intelligent Transport Systems – 2005 update, Benefits, Costs and Lessons Learned, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, ITS benefits FHWA 2005.pdf [5] Kulmala R., Leviäkangas P., Sihvola N., Rämä P., Francsics J., Hardman E., Ball S.,Smith B., McCrae I., Barlow T. & Stevens A. 2008. Final study report. CODIA Deliverable 5. VTT Technical Resesarch Centre of Finland 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/doc/studies/codia/codia_ final_study_report.pdf [6] U.S. DoT 2008. Vehicle-Infrastructure Integration (VII) Initiative, Benefit-Cost Analysis, Version 2.3 (Draft), May 8, 2008. Report for the Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office of United States Department of Transportation Washington, DC. Prepared by Economic and Industry Analysis Division, RTV-3A of John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, United States Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts. http://www.intellidriveusa.org/documents/vii-benefit-cost-analysis-(Draft).pdf [7] Kulmala, R., Nenzi, R., Udin, C. & Sundberg, J. 2009. Operating Environments for EasyWay Services, Ver 1.01, 22 December 2009 [8] CVIS 2006. D.2.2 Use Cases and System Requirements, Andras Kovacs, Zeljko Jeftic, Niclas Nygren, Torben Hilgers, November 30 2006. [9] COMeSafety D31, European ITS Communication Architecture – Overall Framework, Proof of Concept Implementation, March 5 2009. [10] Kulmala, R. et al. 2009. EasyWay VIKING ICT Infrastructure Guidelines 2009, Version 0.95 June 2009, [11] CVIS 2009. Deployment roadmap white paper, D.DEPN.8.1_v2.6.doc, 7/9/2009 [12] CityMobil 2008. D4.2.1, CityMobil project, ‘Operational Architecture’, D4.2.1-Restricted-Open Architecture-Draft v1.1-ETRA-25-03-08.doc [13] Kovacs, A., Jeftic, Z., Nygren, N. & Hilgers, T. 2006. Use Cases and System Requirements. CVIS Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems Deliverable D.CVIS.2.2. 30 November 2006

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

107

II WG Final Report

ANNEX 4: REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS USED

[15] Clark, A. & Kloth, M. 2010. Cooperative Urban Mobility. Exploring the possibilities offered by next generation infrastructure-vehicle communications in tackling urban transport challenges. CVIS project 2010. Page 67 onwards. [16] Carsten, O., Lai, F., Chorlton, K., Goodman, P., Carslaw, D. & Hess, S. 2008. Speed Limit Adherence and its Effect on Road Safety and Climate Change. 2008. [17] Wilmink, I.; Janssen,W.; Jonkers, E.; Malone, K.; van Noort, M.; Klunder, G.; Rämä, P.; Sihvola, N; Kulmala, R.; Schirokoff, A.; Lind, G.; Benz, T.; Peters, H. & Schönebeck, S. 2008. Impact assessment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, Deliverable D4, 2008. Socio-economic Impact Assessment of Stand-alone and Co-operative Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSS) in Europe (eIMPACT) [18] ELVIRE 2010. ELVIRE Position paper, Intelligent Infrastructure Needs for the “Electric Vehicle in the Grid”, Gloria Pellischek, ERPC GmbH, February 7 2010. [19] RWS 2008. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Verkenning Benutten, actielijn 1. Slimme voertuigen en coöperatieve Systemen, March 31 2008. [20] Aittoniemi, E. 2007. Tieliikenteen tietopalveluiden vaikutusmahdollisuudet liikenneturvallisuuteen. [Potential safety impacts of in-vehicle information services] AINO Publications 46/2007. Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland. Helsinki [21] Carsten, O. & Fowkes, M. 2000. External Vehicle Speed Control, Executive summary of Project Results. University of Leeds and the Motor Industry Research Association. [22] Highways Agency 2007. M25 Controlled Motorways. Summary Report March 2007. Highways Agency Publications Group. Iso-Britannia. 20 p. [23] Highways Agency 2009. Ramp metering. Summary Report. http://www.easyway-its.eu/1/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download& gid=867&Itemid=103 [24] Jarlebring, I. 2009. Road weather controlled variable speed limits, Sweden. EasyWay VIKING. http://www.easyway-its.eu/1/index.php?option=com_docman& task=doc_download&gid=593&Itemid=103 [25] Kulmala, Risto 2009. Cost-Benefit Analysis. Presentation given at CEDR T12 meeting, Stockholm 24 September 2009. [26] Kulmala, R. 2010. Assessment of road weather services in Finland for QUANTIS. Unpublished memorandum. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 8 January 2010. [27] Kulmala, R.; Leviäkangas, P.; Sihvola, N.; Rämä, P.; Francics, J.; Hardman, E.; Ball, S.; Smith, B.; McCrae, I., Barlow, T.; Stevens, A. 2008. CODIA Deliverable 5: Final Study Report. CODIA CoOperative systems Deployment Impact Assessment. Submitted to European Commission DG-INFSO

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

108

II WG Final Report

[14] CEDR 2009. Intelligent Transport Systems Workshop, CEDR Governing Board, Cyprus. Backgroung note for ITS Workshop to CEDR Governing Board from Project Group ITS. September 29, 2009

[29] Lehtonen, Mikko J.; Kulmala, Risto. 2002. The Benefits of a Pilot Implementation of Public Transport Signal Priorities and Real-Time Passenger Information. Transportation Research Board, 81st Annual Meeting, January 13-17.2002, Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Record. Transportation Research Board, 1799, pp. 18-25 [30] Lund, G.; Lindkvist, A. 2009. Traffic controlled variable speed limits, Sweden. EasyWay VIKING. http://www.easyway-its.eu/1/index.php?option=com_docman& task=doc_download&gid=818&Itemid=103 [31] Masclee, M. 2009. Cross Border Management Evaluation. Eindhoven - Cologne, Rotterdam – Antwerp, Arnhem – Oberhausen. EasyWay CENTRICO. October 2009. http://www.easyway-its.eu/1/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download& gid=1142&Itemid=103 [32] Perrett, K. E. & Stevens, A. 1996. Review of the potential benefits of Road Transport Telematics. Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 220. [33] Pesonen, H., Laine, T., Bäckström, J., Granberg, M., Vehmas, A., Niittymäki, J. 2002. Reaaliaikaisen matkustajainformaatiojärjestelmän (ELMI) vaikutusten ja yhteiskuntataloudellisen kannattavuuden arviointi. [Assessment of impacts and socio-economical profitability of real-time passenger information system (ELMI).] FITS Publications 7/2002. Helsinki: Ministry of Transport and Communications. 111 p. ISBN 951-723-767-7. [34] Rijkswaterstaat (2007). Inventarisatie beleidseffecten incident management. Indicatie van de bijdrage van incidentmanagement aan de beleidsdoelstellingen voor bereikbaarheid en veiligheid. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 46 p. [35] Rämä, P. 2001. Effects of weather-controlled variable message signing on driver behaviour. Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Publications 447. [36] Rämä, P., Kulmala, R. & Heinonen, M. 1996. The effect of variable road condition warning signs. Helsinki: Finnra Reports 1/1996. 54 p. + apps. 23 p. (ISBN 951-726-178-0. ISSN 0788-3722. TIEL 3200370) (Finnish, English abstract) [37] SERTI 2009. Variable speed limits implementation. EasyWay Region SERTI. Project Location: Motorways A7 and A9. http://www.easyway-its.eu/1/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download& gid=1489&Itemid=103 [38] SERTI 2010. Network Control Leonberg - Walldorf. Project Evaluation Summary. EasyWay Region SERTI. Project Location: Baden-Wuerttemberg (motorways A 5, A 6, A 8, A 81 between Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, Walldorf and Heilbronn). http://www.easyway-its.eu/1/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download& gid=1551&Itemid=103

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

109

II WG Final Report

[28] Laine, T., Pesonen, H., Moilanen, P. 2003. Joukkoliikenteen internet-reittineuvontapalvelun vaikutusten ja kannattavuuden arviointi. [An assessment of the effects and cost-effectiveness of a public transport journey planner.] FITS Publications 22/2003.Helsinki: Ministry of Transport and Communications. 95 p. ISBN 951-723-883-5

[40] Virtanen N. 2005. Automaattisen hätäviestijärjestelmän vaikutukset onnettomuustilanteessa. [Impacts of an automatic emergency call system on accident consequences] AINO Publications 14/2005. Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland. Helsinki [41] Wilmink, I.; Janssen,W.; Jonkers, E.; Malone, K.; van Noort, M.; Klunder, G.; Rämä, P.; Sihvola, N; Kulmala, R.; Schirokoff, A.; Lind, G.; Benz, T.; Peters, H. & Schönebeck, S. 2008. Impact assessment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, Deliverable D4, EU-project; Socio-economic Impact Assessment of Stand-alone and Co-operative Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSS) in Europe (eIMPACT) [42] Öörni, R. 2004. Eräiden joukko- ja tieliikenteen telematiikkasovellusten kannattavuus Suomen oloissa. [Economic feasibility of road and public transport ITS applications in Finnish conditions.] FITS Publications 35/2004. Helsinki: Ministry of Transport and Communications. 115 p. ISBN 951723-896-7. [43] Jandrisits, M. 2010. Results from COOPERS studies. Paper provided by e-mail on 21 May 2010. [44] Alkim. T. 2010. Excerpt from SAFESPOT BLADE business and service models for the IIWG on 21 May 2010. [45] Hoadley, S. 2010. State of the Art on ICT urban transport. Input to the eSafety RTD vision document. Paper provided by e-mail on 26 April 2010. [46] Barnes, J. 2010. Through new eyes. The Traffic Management Centre of the Future. Draft interview of Frans op de Beek TNO, 15 May 2010. [47] van Wees, K., Robery, M. & Martin-Clark, T. 2008. Analysis of legal aspects. SAFESPOT Integrated Project - IST-4-026963-IP Deliverable. SP6 – BLADE – Business models, Legal Aspects and DEployment. D6.4.2 21/04/2008. [48] ELSA in Transport 2009. European Large Scale bridging Action (ELSA). Report of the Thematic Working Group "Transport" for the Visby Conference, 10-11 November 2009. [49] E-FRAME 2010. The E-FRAME project. http://www.frame-online.net. [50] CEN and ETSI 2010. Joint CEN and ETSI Response to Mandate M/453. CEN/ETSI Task Force on Standardisation Mandate M/453. 1st programming report under M/453. 15 April 2010. http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/Technologies/First_Joint_CEN_and_ETSI_Response_to_Ma ndate_453.pdf [51] eSafety Forum 2010. Final report of the Service Oriented Architectures working group. Report and recommendations (V0.97). eSafety Forum Service Oriented Architectures WG. 14 February 2010. [52] Zwijnenberg, H. 2010. Verbal conclusion of SAFESPOT BLADE results. TNO, Delft, 2 June 2010. [53] Konstantinopoulou, L.; Zwijnenberg, H.; Fuchs, S. & Bankosegger, D. 2010. Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

110

II WG Final Report

[39] Stockholms Stad (2006). Fakta och resultat från Stockholmsförsöket – Andra versionen – augusti 2006. Miljöavgiftskansliet, Stockholms Stad. 139 s.

[54] Wolfgang Reinhardt ACEA; iCARS Thematic Network ICT for Energy Efficiency Busan, 25-29 October 2010 [55] CVIS D.DEPN.8.1 Deployment roadmap white paper [56] Soeren Hess; 2010 Cooperative Mobility conference 2010, ITS Standardisation. [57] Faber, F; de Kievit, M.; Zwijnenberg, H.; Luedeke, A.; Schindhelm, R.; Damiani, S.; Marco, S.; Mortara, P.; Alkim, T.; Robery, M.; van Wees, K.; Geissler, T.; Buehne, J. A. 2010. The SAFESPOT deployment programme. SAFESPOT Integrated Project - IST-4-026963-IP Deliverable. SP6 – BLADE – Business models, Legal Aspects and DEployment. D6.7.1 Draft [58] eSecurity Working Group; Vulnerabilities in Electronics and Communications in Road Transport; Discussion and Recommendations v1.0. 21 June 2010. [59] Section 823 paragraph 1 of BGB (German Civil Code) http://www.gesetze-iminternet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#BGBengl_000P823 [60] ICT for enhanced energy efficiency in electric vehicles (EVs) and plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) (Lindholmen), from the iCars network

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

111

II WG Final Report

Deployment Challenges for Cooperative Systems. SAFESPOT, COOPERS, CVIS.

II WG Final Report

ANNEX 5: 2G AND 3G COVERAGE IN EUROPE

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

112

II WG Final Report

THE COVERAGE OF 2G (GSM) AND 3G COMMUNICATIONS IN EUROPE IN 2009. SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.GSMWORLD.COM/ROAMING/GSM_EUROPEPOSTER2009A.PDF

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

113

Member Rui Camolino

Organisation ASECAP (Co-chair)

Paul van der Kroon Frans Op De Beek Eline Jonkers Risto Kulmala Kallistratos Dionelis Roberto Arditi Jacques Boussuge Marko Jandrisits Manfred Harrer Carlos Fuentes Ulrich Zorin Wolfgang A. Reinhardt Daniel Gutiérrez Jean-Baptiste Lesort Jean-marc Blosseville Stefan Deix Philippe Lepert Reinhard Pfliegl Massimo Pannozzo René Jacobs Michelangelo Ruggiero Ari Sorsaniemi Francisco Ferreira Eva Boethius Elena de la Peña Udin Christian Bengt Hallström Laure Dezes/Chris Nicodemos Fulvio Sansone Wim Broeders Jörg Ortlepp Xavier Cocu Gerben Bootsma Lazlo Ignéczi Jaume Martin Paul Kompfner

CEDR (Co-chair) TNO TNO VTT ASECAP SINA ASFA ASFINAG/COOPERS ASFINAG/COOPERS ASETA DARS ACEA FUNDECYT INRETS INRETS Arsenal Research LCPC Austriatech/COOPERS CALEARO ANTENNE BRRC Cobra Automotive Technologies DG INFSO DG INFSO DG INFSO Spanish Road Association SWECO Swedish Road Administration ERF ORACLE VIALIS European Assurance Association/GDV BRRC MOT Netherlands Hungarian Information Society Attaché Belgium Repres. ATOS ROSINES ERTICO/CVIS Afdeling Verkeerscentrum /Departement Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken

Nele Dedene

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

114

II WG Final Report

ANNEX 6: PARTICIPANTS OF IIWG

II WG Final Report

Gloria Pellischek Martin Pipa Melanie Kloth Luís Osório Manuel Milli Olivier Lenz Willy Maes Eric Kenis Mihaela Ostafe/Amélie Ballistreri Fabio Ricci Stefanos Gouvras Lina Konstantinopoula Tom Alkim

ERPC GmbH CDV (Transport Research Centre) POLIS ISEL MIZAR AUTOMAZIONE S.p.A. FIA DG TREN DG TREN/DG MOVE ERTICO – eSafety Support/iCars Support Italian Motorway/ SINA SpA DG INFSO ERTICO/CVIS Rijkswaterstaat

Intelligent Infrastructure Report version 1.0

115

Monitoring Report 2010 of the Implementation Road Maps Working Group

Implementation Road Maps Monitoring Report 2010

The Implementation Road Maps Working Group 2 July 2010

Contents Legal notice ................................................................................................................................ 4 Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5 1

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 10

Review of the priority systems ........................................................................................ 10

Benefits and costs of the priority systems........................................................................ 17

Penetration of the priority systems .................................................................................. 18

Promotion of implementation .......................................................................................... 21

updated implementation road maps ................................................................................. 22

6.1

ESC ...................................................................................................................................... 23

6.2

Obstacle and collision warning ............................................................................................ 23

6.3

Emergency Braking Support ................................................................................................ 23

6.4

Blind Spot Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 24

6.5

Adaptive Headlights ............................................................................................................. 24

6.6

Lane Departure Warning Systems ....................................................................................... 24

6.7

Common issues for vehicle-based systems .......................................................................... 24

6.8

RTTI ..................................................................................................................................... 26

6.9

Dynamic traffic management ............................................................................................... 27

6.10

Local danger warnings ......................................................................................................... 28

6.11

Extended environmental information ................................................................................... 28

6.12

eCall ..................................................................................................................................... 29

6.13

Speed alert ............................................................................................................................ 31

6.14

Dynamic navigation ............................................................................................................. 32

6.15

Systems for heavy duty vehicles .......................................................................................... 33

6.16

Systems for motorcycles ...................................................................................................... 34

Model for a continuous monitoring process .................................................................... 35 7.1

Instruments ........................................................................................................................... 35

7.2

Updating schedule ................................................................................................................ 36

7.3

Responsibility and financing ................................................................................................ 36

7.4

Modelling process ................................................................................................................ 36

7.5

Template of the periodic report ............................................................................................ 37

Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 38 8.1

Review of earlier recommendations..................................................................................... 38

8.2

European Commission ......................................................................................................... 38

8.3

Member states ...................................................................................................................... 40

8.4

Road operators ..................................................................................................................... 42

8.5

Industry ................................................................................................................................ 43

8.6

Other stakeholders................................................................................................................ 46

8.7

Working Group recommendations ....................................................................................... 46

Annex 1: Literature review on Safety effects of priority systems ........................................... 52 Annex 2: Deployment of ITS on the TERN in Member States ............................................... 66 Annex 3: Descriptions of implementation issues for the priority systems .............................. 69 Annex 4: Members of the Implementation Road Maps Working Group .............................. 119

Page 3 of 120

LEGAL NOTICE Legal notice by the European Communities, Information Society Directorate-General This report was produced by the eSafety Forum Working Group for Directorate-General Information Society of the European Commission. It represents the view of the experts on improving Road Safety in Europe with eSafety systems. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the European Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the European Commission’s or its Information Society Directorate-General’s view. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof. In addition, the European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in this publication.

Page 4 of 120

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Implementation Road Maps Working Group of the eSafety Forum commenced its activities in July 2003. The objectives were 1) to identify the technical and economical potentials of the industry as well as the topics and time table for infrastructure improvements by the public sector with regard to eSafety systems capable of affecting road fatalities in Europe by 2010, and 2) to develop regularly reviewed road map which focuses technological steps and economic implication models for introduction of intelligent integrated road safety systems as well as the required improvements in road and information infrastructure. The working group assessed all feasible eSafety systems according to a comprehensive evaluation criteria reflecting its objectives, and provided a final report in 2005 including eleven priority systems, which the working group saw best fit for large-scale deployment and gave recommendations towards their deployment before 2010. The working group concentrated on monitoring and promoting the deployment of the priority systems, and has in 2008 and 2009 carried out a renewed assessment of systems with the purpose of improving the safety and energy-efficiency of the transport system by 2020 with the help of eSafety systems. The priority vehicle based systems are now: Blind spot monitoring Adaptive headlights Obstacle & collision warning Lane departure warning Emergency Braking (added in 2008) The priority infrastructure-related systems are: eCall Extended environmental information (Extended FCD) RTTI (Real-time Travel and Traffic Information) Dynamic traffic management Local danger warning Speed Alert Dynamic navigation (added in 2008) One key question is how to promote the deployment of these systems in future. There are also differences in feasibility between vehicle-based systems and more infrastructure / or mixed systems because their business cases vary. Different incentives are likely to enhance the customer awareness for eSafety features. For each priority system, two market penetration forecasts were estimated, one based on “business as usual” conditions and the other based on incentives and other measures to promote the deployment of the system. The potential safety effects of the systems were estimated based on the most recent results of research evaluating the impacts of such systems.

Page 5 of 120

The recommendations for the priority systems as identified in the Implementation Road Map working group are given below: Recommendations for in-vehicle systems: a. The automobile industry, European Commission, the Member States and other stakeholders should enhance the customer awareness of the safety benefits of such systems in vehicles through joint well structured and harmonized European campaigns, driver training & education programs, and media (consumer magazines). The awareness (and involvement) regarding eSafety systems among the personnel involved in the sales of new passenger cars could also be increased in some cases as shown in related studies. b. The Member States and insurance companies should give financial/fiscal incentives to customers to buy vehicles equipped with effective systems fulfilling the detailed specifications and standards drawn up for such specific systems. For this purpose, the discussion should start without further delay to clarify the possibility for incentives given by governmental authorities and/or insurance companies and other stakeholders, who benefit from the introduction of such systems to follow the example of tax incentives for lower emission vehicles. c. The EC and the Member States should support frequency allocations for radio-based systems. Earlier automotive applications used ISM bands (ISM – Scientific Industrial Medical). Meanwhile these bands are overcrowded, their usability for applications of automotive safety is limited. In addition higher bandwidth is required e.g. for automotive radar to achieve higher local resolution. Some sensor applications use also Ultra-Wide Band technology. Frequency allocation means frequency sharing with primary or secondary services and is very complex, time consuming and leading to restrictions if not done early enough. Support is needed to achieve viable frequency allocations especially for applications with high benefit for road safety. This includes also the possible support in the worldwide harmonization of the frequency allocations. d. European Commission should initiate actions to make information on the availability and actual integration of eSafety systems in vehicles available for accident research, deployment monitoring and other relevant purposes across Europe. e. The European Commission, together with the Member States, industry and all other stakeholders, should continue promoting R&D to improve existing safety and develop new improved safety systems. Research should also continue on co-operative (vehicle and infrastructure) systems, especially on applications dedicated to safety and energy efficiency. Improvements on existing systems through the addition of

Page 6 of 120

V2V and V2I communication functionality should also be considered. f. Stakeholders should jointly develop feasible sustainable business models for each application on the principle that investments and costs of operation and individual and societal benefits are correctly balanced. This should also cover nomadic and aftermarket device based solutions. g. Steps towards deployment should be supported by the European Commission through Field Operational Tests (FOT's) and CIP pilots considering appropriate and feasible sustainable business models for each application. In specific cases, it may be necessary to establish PPP (Public-Private Partnership) arrangements between public authorities and private companies. h. The role of nomadic devices in speeding up the deployment of safety applications needs to be further elaborated. The eSafety Nomadic Device Form has an important role to play in bringing together the different stakeholders in order to ensure safe integration, HMI and safe use of the systems comparable with embedded systems. Recommendations for autonomous vehicle systems: In order to increase and accelerate the market penetration of eSafety systems with highest safety benefits, such as and going beyond ESC, i. EuroNCAP should consider incorporating the presence and performance of such systems into their rating scheme as soon as proven technology, appropriate testing methods and safety benefit data become available. j. The European Commission and the Member States should consider regulatory actions (such as making a system mandatory equipment in new vehicles as already decided for ESC and Tyre Pressure Monitoring) only as a last option, when such action is judged as essential and beneficial for both industrial and public stakeholders and when the related technologies have proven their maturity. Socioeconomic reasons and respecting the principle of subsidiarity are other important decision criteria. Voluntary solutions should be favoured. k. The automobile industry, European Commission, the Member States and other stakeholders should continue to support R&D efforts to develop new technologies and solutions for in-vehicle safety systems as well as evaluating the effects of eSafety system on safety, mobility, environment, economy and employment. l. The automobile industry is invited to support the development and marketing of those autonomous vehicle systems that have the highest potential to deliver according to societal goals formulated by the

Page 7 of 120

European Commission, in particular reducing non-use of seat belts , driving while intoxicated (alcohol and drugs), and over-speeding. Recommendations for infrastructure-related systems: In order to increase and accelerate the deployment of safety beneficial infrastructurerelated eSafety systems, m. The Member States should ensure the deployment of socioeconomically feasible systems and services according to their responsibility and in line with the requirements accepted at the European level, e.g. equipment of PSAPs to receive all standardised (e.g. CEN and ETSI) types of eCalls, harmonisation of variable message signs, and European standards. n. Improvements in the infrastructure are required to implement a number of infrastructure-based and co-operative solutions. Although those improvements depend essentially on the Member States, the European Commission should develop all the necessary steps to support them through the instruments at their disposal (e.g. ITS Action Plan, EASYWAY project, TEN-T programme, Urban Mobility Action Plan, Road Safety Action Plan & Charter) and using new methodologies like Lead Markets (increase the willingness of countries and regions to take on the role as “early adopters” for eSafety systems) and PreCommercial Public Procurement. o. The industry, European Commission and the Member States should together take actions to ensure that digital maps with the information required by the eSafety systems are developed for all roads in the Member States covering commercial and private traffic needs. p. The actual systems will in the future be object of further integration and improvements. Safety will further increase, fuel consumption should be reduced just as the energy-efficiency of the road transport sector and the overall capacity of the transport system should improve. However, there are a number of issues the European Commission should assess and potentially address: • Standardisation of communication channels and protocols for public and private services across Europe; • Standardisation of equipment to enable interoperable 'intelligent road infrastructure' across Europe • Continuity of services and equal level of service quality all over Europe, across boundaries and modes of cooperation • Business models taking into consideration all (perceived) benefits and costs and the attractiveness for all involved parties. q. The European Commission and the Member States should continue to support R&D efforts to develop new technologies and solutions for infrastructure-related safety systems as well as to evaluate the effects of such systems on safety, mobility, environment and other socio-

Page 8 of 120

economic factors Concerning eCall, r. The European Commission, the Member States, the industry and other stakeholders should support the European and national implementation platforms to ensure the deployment of all types of standardised public and third party supported eCall systems across Europe s. The European Commission should actively follow the standardisation activities in CEN and ETSI to ensure the timely delivery of standards and operating requirements t. The Commission and Member States need to ensure that open legal and privacy issues are solved prior to introduction to avoid liability cases going beyond technical product liability u. Service / system functionality needs to be sufficiently tested v. Industry lead time requirements need to be taken into account. Concerning RTTI, w. The European Commission, the Member States and the industry should follow the recommendations of the RTTI Working Group Concerning dynamic traffic management and local danger warnings, x. The road authorities and operators should develop together a European vision and strategy for the deployment and operation of dynamic traffic management and local danger warning systems in co-operation with vehicle and telecommunications industry. Concerning speed alert, y. Concerning speed alert, the European Commission and the other stakeholders should promote the deployment of appropriate systems and solve any open issues. For infrastructure related systems, these issues are related to quality of data, accuracy, coverage, and timely updating of data, and cooperation between public authorities, road operators and industry. For vehicle systems based on image processing, the open issues include identification and processing of all kinds of signs indicating speed limit values directly or indirectly, and potentially a further standardisation of traffic signs and their layout.

Page 9 of 120

INTRODUCTION

The original task given to the Implementation Road Maps Working Group (IRM WG) in 2003 was on the one hand to investigate how to promote the roll–out and deployment of vehicle and infrastructure based systems inclusive cooperative systems but also on the other hand to install a regular monitoring process for taking track of the achievements from different measures promoting the deployment of already existing applications and the necessary support for new applications which might be in line with the over all goal to reduce the road accidents and fatalities. The first timeline of 2010 has now been extended to 2020 in view of the speed of deployment of new eSafety systems and the yearly renewal rate of the whole fleet in Europe as well as the influence of new EU member states. So far, the key questions are still the same, but between 2003 and today there have been significant achievements in the deployment and also in the availability of new systems and functions. It is a clear target to reduce the number of fatalities in a significant way, but it is still complicated to describe the whole bundle of challenges to reach this very essential target. We still have some major problems like low public awareness and customer willingness to pay more for safety features. The workshops organised together with eSafetySupport and the IRM WG had clearly indicated that we need large scale deployment for the key systems in order to reduce the delay between market availability and whole fleet penetration. If only a small number of systems is sold, the business case will be problematic for the involved partners. Strict regulations for fitment of safety related systems should only be used as the last possible option. The primary choice is to have market driven solutions. In 2009, the eSafety Forum has been extending its scope to have a triangle of safe, clean, and smart applications to convince the customer to invest into systems and fitments which are going to have beside some very smart solutions like dynamic traffic information and navigation also the reduction of fuel costs, CO2 emissions, and accident risks. Large scale deployment will be more likely if this combination of benefits is available. Increasing fuel prices and congestion throughout Europe have supported the market demand for such systems. This report summarises the actual situation concerning the eSafety deployment and impacts in general terms as well as showing what deployment and results can be achieved by measures taken and identifying future task and recommendations to involved stakeholders in line with the overall goal of reducing road fatalities. A proposed processing model will describe how we can monitor what measures are having sufficient effect for deployment and the overall result of this for a yearly update. 2

REVIEW OF THE PRIORITY SYSTEMS

The agreed general approach was defined as follows:

Page 10 of 120

A Survey of existing and feasible upcoming eSafety systems and available data sources B Qualified ranking for identification of priority systems, with the relevant factors: availability and capability estimated impact on road safety general user intentions cost / efficiency business models /cases C Evaluation of findings and best / worst case figures under certain circumstances D Implementation issues E Recommendations for actions to promote roll-out and deployment of priority systems F Method for regular updating of the implementation road map

The Working Group dealt with a number of systems, which were first classified according to the timing of their operation with regard to the accident or crash: 1) normal driving, 2) danger phase, 3) crash unavoidable, 4) in-crash, and 5) post-crash. The primary systems (1 and 2) reduce accident risk whereas the secondary ones reduce the consequences of accidents. The functions can be autonomous, co-operative or infrastructure based and hence the following classification was adopted: 1) Vehicle autonomous systems, 2) Vehicle autonomous systems with network potential, 3) Aggregate information in the vehicle with vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to infrastructure/infrastructure to vehicle (v2v or v2i/i2v) communication, and 4) Functions with support/communication from/to infrastructure. After clarification of tasks and available options, it was possible to identify the relevant systems. It should be pointed out that the WG only included systems where the market introduction would be possible in the very near future i.e. by 2010. A number of systems are still under research and hence, out of the time frame of this report. The list of systems needs to be adapted when emerging technologies appear on the market. The systems were first classed according to the following categories: A B C

vehicle based autonomous systems infrastructure & vehicle based systems infrastructure based systems

Systems that are already in all new cars were left out of this list like ABS. Later, these were reclassified into two categories of vehicle based (A) and infrastructure related systems (B and C). The systems are described in Table 1 and 2.

Page 11 of 120

Table 1. Description of vehicle based eSafety systems. Adaptive Brake Lights

Triggered by the strengths of brake activation the rear brake lights are illuminated in different kinds to indicate emergency braking manoeuvres to the following vehicles Adaptive Head The system consists of electromechanical controlled headlights to ensure Lights optimum illumination of the lane in bends. The headlight is directed into the bend as soon as the vehicle begins cornering. A reduction of the glare to the upcoming vehicles is possible. Vehicle speed, yaw-rate and steering wheel angle can be used as input data for the controller of the system. Alcolock (Alcohol An alcolock prevents a car from starting if alcohol is found in the air exhaled by ignition interlock) the driver. The alcolock is a technical device that is connected to the vehicle ignition system. Before starting the car, the driver must blow into a mouthpiece to check the air exhaled. If this contains alcohol with BAC (Blood alcohol content), equal to or more than the legal limit, it will not be possible to start the engine. Alcolocks are used today for quality assurance purposes and are part of DWI (Driving-While-Intoxicated) offences. In some countries, anyone convicted of DWI may apply to participate in an alcolock programme instead of losing their driving licence. One of the requirements placed on those taking part is that they must blow into the device at random intervals during the course of a journey. Any trace of alcohol found in the exhaled air is registered in the alcolock memory function. A number of companies use alcolocks in their endeavours to quality-assure their transport and to guarantee that deliveries are carried out by sober drivers. Automatic When activated, the system switches on the headlights automatically when major Headlight environmental conditions for the use of head lights are present. The system Activation detects the darkness and the light conditions in the environment. Blind spot Using solely a mirror for rearward view is normally inadequate due to so-called monitoring “blindspots” on both sides of a vehicle. . Different systems can either provide better vision into the blind spot area or supplemental information regarding an obstacle being there, e.g. by warning signals. Wide angle side mirrors reduce the blind spot area. If the mirrors are heated, the vision in bad weather conditions is optimised further. Camera techniques with image processing or radar sensors can give additional information about the situation in the blind spot area. An adequate HMI solution is generally a prerequisite for an effective system. Driver Condition The system monitors the condition of the driver basically through eye-movement Monitoring sensors . Discussed parameters today are drowsiness, distraction, and inattention. Systems today are focussing on commercial (long-distance) drivers but general applications also for passenger cars might become technically available and affordable Dynamic control Active Front Steering: The AFS allows - electronically controlled - a variable systems (ESC etc) steering transmission and steering force support. Two different inputs overlap, the steering angle from the steering wheel and a correction angle given by a controller through a special gearbox. Electronic Stability Control ESC: Stabilises the vehicle under all driving conditions and driving situations within the physical limits. Helps to stabilise the vehicle and prevent skidding when cornering or driving off through active brake intervention on one or more wheels and intelligent engine torque management. Active Body Control ABC: Active damping and suspension system minimising car body roll and pitch motion, adjusting ground clearance according to speed, allowing for a two stage ride height including load-independent all-round selflevelling. Event data On-board EDR units collect certain vehicle parameters to monitor quality of driving recorder and technical functionality. Those data, before, during and after an event, can be used for scientific, technical and legal purposes. Driver awareness of such a system might reduce the number and severity of drivers’ crashes. Privacy issues might need to be considered. Inter vehicle To transmit warnings about hazards and extended data to other vehicles in the hazard warning vicinity, the function uses technologies of wireless local area networks between cars. Vehicles can be used as senders, receivers and relay stations for that information. Other technologies using communication infrastructure can provide

Page 12 of 120

local hazard warnings with the help of extended floating car data too. Lane Departure Warning

Warning given to the driver in order to avoid leaving the lane unintentionally. Video image processing is the most important technology. The system is based on the availability and visibility of proper road markings. Lane Keeping Active lane-keeping support through additional and perceptible force e.g. in the Assistant steering wheel. Motorcycle ABS allows the rider to use the full braking capacities of his motorbike in Antilock Braking emergency situations: it prevents wheels from locking and ensures bike stability Systems (ABS) and optimal deceleration. There are other advanced braking systems such as the CBS Combined Braking System, which are also put progressively on the market. Obstacle& System detects obstacles and gives warnings when collision is imminent. First Collision Warning solutions with limited performance are a separate feature of Adaptive Cruise Control systems, which use information obtained from radar sensors to give visual and acoustic warnings. Current systems use long range/short range radar sensors or in future also mid-range radar LIDAR and video image processing. Emergency System detects obstacles and gives warnings when collision is imminent (see Braking Obstacle&Collision Warning). In case that a collision will be unavoidable the system brakes automatically and forcefully, and may also activate measures of passive safety such as pretension the seat belts. Run Flat Indicator In case of an air loss in a tire the systems gives a warning to the driver. With the / Tire Pressure run flat indicator the system detects the different rotation speed of the tire which is Monitoring System under-inflated. In case of a tire pressure monitoring system the air pressure in each tire is directly measured and displayed if necessary. Traffic sign The function uses camera technologies and image processing to perceive the recognition and traffic-signs and give an alert about the content of the sign to the driver. The HMI alert is an important aspect for the information process. This functionality can also be provided as retrofitted equipment . Vision Assistance function with camera techniques like infra-red which enhances the enhancement perception of pedestrians and other relevant objects at night or in otherwise bad vision conditions

Page 13 of 120

Table 2. Description of infrastructure related eSafety systems eCall

The emergency-call gives precise coordinates of the location of an accident and information about the vehicle to the emergency services which are responsible for the help. The service is a multi-stakeholder function of public organisations, telecom companies and service providers and car manufacturers. Extended Data from different sources of the vehicle e.g. switched on lights, windscreen environmental wipers on, fog lights on, sensors monitoring the road surface (e.g. ice on the information road), information from ABS, stability control systems can be used to create useful information about the environmental situation where the vehicle is driving. They are called extended floating car data, which can - after filtering provide information about potentially dangerous situations at certain locations. These data are handled like floating car data (high quality congestion- / traffic information) This is information to the driver about the traffic (congestion) and weather High quality conditions for choosing the most effective route or for preparing to cope with the Congestion/Traffic foreseeable situation ahead on the route. Important is the actuality of the Information / information about the traffic situation to maintain the credibility of the function. RTTI (Real Time The information is transmitted to in-vehicle and nomadic devices. Short-term Travel and Traffic forecasting is essential for these systems. Information can be personalised. Information) Infrastructure Based Warning systems about dangerous locations or situations do not necessarily Warning Systems / have to rely on vehicle based technology. There are solutions which are only Local Danger based on the infrastructure to warn the drivers. Spot-wise warning can be given Warning via variable message signs, flashing or electronic beacons, radar based excessive speed information. The system alerts the driver with audio, visual and/or haptic feedback when the Speed Alert speed exceeds a limit set by the driver (speed limiter) or the legal fixed speed limit. The speed limit information is either received from transponders in speed limit signs, in-vehicle cameras with traffic sign recognition or from a digital road map, requiring reliable positioning information. Dynamic traffic Influencing traffic flow by influencing speeds, lane use, route choice, merging management operations by employing variable message signs (VMS) in order to improve safety and network utilisation. Applications include also e.g. ramp control, access control, tunnel control and closure. Three categories of VMS are identified: 'regulatory messages', 'danger warning messages' and 'informative messages'. Uses for motorway links, for network situations and for rerouting are also recognised as functionally separate domains.

The systems are based on a number of technologies as illustrated in Table 3. It is evident that several systems utilise and/or require the same technologies. Hence, it is cost-effective to develop and provide system and application packages, the price of which would be substantially lower than for getting each system or application separately.

Page 14 of 120

Table 3. Technology prerequisites for the eSafety systems. Green colour means that technologies are alternatives. Vehicle 2 IR / Vehicle Camera 24 GHz LIDAR communic ation

yaw rate, deceleration, brake actuation turn indicator signal

ESC Blind Spot Monitoring Vision Enhancement Lane Keeping Assistance

X X (+ IR)

Lane Departure warning

other vehicle/driver data

Airbag/ CPU

Driver Condition Monitoring

eye movements, operation of in-vehicle systems, …

Map based Speed Alert Local Danger Warning eCall Adaptive Headlights Obstacle and Collision Warning Emergency Braking

X X

X X X

turn indicator signal

belt status, passenger detection

GPS

GSM

Digital Map

PSAP

DAB/ TMC

VMS

Road Traffic weadetec- ther tion detection

Incident detection

X X

Run Flat Indicator

Tire Pressure Monitoring

tire pressure sensors

Autom. Headlight activation

light conditions

Event Data recorder

driver input data, status of safety/assistance systems, deceleration

Adaptive Brake Lights

deceleration

Dynamic Traffic Management Infrastructure based Warning System High Quality Congestion/Traffic Information / RTTI

X X X

X X

Seat Belt Reminder*

Extended Environmental Information

wheel Steering speed sensor sensors

X X

The following aspects were considered for each system: • Accidents / fatalities to be affected • % change in accidents expected • other side effects / comfort functions • cost of in – vehicle systems • cost for infrastructure systems (investments / maintenance) • cost for information infrastructure (investment / maintenance ) • year of technical readiness • year of implementation readiness • user acceptance and willingness to pay for • year of implementation by regulation • specific implementation issues • estimation of cars equipped with the system in 2010 / 2020 • other actors involved for implementation It was found that not all of the questions raised could be answered. The competitive situation does not allow industrial players to unveil sensitive information before the market implementation of new functions and features. Some other questions can only be answered by dedicated studies and sophisticated research programs. Hence, not all fields in the table could be filled with appropriate data. So a more general way of ranking and evaluation of experts was used. After a ranking based on safety impacts, availability and possible market deployment, the Working Group selected a number of systems as priority systems. The priority systems are systems, which are expected to be able to reduce road fatalities in Europe already in the short- and medium-term. The priority systems are the following: Vehicle-based systems - ESC (Electronic Stability Control) - Obstacle and collision warning - Emergency braking - Blind spot monitoring - Adaptive head lights - Lane departure warning Infrastructure-related / based systems - RTTI (Real Time Traffic and Travel Information) - Dynamic traffic management (VMS) - Local danger warning - Extended environmental information / Extended Floating Car Data - eCall 1 - Speed Alert Note that Emergency braking was added to the priority systems at the end of 2008. The ESC and the Tyre Pressure Monitoring systems have been targeted for legislative activities. ESC and Tyre Pressure Monitoring will become compulsory equipment on all new motor vehicles in EU starting in 2012, with all new cars equipped in 2014. 1

Automated emergency call systems include the public pan-European eCall systems as well as private solutions from different companies.

Emergency Braking and Lane Departure Warning will be mandatory for trucks in the year 2013. Due to the high market penetrations foreseen after the mandation of ESC, the Implementation Road Maps Working Group did not see any reason to include ESC in the priority list any more and decided to eliminate it from the list at the end of 2009.

BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE PRIORITY SYSTEMS

Annex 1 presents a literature review of the safety impacts of priority eSafety systems including the results of the latest European research projects around these issues. It should be noted that the accident data bases used in the studies so far are not optimal for the purpose of estimating the safety effects of intelligent vehicle safety systems. In order to facilitate more qualified assessments of the safety potential of eSafety systems, the European databases for accidents should be improved in line with the recommendation of the Accident Causation Data Working Group. First steps into the direction of a harmonised accident database were taken in the TRACE project. A summary of the expected safety benefits of active safety systems according to research results is given in Table 4. In addition to the direct safety benefits, the systems have indirect safety benefits in the form of reduced congestion as 10-18% of all road congestion in Europe is accidentrelated. As eIMPACT and CODIA results indicated, the systems also affect traffic flow and thereby congestion, fuel consumption and emissions but these effects account for a very minor part of the benefits in comparison to the accident and accident-related congestion benefits. Investment, maintenance and operation costs have been explored in eIMPACT, CODIA and EasyWay in addition to the US database on ITS benefits and costs database. The cost figures vary considerably between products, suppliers and countries. In addition, cost figures are not directly relevant for customers' purchase decisions, which are based on market prices. Large-scale deployment related market prices, however, are not yet widely available due to the early state of deployment for many applications. The benefit to cost ratios of some priority systems were estimated in the eIMPACT project. The benefit-cost ratios in the forecasted 2010 accident situation were of the following approximate magnitude (in parentheses systems, for which a quite similar system was evaluated): Electronic Stability Control 4.5 (Obstacle & collision warning) 2 Emergency braking 6 (Lane departure warning) 2.5 eCall 3 Speed Alert 2

Page 17 of 120

Table 4. Expected safety benefits of the priority systems based on research results and expert assessments. More details and related references can be found in Annex 1. Priority systems

ESC

Obstacle & collision warning Emergency braking Blind spot monitoring Adaptive head lights Lane departure warning RTTI Dynamic traffic mgmt (VMS) Local danger warning Extended environmental information eCall Speed Alert Dynamic navigation

Accident type especially affected

single accidents, loss of control, accidents on wet and slippery roads rear-end crashes

Local results in specific conditions for effects on all accidents for vehicles or roads equipped based on research incorporating accident analysis injury crashes -7 to -25%; EU: -7% all fatal crashes -15 to -40% all fatalities -15 to -20%; EU -17% -

rear-end crashes

all fatalities EU -7% all injuries EU -7% -

side collisions accidents with pedestrians and cyclists on unlit roads head-on or run-off-road, side collisions accidents in adverse conditions, pile-ups accidents in adverse conditions, pile-ups accidents in adverse conditions, pile-ups accidents in adverse environmental conditions

accidents caused by exceeding speed limits all accidents

injuries EU -2 to -6% all fatalities EU -5 to -10% accidents in slippery conditions -5 to -15 all injury crashes -5 to -20% all fatal crashes -10 to -25% all injury crashes -1 to -15% -

all fatalities -2 to -15%; EU -6% severe injuries -3 to -15%; EU -6% all injuries EU -6% * all fatalities EU -9% * reduced exposure but increased accident rate due to driving on lower category roads

* active accelerator pedal version

PENETRATION OF THE PRIORITY SYSTEMS

The Working Group produced so-called simplified road maps describing the market penetration or deployment speed for two cases: 1) Business as usual and 2) Incentives and EU support. The first case describes the current situation with no extra measures to accelerate the roll-out of eSafety systems. In the second case, tax incentives, enhanced customer awareness programs, insurance gcompanies incentives for eSafety Systems, and EU support actions for deployment (e.g. TEN-T support) will be carried out, and standardisation will reduce prices due to economies of scale

Page 18 of 120

The level of market penetration or deployment was estimated in the following categories: - Very high 80 up to 100 % - High 50 up to 80 % - Medium 20 up to 50 % - Low 5 up to 20 % - Very low 0 up to 5 % The estimates of the level of market penetration for priority vehicle-based systems are given in Table 5. Table 5. Estimates of new car market penetration of priority vehicle-based systems in the “business as usual” and “implementation support” scenarios. Note that in the case of ESC, the business as usual has already contained implementation support. Business as usual ESC Obstacle & collision warning Emergency braking Blind spot monitoring Adaptive head lights Lane departure warning Implementation support ESC Obstacle & coll.warning Emergency braking Blind spot monitoring Adaptive head lights Lane departure warning

2010 high very low very low very low low very low 2010 high very low very low very low low very low

% new cars equipped 2015 very high low low low medium low % new cars equipped 2015 very high medium medium low medium medium

2020 very high medium medium low medium medium 2020 very high high high medium high very high

The market penetration varies a lot between different car segments, being highest in the top-end models and lowest for smallest cars, for which the price of any system forms a much larger proportion of the car price than for larger cars. The market penetration also varies between countries The estimates of the level of market penetration for priority infrastructure-related systems are given in Table 6 for cars and in Table 7 for the road network. It should be noted that the only reason for giving the estimates for the TERN is that currently European data on current and planned deployment only exists for the TERN. It is likely that the estimates correspond well to the situation on other major roads as well. More detailed information on the level of system deployment on the TERN is given in Annex 2. Concerning the network equipped (Table 7), it should be noted that the most problematic and important parts are equipped first.

Page 19 of 120

Table 6. Estimates of new car market penetration of priority infrastructure-related systems in the “business as usual” and “implementation support” scenarios. Business as usual RTTI* Dynamic traffic mgmt (VMS) Local danger warning Extended environmental info* eCall* Speed Alert Dynamic navigation Implementation support RTTI* Dynamic TM (VMS) Local danger warning Extended environmental info* eCall* Speed Alert Dynamic navigation

% new cars equipped 2015 2020 medium high not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable low medium very low high very low medium medium high % new cars equipped 2010 2015 2020 Low medium high not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable very low medium high very low low high very low low high low high high/very high 2010 Low not applicable not applicable very low very low very low low

*Note that the estimates do not take into account nomadic systems for functions like RTTI, Local danger warning, eCall, etc. This means that the number of cars equipped is underrated.

Table 7. Estimates of TERN deployment of priority infrastructure-related systems in the “business as usual” and “implementation support” scenarios. Business as usual RTTI 1) Dynamic traffic mgmt 2) Local danger warning 2) Extended environmental info eCall Speed Alert Dynamic navigation Implementation support RTTI 1) Dynamic traffic mgmt 2) Local danger warning 2) Extended environmental info eCall Speed Alert Dynamic navigation

% of network equipped 2015 2020 medium high low medium low medium low medium very low high low medium medium high % of network equipped 2010 2015 2020 Low high very high low medium high low medium very high very low medium high very low low very high very low medium high low high high/very high

2010 Low low low very low very low very low low

1) % of network with sufficiently good quality RTTI 2) applies only to the problematic part of the network (probably around 20-30% of the network) TERN: Trans European Road Network

Page 20 of 120

The figures shown above apply to the fitment of new vehicles. A study of vehicle fleet compositions in numerous European countries revealed that the average age of vehicles is somewhere between seven and more than ten years. This means that a number of vehicles, which will be on the roads in 2015 and beyond are already in operation today. In other words, as only a few systems with noticeable impacts on safety are on the market today; especially Anti-Lock Braking Systems (ABS) and Electronic Stability Control (ESC), their impact would be rather limited. Other systems, such as adaptive cruise control systems, are currently only being deployed in the high-end sector of new vehicles and will take years to reach a significant market and especially fleet penetration. Today, possible market penetration of new systems can only be calculated on the basis of rough assumptions. Simulations with different vehicle fleets and assumed equipment rates starting with low figures and assuming increasing equipment rates in the oncoming years led to the result that by 2010 only minor parts of vehicle fleets will be equipped with safety relevant ITS-systems. The SEISS study2 estimated that in 10 years ca. 29% of the whole vehicle fleet of the 25 member states would be equipped with a system becoming standard equipment now. It should be noted that these estimates correspond to the “business as usual” case and do not take into account the impact of government or insurance incentives, campaigns and other positive influences for better customer awareness of eSafety systems. 5

PROMOTION OF IMPLEMENTATION

Coming from the position of a market driven solution as the major element in deployment strategies, market demand is one of the most important issue. This in why the User Outreach WG was established, and due to its recommendations, the eSafety Aware initiative was created. A starting point for campaigns was to have a clear message for the end user concerning a safety system available today. Therefore, eSafetyAware has been active in the promotion of ESC, through the “ChooseESC” campaign following some national campaigns of user organisations like e.g. ADAC in Germany. The campaign was launched in May 2007 by the eSafety Aware platform and its 37 member organisations. In 2008 alone, around 35 events and meeting supporting the “ChooseESC” campaign were organised in more than 15 countries including France, Greece, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Estonia, China, Canada etc. Several of the campaign activities included live demonstrations and hands-on driving experience with and without ESC. Since the launch of “ChooseESC!”, many personalities have given their support to the campaign. ”ChooseESC!” is planning to continue its campaign activities to at least 2012 to inform consumers about the importance of choosing eSafety options when buying their next car.

Abele, J., Kerlen, C., Krueger, S., Baum, H., Geißler, T., Grawenhoff, S., Schneider, J. & Schulz, W.H. (2004). Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles. SEiSS. VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH and Institute for Transport Economics at the University of Cologne.

Page 21 of 120

The next functions to be promoted should be based on technologies, which observe the surrounding of the vehicle and detect objects to avoid or mitigate collisions by gaining additional time to react, to initiate emergency braking, or to prepare the vehicle before a collision might occur impact mitigation) The deployment figures in this report again differentiate between “business as usual” and those with implementation support. The implementation support can, in addition to the eSafety Aware and other campaigns, contain other additional measures by different stakeholders. A very common measure is to have tax incentives or lower insurance rates for vehicles with eSafety or other systems with proven (financial) safety benefit. There are several projects and offers for the end user providing financial benefits if a specific fitment is ordered. Another comparable measure with eSafety Aware has been the introduction within the EuroNCAP scheme. The difficulty in including active safety in the scheme designed for passive safety systems lies in preparation of an objective and relevant testing mechanism for the active safety systems. Tier 1 suppliers as well as CLEPA have organized training for dealers, and public activities to bring end users close to technology solutions like ABS or ESC. Demonstration days and drive tests on drive tracks have been received very positively and will have a kind of multiplier effect, because people who are convinced once will speak about the system also to others. DVR (Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat) has published a flyer and some other animations for the so-called “Bester Beifahrer" (best passenger) supported by ADAS systems. User organisations should be and also have been active,. In the future, the aforementioned actions will go ahead and additional measures will take place such as field operation tests (FOT). FOTs are expected to communicate the positive results to public and to rase public awareness for all involved partners: end users, dealers, governmental departments, and other organizations. One promising option could be to focus the incentives and other support actions into such systems, which could stimulate the whole deployment via bringing to the vehicles or infrastructure some basic components used by many different services. This would hold for eCall and its GPS/Galileo and GSM platform and for all communication based or cooperative systems. 6

UPDATED IMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAPS

The implementation issues relevant for each priority system were identified and reported applying a common template with the following headings: - System description - Technology availability - Road and information infrastructure need and availability - Organisation requirements - Regulatory requirements / barriers - Business case / customer awareness and acceptance - Key success factors - Feasible deployment strategies

Page 22 of 120

These implementation issue summaries are presented in Annex 3, and the main issues are discussed below.

6.1

ESC

The general key success factor for ESC (Electronic Stability Control) is an increase of consumer awareness in a cost sensitive market segment. Studies on this topic have found that customers are becoming more interested in eSafety products than years ago, but there is almost a huge potential open especially in the lower car segment. Inclusion of ESC in the EuroNCAP system and the Choose ESC! campaign have enhanced consumer awareness. Government and insurance incentives would accelerate the deployment even more. The mandatory introduction of ESC in new vehicles in EC will increase the penetration greatly. 6.2

Obstacle and collision warning

A growing number of models are available with forward collision warning systems, mostly as a feature offered together with ACC systems. Customer acceptance is increasing as ACC systems are enhanced to provide more support in more traffic situations. So the added comfort functions of ACC will make it easier for manufacturers to sell such systems. Short, mid and long-range radar systems as well as LIDAR and/or video image processing are the technologies used at least until 2010. 6.3

Emergency Braking Support

Based on radar (short and long range), LIDAR and/or camera vision several systems are already available that provide support in situations with a high risk of a head to tail collision in order to avoid the collision or to reduce the collision speed and the total crash energy. Total crash energy reduction correlates directly to crash injury mitigation. Different levels of support are available: enhancement of driver’s braking if necessary, automatic activation of partial braking, automatic activation of full braking. Some systems also trigger reversible measures of occupant protection. Consumer awareness should be improved by information campaigns.

Page 23 of 120

6.4

Blind Spot Monitoring

A first system based on video imaging has been available since 2006 integrated with other applications combining comfort and safety. Several other systems are now available that use short range radar (24 GHz). Consumer acceptance might be further enhanced by campaigns that demonstrate safety and convenience benefits of this system.

6.5

Adaptive Headlights

The system is available as an option in several European models. The total market for adaptive headlights is growing fast. Better headlights can directly be experienced by the drivers. The effects for road safety are probably acknowledged by the consumers. Customer awareness and willingness to bear the additional cost entailed is improving. In Europe, manufacturers predict that 10% of cars produced in 2007 will feature AFS (Advanced Front light System). Experts estimate 50% of all accidents that occur at night are affected by insufficient visibility or lighting. Hence, there is potential to reduce fatalities with the AFS technology.

6.6

Lane Departure Warning Systems

For commercial vehicles, systems have been available as extra fitment for several years. For passenger vehicles, some models are available with such a function. As with all of the driver assistance systems, the user should be well aware of the capabilities of the system. Very often users have high expectations which cannot be fulfilled by the system yet. 6.7

Common issues for vehicle-based systems

Having in mind a market driven solution without a mandatory regulation, customer awareness is a key factor for the deployment of those eSafety systems. The additional cost of safety systems compared with other comfort systems is also a major aspect.

Page 24 of 120

Business cases for OEM, supplier and also dealer and vehicle owner have to be positive. According to Züricher Versicherungsgruppe, the costs of accidents which can be affected by eSafety systems is about 15 billion € each year in Germany. For the EU15 countries the total cost of accidents is estimated to be ca. 160 billion € / year. The costs for advanced surrounding perception are significant. Overall, the business case has to be positive. One of the major issues in cost discussions is in some cases the unbalanced allocation of costs and benefits for the involved parties. Most of the business cases are positive for the society but not in all cases for the user or vehicle manufacturer. It is essential to develop a well balanced model in order to accelerate the roll-out of the systems. A detailed European accident database, which will enable the evaluation of the possible impact of different eSafety systems better than today, would make decisions in this field much easier. Internationally accepted consumer information by EURO NCAP about ESC and other active safety systems would increase the awareness of customer positively. Incentives given by Governmental departments or / and insurance companies will also be necessary for an increasing number of eSafety systems on the fleet. For most eSafety related functions on vehicles, the updated European Statement of Principles (ESoP) for HMI (Human machine interaction) is important. The updated EsoP contains more precise advice than before on: · · · · ·

Compliance with ISO standards, rules and directions System installation System information Nomadic devices Service provider/Fleet manager/Owner and Employers

Safe use of those systems over the full lifecycle of the vehicle is essential, while manipulation of the functions needs to be prevented. The eSafety Forum’s eSecurity Working Group is working on these issues. All functions have a considerable potential to save lives. A precondition for acceptance is to assure the required robustness, which leads to the “limitation” that these systems will not intervene in all theoretical feasible critical situations. Open legal issues (e.g. the issue of driver responsibility with automatically activated systems) must be solved taking into account all current regulations such as the Vienna convention.

Page 25 of 120

6.8

RTTI

The provision of real-time travel and traffic information of inter-urban and metropolitan traffic to the majority of drivers requires a number of actions. One of these is that the road administrations and ministries as well as the private operators in the member states of the EU should extend the introduction, the use and the application of the existing methods such as RDS/TMC. The main issues as identified by the RTTI working group are the limited availability of traffic information content especially in urban areas, difficulties in defining the roles of the public and private sectors, the cost of broadcasting, the limited data rate in FM radio, and the economic difficulties with business models. The member states should - agree at their national level on a strategy and time schedule for the implementation of RTTI services, starting from RDS/TMC, covering as good as possible both interurban and urban areas - support the Traveller Information Services Association TISA to push the safetyrelated services features of TMC, building on the already existing, standardised European format for the data, messaging and transmission standards, - take steps to ensure roaming and interoperability across the RTTI services in all of the EU member states, - require the authorities to make available existing public data for the provision of RTTI services and to establish additional collection of RTTI when necessary, - agree, on the basis of the national RTTI strategies, the Commission Recommendation on TTI services and the EU ITS Action Plan, with the private service providers on the minimum extent of the public (free of charge) services and the conditions for the commercial services, and establish public-private partnerships if necessary, - ensure the correct implementation for the standards by the service providers, - publish, following the guidance of the Commission RTTI recommendation, clear guidelines for the private sector concerning the conditions for establishing private data collection networks for commercial purposes, - require broadcasters, especially those operating under public licence, to carry the RDS/TMC traffic information on their FM services for public or private providers so that a minimum of 80% of journey drivers has access to a relevant service in 2010, - require authorities to ensure through the appropriate standardisation and regulation bodies that frequency spectrum and broadcast capacity will be made available for the more advanced digital broadcast services such as DAB, DRM, DVB-T and eventually satellite-DAB, - support the development of more advanced services which are possible by 3G Mobile Communications, DAB, DVB-T and satellite broadcasting, WLANs and others.

Page 26 of 120

The customer’s awareness and interest in the RTTI-service can be augmented with more and more actual and correct traffic information, not only warning for traffic problems but giving information of the end – or even the expected time for end – of a traffic problem, extension to inner-urban traffic information, eventually extra features such as expected travel times and reasonable costs. In order to accelerate the deployment of RTTI services, the authorities should provide existing RTTI data to the operators and broadcasters, and give support and allowances for private data collection and service provision – especially when public organisations and communities show little or no interest to provide an adequate RTTI service. 6.9

Dynamic traffic management

The technical implementation issues related to dynamic traffic management systems using Variable Message Signs (VMS) are mainly related to the need for some pictograms that could contribute to the optimisation of road availability and traffic flows distribution particularly at the local level, and to some extent at the regional level. Examples are lane allocation, hard shoulder use, rerouting, road-exit closures, and congestion on road-exit related to road-exit availability. VMS harmonisation, particularly when achieved with the new full-matrix VMS, could act as a transference design platform to in-vehicle devices, particularly with regard to messages concerning official information related to safety and mobility. This would also affect the harmonisation of in-vehicle displays. There are also communication and sensing issues in the use of vehicles as mobile sensors in provision of information required by traffic management. The use of data from in-vehicle systems to improve the quality of the monitoring systems will require new organisation-related solutions. European harmonisation has taken place and should be continued within the scope of the TEN-T programme of the European Commission. TEN-T programme support is also important for acceleration of the deployment of the dynamic traffic management systems on the TERN. There are considerable costs involved in the implementation of dynamic systems. A key success factor is to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the systems while keeping costs at a reasonable level. The former is ensured by high quality of the systems and high user acceptance enabled by the efficient and understandable control of the VMS and supported by the harmonised deployment of them on the European level. The latter is supported by the increasing use of mobile, in-vehicle based systems for producing the necessary traffic and environmental information required. The road authorities and operators should develop together a European vision and strategy for the deployment and operation of dynamic traffic management and local danger warning systems in co-operation with the vehicle and telecommunications industry and other involved parties, possibly on the basis of new PPP models. In the development the central organisations CEDR (Conference of European Directors of Road) and ASECAP ( = European Association of toll road operators) play an

Page 27 of 120

important role, and EasyWay involving key stakeholders from both organisations is the optimal development and deployment platform. 6.10 Local danger warnings The technical implementation issues related to local danger warnings using Variable Message Signs (VMS) as well as communication and sensing issues in the use of vehicles as mobile sensors in provision of hazard information. The VMS issues include missing pictograms as fog, rain, snow, unauthorised person on road, on-coming vehicle, etc., and the need to achieve two different reactions for the part of drivers depending on 1) whether the danger is near and immediate or 2) whether the danger is still far away. The introduction of danger warning pictograms without the read triangle has been proposed to provide pre-warnings (e.g., road works expected tomorrow on the road in question). For that, drivers must somehow learn that typical danger pictograms without red triangle are not implying immediate danger. The same issues and solutions for harmonisation, costs, need for TEN-T programme involvement and common European strategy as with dynamic traffic management systems also apply to local danger warnings. The co-operation with the vehicle and telecommunication industry are, however, even more central with local danger warning systems due to the presentation of warnings via in-vehicle systems and the need for quick transmission of hazard warnings.

6.11 Extended environmental information The main problems of extended Floating Car Data (FCD) are related to institutional and legal issues. Use of the system requires centres, which receive and fuse the data from various sources and prepare the actual and precise information of local hazards, traffic and road conditions (slippery roads, fog etc.). There should also be an organisation defining standards for the in-car equipment and an organisation to take care of the overall maintenance of the system. The same organisation could also be responsible for the further development of floating car data system. An organisation is also needed to deploy and maintain local transmitters and/or receivers to collect/distribute FCD and local information as well as to maintain the real-time data pool. In most cases a public service actor needs to be involved e.g. via a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP). In order to avoid the development of further proprietary systems, it is necessary to set up standardization committees in early development stages. The ISO International Organisation for Standardisation in its Working Group TC 204/Subworking Group

Page 28 of 120

SWG 16.3 for vehicle probe data for wide area communication is working. Their work item proposal contains “Architecture, Basic Data Framework and Core Data Elements”. The Standard is finished: Vehicle Probe Data for Wide Area Communication, ISO 22837 Legal issues to be solved include data protection and privacy issues concerning individual vehicles as well as issues related to the ownership of the data collected. Intelligent message management and feedback channels minimise data transmission costs and ensure validity of real-time data. A working business model can probably be built upon payments from road operators and authorities for the data for their traffic management purposes and providers of real-time services (such as prediction of travel times) offered to the public. The real-time status of the road network can be assessed with reasonable accuracy with about 5-10 % of cars equipped with in-car equipment used to collect FCD. This requirement is easier to meet when the geographic area is limited. Before the largescale deployment the technological solutions for data collection and fusion as well as business models should be tested in practise.

6.12 eCall One of the most complex systems is eCall as it involves all the stakeholders of the complete rescue chain. The eCall Driving Group (ECDG) has developed a comprehensive roadmap for integrating the eCall functionality in each new (type approved) vehicle from a certain point in time onwards, depending on the progress made from now on. The complexity of the implementation is given through the different institutional arrangements required in each Member State due to differences in delegation of responsibilities for managing emergency situations. There are also differences with the technological equipment available at today’s PSAPs (Public Service Answering Points) and their capability to manage eCall data. Furthermore emergency services across Europe are not the same as they have grown organically over decades. For European technical interoperability, a common system architecture with standardized interfaces and protocols is recommended to create necessary economies of scale and allow efficient cross border services. Under a clear European roll out and implementation plan and commitment the roll out should, therefore, start with the major European markets and the “Early Adopters”, should be sufficiently tested and the infrastructure should be made available in all countries according to the agreed implementation plan. The ECDG identified an annual saving potential of up to 25 bn Euro in the health and social cost area, which more than covers the cost of in-vehicle equipment and infrastructure upgrades. In so far, the business case is principally clear, the problem,

Page 29 of 120

however, is how, when and by whom will the cost be financed? This requires a political solution. A new eCall assessment study has been launched by the EC to investigate the market introduction of eCall across Europe, the legal and liability issues, the costs and benefits of the service and to assess three specific policy options: (1) Do nothing, (2) eCall introduction through voluntary agreement supported with public sector campaigns and other actions, or (3) Mandatory introduction by regulation. The results of this study are not yet available but progress has been made with the ITS Action Plan & Directive, where eCall is one of the key actions. Low interest of drivers and customers result from low awareness of the benefits of a standard in-vehicle eCall and the general overestimated imagination that the own risk is rather low. Furthermore, professional cost-free emergency services exist today resulting in the view that in-vehicle emergency systems, especially when based on 112, should also provide a service free of charge to the driver. At the end of June 2010, 20 EU Member States and three EFTA countries have signed the eCall Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). In total almost 100 companies and associations have signed the MoU. All details can be found under the eSafety Programme Office Web Site (www.esafetysupport.org). A field operational test has been planned to further proof the functionality of eCall under the standardized and agreed solution. The availability of a final solution on MSD, operating requirements for (public) eCall and (private) eCall support services has to be aligned with the start of the field operational tests. This test is expected to be carried out within the scope of the TeleFOT project. While TeleFOT has started, the section on eCall is still waiting for the finalisation of the standards to be tested. The eCall FOT has been embedded in the activities of the European eCall Implementation platform (see below), and is expected to take places in 2011-2013. According to the necessary three year lead time (after all specifications are determined the original roadmap of introducing eCall as a standard option for all new type approved vehicles after September 2010 is no longer achievable. How fast eCall can now be offered, depends on the basic decision if eCall will be mandated (see ITS Action Plan & Directive) or offered as a “standard” option in all vehicles 3 years after the end of the standardization process (including official approvals) , on the first results from the FOT, the availability of a feasible and fair business case for all stakeholders as well as a strong commitment from the European Member States. In March 2010, the introduction of in-vehicle systems was expected to be delayed at a minimum to 2014. In order to encourage a more active involvement of the EU Member States (or at least of those who have signed the MoU) in the eCall deployment process at European level, the EC have created the European eCall Implementation Platform (EeIP), which works through: • The definition of guidelines for implementation • The establishment of national and/or regional eCall deployment platforms

Page 30 of 120

• Special task forces • The follow-up of implementation at national-regional (cross border)-European level • The exchanges of best practices • Potential pilot programme to be supported by the EC. This Platform has started its activities in the beginning of 2009 and has defined a significant number of activities, which are currently processed or already finalized. The European Commission will finance a Pan-European eCall pre-deployment pilot in ICT Policy Support Programme. The large scale pilot should address the deployment of the necessary infrastructure to realise the pan-European in-vehicle emergency call service. The focus is therefore on the upgrade of the PSAPs infrastructure to handle the 112 emergency calls in combination with the pan-European eCall and on the implementation and testing of European available eCall standards. The expected outcome of the pilot is to boost Member States investment in the infrastructure in a harmonised way in order to deploy the European eCall service. The pilot is expected to start in the beginning of 2011 and will last 3 years.

6.13 Speed alert In a number of countries, some key questions related to speed alert still need to be answered such as voluntary or mandatory equipment of vehicles, type of speed limits, road categories or road sections to be covered, types of vehicles to be equipped, categories of road users to use speed alert, and overall the option for voluntary or mandatory equipment of vehicles. Suitable solutions need to be achieved, for example: how to convey speed limit modifications to the data bases of on-board units (OBUs), electronic maps, choice of secure communication mode - local short range communication or wide range communication (DAB, etc.). The basic information infrastructure required by the system, i.e. up-todate fixed speed limit information in digital road map, needs to be made available in Europe, but is currently only available for all roads in Norway, Finland and Sweden, and limited to motorways and main roads for a large part of Europe. The fixed speed limit information should be complemented with dynamic and temporary speed limit information at e.g. road maintenance sections to enhance user acceptance. The institutional and legal issues related to data quality requirements, questions of responsibility, liability, updating, timing of the updating, legal relevance of speed alert systems and speed limit signs as well as their possible contradictions and necessary business cases are among issues, which need to be solved. Currently, European road authorities and map providers work together in the ROSATTE project to develop a harmonised exchange platform to improve availability and accessibility of speed limit information for optimal integration into digital maps and to enhance continued quality control. This initiative is also supported through the ITS Action Plan priority “Optimised use of road, traffic and travel data”. Many portable navigation systems are providing speed limit information and some also offer a speed alert functionality

Page 31 of 120

indicating to what extent the current speed of the vehicle differs from the posted speed limit. Several vehicle manufacturers are using camera-based traffic sign recognition technology that can read speed limit affecting road signs and display the information on the dashboard, and this is another basis for speed alert and similar services. The demand for speed alert is expected to increase among authorities and transport operators due to safety concerns and among drivers due to increased automated enforcement of legal speed limits. The large-scale implementation in the short-term will depend on European and national regulations aiming at mandatory or voluntary deployment of the system. A decisive starting point would be the correct collection, timely update and guaranteed access to or provision of (national) speed data. The SpeedAlert project developed a European wide deployment strategy for voluntary in-vehicle speed alert systems by establishing a common classification of speed limits in Europe, defining the system and service requirements of in-vehicle speed alert system, defining the functional architecture of speed alert applications, harmonising the definition of speed alert concepts and identifying the requirements for standardisation. The project provided recommendations and an associated deployment roadmap for a European-wide implementation. It is quite likely that deployment has to build on voluntary systems because today the legal requirements are not solved all over Europe. In a longer perspective, mandatory systems could be deployed for certain customer groups, such as learning drivers, frequently caught speeders, drivers wishing for insurance bonus etc., if this is regarded as feasible and beneficial. 6.14 Dynamic navigation Dynamic Navigation Dynamic navigation uses current traffic data for adjusting the routing process with electronic Very high navigation systems. This enables users of dynamic navigation technology to avoid routes High with accidents, roadwork, road closure, and Medium overall traffic jams in “real time”. Such an Low advanced navigation system is able to reduce traveling times, fuel costs, emissions, and the Very low overall driver’s stress level. There are also 2010 2015 2020 safety related benefits as comprehensive Business as usual Implementation support deployment of systems for dynamic navigation could balance the volume of traffic as well as inform drivers about traffic jams and other hazardous situations in real time.

Today, the advanced technology for dynamic navigation is available in commercial channels with additional payment. However the set of traffic related information that is available free of charge is not able to provide a basis for interactive, wellfunctioning dynamic navigation processes. In addition to that, not all European countries have such free of charge TMC (traffic message channel) services. Therefore

Page 32 of 120

improvements in terms of content and coverage are needed in order to start establishing dynamic navigation that works across Europe. Commercial providers such as car manufactures and PND (portable navigation device) manufactures already have systems and infrastructure in place, which would allow dynamic navigation with the benefit mentioned above. These systems do not work with RDS networks but use cellular networks and therefore have two-way connectivity that facilitates very accurate traffic information for optimised route guidance as well as additional services such as LBS (location based services) or community services. Since the product life cycles and the corresponding development phases of PNDs are typically shorter than those of the in-built navigation systems, latest technology with regards to dynamic navigation will be first and foremost available on PNDs in the future. This needs to be considered when striving for a high market penetration of dynamic navigation, which is necessary for deployment and high customer acceptance. This theory is also backed by recent research from Berg Insight which predicts that more than 80 percent of all PNDs sold in 2015 will have cellular connectivity and therefore permits dynamic navigation. To raise customer awareness for dynamic navigation, it is necessary to establish crossborder TMC functionality based on RDS networks first, and then improve the traffic information services in terms of quality. After these steps the system of dynamic navigation then needs to be finalised by changing to a high-capacity communication network. 6.15 Systems for heavy duty vehicles Because of special implementation issues, different system solutions and also different accident analysis, the working group for Heavy Duty Vehicles was established. This working group identified in 2005 the following priority systems, after ranking and evaluation of effectiveness, costs, availability and customer acceptance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Tire Improvement Emergency Braking Systems Emergency Braking System incl. Stationary obstacles Emergency Braking Systems incl. Upcoming traffic Vulnerable Road User Protection System Extended Flexible Under run Protection Systems Inter Vehicle communication Intersection Assistance (infrastructure based) Interactive Driver Training

More detailed results can be found in the final report of the Heavy Duty Vehicles working group. Current priorities are reflected in the general safety directive on type approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (COM 2008, 316 Final).

Page 33 of 120

6.16 Systems for motorcycles Although the total number of fatalities by traffic accidents has been reduced in the past years, the number of motorcycle fatalities has either increased or remained constant in both developed and emerging countries. In total, motorcycle fatalities account for about 16% of fatal road accidents in the EU. Hence, the prevention of motorcycle accidents remains of one of the major EU road safety challenges. Safety systems have been developed and gradually fitted to motorcycles. The most common is anti-lock braking, ABS, which is considered by experts as the safety technology that has the highest accident reduction potential for motorcycles. ABS allows the driver to use the full braking capacities of his vehicle in emergency situations: it prevents wheels from locking and ensures bike stability and optimal deceleration. In order to avoid locking of the wheels, speed sensors at both wheels monitor the accurate speed of rotation. If a wheel blocking occurs due to over- or unbalanced braking, the ABS hydraulic unit corrects the braking pressure and prevents the blocking. This preserves the gyrostatic effect of the wheel and keeps the bike stable. Even an inexperienced driver can thus now achieve the best deceleration possible without incurring any risk. Currently, the ABS average fitment rate for motorcycles >250cc produced in Japan, Korea and China is about 14%. ABS is mostly sold as an option. Concerning twowheelers <250cc, they are very rarely fitted with ABS. Other advanced braking systems, such as CBS Combined Braking Systems, are also put progressively on the market, starting from high displacement engines. The effectiveness of motorcycle ABS to avoid or mitigate serious and fatal accidents under real driving conditions has been analysed and proven in several European and international studies. A recent study by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) shows that a 100 percent installation of a motorcycle ABS could avoid approximately 12 percent of both fatal accidents and accidents with serious injuries for all motorcycles above 50cc, resulting in an avoidance potential in Germany of 97 fatalities per annum (BASt, 2008). A study by the Allianz Center for Technology (AZT, 2005) on severe motorcycle accidents shows that between 8 and 17 percent of severe accidents with injuries and fatalities could have been avoided if the motorcycles were equipped with ABS. A reduction of approximately 100 fatalities and over 1,000 severely injured per annum could be expected for Germany. An accident research project for two-wheeler accidents from the Saarland police department came to the conclusion that approximately 20 percent of all motorcycle accidents (>125cc) with injuries and fatalities could be avoided thanks to ABS (Brutscher/Priester, ‘Unfallforschungsprojekt Zweiradunfälle’, 2005). Another study in the US, published by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in conjunction with the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), shows a 38 percent decrease in fatal crashes and a reduction of insurance claims of 19 percent for motorcycles fitted with ABS (IIHS, 2008).

Page 34 of 120

MODEL FOR A CONTINUOUS MONITORING PROCESS

The chapter deals mainly with the monitoring process concerning the deployment of the priority systems in Europe. 7.1

Instruments

Numerous statistics exist on the European level, e.g. by Eurostat (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu), but these do not include the information on the market or fleet penetrations of in-vehicle systems nor the infrastructure coverage of infrastructure related systems with few exceptions like e.g. the penetration of invehicle navigation systems. However, when it comes to penetration by model or even by brand, information is not publicly available. As safety systems are competitive products OEMs do not publish penetration rates of such products. One way is to request market penetration data from First Tier Suppliers to OEMs, especially those with an additional interest to sell such products and applications to the aftermarket or have an interest to increase the sales of their products through higher customer awareness and related demand (promotion of ESP/ESC through Bosch is a good example). In this case even information available on penetration rates per car category (mini, small, medium-sized and premium car segment) would be valuable. On the basis of the experiences so far, surveys seldom produce data of sufficient coverage. Personal interviews, on the other hand, are quite costly and only give a spotlight or a personal estimation. Interviews are made even more costly due to diffused responsibilities for monitoring and reporting the deployments on the national and European level. National vehicle registration authorities are one source of information, but they do not register the installation of all of the eSafety systems in a consistent and comprehensive manner throughout EU27. Concerning infrastructure related systems, the road operators are the most reliable source of information concerning the infrastructure coverage, but again aware only of their own infrastructure. For the Trans European Road Network, the Euro-Regional projects and their follow-up, EasyWay, might provide a good source of information. The European ITS Action Plan and the accompanying Directive reflect a need for the EU member states to periodically report on the deployment of ITS systems (including eSafety systems), in the first place to the European Commission. Once effectively put in place, this mechanism could constitute an optimal source of information and data also with regard to the monitoring and continuous upgrade of eSafety Implementation Road Maps.

Page 35 of 120

7.2

Updating schedule

The deployment should be monitored preferable on an annual basis. The ITS Directive (…laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes), expected to be adopted by the Council and European Parliament in the summer of 2010 stipulates periodical reporting tasks to all Member States in terms of detailed reports of ITS service/system deployments. In light of the ongoing process and its assumed timing, it is expected that the first reporting will be effective by early 2012.

7.3

Responsibility and financing

If carried out alongside the ITS Action Plan monitoring process, the basic responsibility for data collection and reporting lies with the Member States and the responsibility for specifying the data collection framework and the analysis of the data lies with the European Commission. 7.4

Modelling process

When compiling and collecting deployment information, information may be available on the equipment of new vehicles as well as new investments in the road and information infrastructure. For the latter, the estimation of the total infrastructure coverage is quite straightforward by adding the new coverage to the existing one. For vehicle systems, the estimation of the fleet penetration needs to consider the market penetration of new vehicles now and in the past years as well as the age distribution of the vehicle fleet. In some cases, such as in determining the impacts of the systems, it is useful to investigate the “vehicle kilometer” penetration also. This requires that fleet penetration rates of cars of different ages are weighted by the average distance driven in each vehicle age group. The actual methods have been developed and utilised by the EU project eIMPACT, and described in more detail in their deliverable.3

3 Wilmink I., Janssen W., Jonkers E., Malone K., van Noort M., Klunder G., Rämä P., Sihvola N., Kulmala R., Schirokoff A., Lind G., Benz T., Peters H. & Schönebeck S. (2008). Impact assessment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems. eIMPACT Deliverable D4. Version 1.0 April 2008.

Page 36 of 120

7.5

Template of the periodic report

The periodic report should contain the following information for vehicle systems: Instalment of factory installed systems in new vehicles in country NAME OF COUNTRY in year 20XX. Numbers of new vehicles registered during the year equipped with the system.

System

Cars

Light Goods Vehicles

Heavy Goods Vehicles

Buses

Electronic Stability Control ESC Blind spot monitoring Adaptive head lights Obstacle & collision warning Lane departure warning Emergency braking eCall Extended environmental info (X-FCD) RTTI Speed Alert Sales of aftermarket or nomadic systems for vehicle use in NAME OF COUNTRY in year 20XX. Numbers of devices including the system.

System

Cars

Light Goods Vehicles

Heavy Goods Vehicles

Buses

Obstacle & collision warning Lane departure warning eCall Extended environmental info (X-FCD) RTTI Speed Alert Coverage of road network or information infrastructure in NAME OF COUNTRY in year 20XX with systems (%).

System

TransEuropean Road Network TERN

Other main roads

Critical spots requiring local warning

PSAPs

eCall (PSAPs equipped to receive) Extended environmental info (X-FCD) RTTI Dynamic traffic management Local danger warning Speed Alert

Page 37 of 120

RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1

Review of earlier recommendations

The recommendations given in the initial report (2005) are in principle valid even today, but some elements should be added, because of ongoing events and additionally announced new initiatives. The most apparent problem concerning the eSafety actions is - as previously pointed out - the slow implementation rate concerning the existing applications and services. This is partly being addressed in the ongoing Field Operational Tests, where a successful outcome will be a strong motivator for raising awareness among the key potential customer groups. In addition, the eSafety implementation study 2007 clearly shows a large span in the eSafety implementation rates between the north and south of Europe. This can partly be explained by the fact that most new passenger cars in for example Denmark and Sweden are purchased at company level to be used by their employees. This means that the company has, on one side, a responsibility for the safety of their employees, on the other side company cars are quite often considered to reflect the status of the employee (management) and, therefore, part of their contract structure. This makes this group of customers more inclined to purchase the new technologies that benefit the users' safety The second movement towards an increased implementation rate could be triggered by the automobile manufactures influencing the sales organisations to promote and advertise the advantages with eSafety installations in new vehicles. The sales organisations have so far shown a different level of involvement in the promotion of eSafety systems. The support of the sales organisations would be very important for the deployment. The principle - as was shown in the previous recommendations - to concentrate on existing technologies and applications and prioritise their deployment compared to the addition of new technical solutions is to be maintained in the new version of recommendations. 8.2

European Commission

The recommendations concerning the European Commission are listed below. 1. The European Commission should investigate how to better collect and make available data on the presence of eSafety systems in a vehicle available without affecting the valid interest of individual companies with regard to competition. In particular, such information and the data collected by these systems should be made available for accident research. 2. The European Commission, together with the Member States, industry and all other stakeholders, should continue to promote R&D to improve existing safety applications and to develop new and better safety systems. Research should also continue on co-operative (vehicle and infrastructure) systems, especially on applications dedicated to safety and energy efficiency. Improvements on existing

Page 38 of 120

systems through the addition of V2V and V2I functionalities should also be explored. 3. Incentives towards deployment should be supported by the European Commission within their Framework Programmes, notably through support to Field Operational Tests (FOT's) and CIP pilots that consider appropriate and sustainable business models for individual applications. In specific cases, it may also be necessary to establish PPP's (Public-Private Partnership) or equivalent arrangements between public authorities and private companies. 4. The European Commission should continue to support the standardisation and harmonisation activities, and initiate definition of specifications required for panEuropean deployment of interoperable road safety solutions and systems. 5. A number of infrastructure-based and co-operative solutions require improvements in the infrastructure. Although such investments depend essentially on the Member States, the European Commission should pave the way for having such steps taken by promoting synchronised actions through the instruments at their disposal (e.g. ITS Action Plan, EASYWAY project, TEN-T programme) and by encouraging new methodologies such as Lead Markets (increasing the willingness of countries and regions to take on the role as “early adopters” for eSafety system deployment) and pre-commercial procurement. 6. The European Commission should support European campaigns to enhance the customer awareness of the safety benefits of safety systems, and motivate Member States and insurance companies to give fiscal/ financial incentives to customers who buy vehicles equipped with such systems. 7. The European Commission should take the necessary actions to ensure that digital maps containing the information required by eSafety systems are developed for all roads in the Member States as an important basis for the deployment of priority services like Speed Alert. Here, the Commission should follow, among others, the recommendations of the corresponding eSafety Forum Working Groups on digital maps and build on the results of dedicated R&D and pilot projects – e.g. ROSATTE. 8. The European Commission should consider regulatory actions, such as making systems mandatory equipment in new vehicles only when such action is judged as essential and beneficial for both industrial and public stakeholders. Voluntary solutions should be favoured. 9. Actual systems might become the object of further integration and improvements. Safety will further increase, fuel consumption should be reduced just as the energy-efficiency of the road transport sector and the overall capacity of the transport system should improve. However, there is a number of issues the European Commission should assess and potentially address: • Standardisation of communication channels and protocols for public and private services across Europe; • Standardisation of equipment to enable interoperable 'intelligent road infrastructure' across Europe

Page 39 of 120

• • •

8.3

Continuity of services and equal level of service quality all over Europe. across boundaries and modes of cooperation Business models taking into consideration all (perceived) benefits and costs and attractiveness for all involved parties. Progress in automation as a means to increase safety as well as energy efficiency and to reduce emissions and at the same time to improve comfort.

Member states

The past 10 years have witnessed an increasing safety and effectiveness of road transport. We also have a wider common understanding of what is important in the future with regard to different measures affecting safety and effectiveness, and recently more importantly, the link between mobility and the environment. Still, most of the recommendations of the Implementation Road Maps Working Group from 2005 and from its updated versions from 2007 are valid. Nevertheless, there is a lot to do and there is still a high potential for more road safety development in the future. The reason is that many of the effective solutions have not reached the stage of largescale deployment. Concentration on a few but available solutions in combination with very wide support from all important stakeholders is likely more effective than having a big bundle of good ideas but not enough resources to put them into force or promote them. Wide support is always available if there are, in addition to the positive safety effect, other benefits such as higher comfort or lower fuel consumption due to the application or the system. Some countries have a good track record for deployment of eSafety. For instance, Sweden has achieved a very high field deployment for ESC by actions agreed by all national stakeholders. They have also utilised effectively the market penetration via large vehicle fleet owners. This can be seen as an example for the deployment of eSafety applications in other Member States. It is highly recommended to have targets that are clear and simple to explain and easily understood by the consumers. Awareness campaigns for the most promising systems from the list of priority systems are important. If regulations are required for well recommended and available systems, functional definitions should be available to set clear quality levels to avoid insufficient solutions. Crossborder applications like eCall and RTTI need a minimum of general standardization to make solutions available for all Member States while respecting the subsidiarity principle. Smart, safe and clean mobility demands a high level of information and communication between all relevant partners. High efficiency for urban mobility can only to be achieved if traffic management centres are connected across the country and between Member States at the relevant areas. Actions like EasyWay are ideal vehicles for deploying such cooperation and data exchange.

Page 40 of 120

For applications and systems not yet showing a positive business case for the stakeholders involved, the Member States might support with appropriate incentives. Such incentives could be used in some cases just to start the ramp up process for getting systems and solutions into market. The overall focus has to be large-scale deployment instead of having just a small number of high-end vehicles equipped with the effective systems. To summarize, the following major targets should be addressed in appropriate manner enabling to have a measurable advantage within the next few years in compliance with the European actions such as the ITS Action Plan. • It is important to concentrate on a few but efficient systems and applications, such as the eSafety priority systems listed in this document or the core European ITS services identified by the EasyWay project. • The large scale deployment of active intervention driver assistance systems (or advanced driver assistance systems) to increase tvehicle safety and reduce the number of fatalities would benefit from clear system descriptions and performance criteria specifications. This would enable easier decision-making on incentives etc. for e.g. emergency brake applications and lane keeping assistance systems. • Despite the recent regulation and mandation of ESC and LCA, the deployment should be driven by market demand itself to get higher deployment of eSafety related systems. Regulation is only required, if the market does not work properly. • Systems, which support the driver very actively in different driving situations, are not to be compared with autonomous driving in general, as this is not covered by existing regulations. As long as the driver can interfere with the function or the function is only active at situations where the driver is not capable to react, the driver still remains responsible. Today's applications are following this type of rationale. • Informative applications such as RTTI should be interoperable within the whole European area to offer a unique and efficient use of such systems. This might be a general task for the European Union Member States. On the other hand, national regulations concerning these services have to be decided upon at the national level and under the subsidiarity of the Member States themselves, but would benefit from being similar to available regulations elsewhere in Europe. Aftermarket and nomadic solutions are especially well suited for informative applications and systems, and provide means to accelerate the fleet penetration of the systems very quickly. Standardised interfaces, safe vehicle installation and nomadic gateways in vehicles would be useful for the deployment of these systems. Priority actions also include: • eCall implementation with a minimum of standardization to make it work across Europe • RTTI applications with cross border functionality • Intelligent truck parking space management along the TERN • Interoperability and compatibility of consumer oriented services free of charge for the minimum of information for the end user

Page 41 of 120

• Continuity of services also between the urban areas and interurban areas • Technical definitions and standards to enable interoperability as well as to enable incentives and other implementation support measures • Develop well-working public private partnerships for the creation of business cases driven by the industry

8.4

Road operators

On public roads, the public authority concerned has normally the entire responsibility for traffic safety, efficiency, mobility and environmental issues on the network concerned. For national road authorities, which can basically be seen as an extension of the Ministry of Transport of the country concerned, the road authority has often a broader responsibility and this comprises the whole national road transport network, governmental, municipal, regional roads. When it comes to legal issues the national road authority has also some impact on the private roads. When the responsibility is broad as with public authorities, it is recommended to focus and support implementation of validated eSafety applications and functions, where impact assessments has been done and where we know that the systems can deliver. A good example are impact studies made on ESC (Electronic Stability Control) in Sweden. These studies, including impact assessments, were made in cooperation between an insurance company and a public road authority followed by common dissemination activities. This altogether had a strong effect on the penetration rate among the new cars sold. A strong recommendation to the road operators is to cooperate with other actors in the road transports system to develop new knowledge about the impact of eSafety systems. So far, the knowledge about the traffic safety effects of the majority of vehicle-based systems has been mainly with the vehicle manufactures. This is especially valid for systems such as blind spot monitoring, automatic head light activation, adaptive head lights, and adaptive brake lights. Speed alert and alcohol interlocks are currently the most efficient when it comes to prevent speeding and driving while intoxicated, accompanied with legislation, effective enforcement, and driver education. These systems are currently offered as aftermarket products. The transport market and especially road hauliers seem to adopt speed alert and alcohol interlock as tools in their quality and education program. Speed alert has also shown to be powerful tool to save fuel cost and consequently reduce CO2 emissions. It is also well known that a big part of the fatalities happens in accidents were the driver is under the influence of alcohol. Altogether it is recommended that the introduction of alcohol interlock and speed alert systems is considered by all actors that share the responsibility for a safe and sober road transport system. When it comes to systems like lane departure warning and traffic sign recognition it is important to establish a constructive dialogue between the car manufacturers and the road operators to define the minimum standards on lane marking and traffic signs (harmonisation across Europe) to ensure a good functionality of the systems. Lane departure warning (LDW) shows a higher grade of maturity and also larger benefits

Page 42 of 120

than traffic sign recognition. It is recommended that the road operators frequently maintain the lane markings and keep updated information about the current standard of lane markings on the network. During winter time many markings, however, can disappear or systems become temporarily unusable with strong back lighting. RTTI is an important service to the motorists and to other road users. Methods for collection of traffic data and all other data that is used to provide RTTI services can be improved to give the customers more relevant information of high quality. New traffic data methods come with the implementation of the latest cellular telecom systems like 3G and LTE (4G). It is important that the system developers in the road transport system take advantage of the investments in the Telecom infrastructure, which is mainly done to support the connectivity between people. This infrastructure can also be used to connect vehicles with each other and vehicles with the infrastructure. Today, floating cars are using these latest communication technologies to deliver travel time data to traffic management centres, to service providers and to fleet management systems. It is recommended that all actors in the RTTI value chain intensify their work to improve the quality parameters of the traffic and travel data. Insurance schemes, called pay-as-you-drive, enable motorists to reduce their insurance premium by driving in accordance with e.g. laws and regulations. These insurance schemes have faced a fast development in e.g. Italy. Road operators and especially road authorities can promote the implementation of such services by providing current traffic regulations in a digital format. All actors taking part as system designers of the road transport system are recommended to consider the introduction of traffic insurance based concepts such as “pay-as-you-drive”. As it is a marked driven product, it is obvious through the rapidly developing penetration in some cases that the concept is based on a validated business model. The benefits of such schemes may also appear as reduced fraud cases and automobile thefts or increased use of public transport in addition to improved traffic safety. Concerning eCall it is recommended to support the initiative to follow the recommendations of the European eCall Implementation Platform (EeIP), to set up national deployment platforms and to actively promote the standardisation process through national standardisation authorities. The benefits with eCall are obvious and supported by a number of studies but there are mainly organisational issues that need to be solved on the Member State level.

8.5

Industry

Automobile manufactures and their suppliers also struggled hard in 2009 to keep up the R & D level for in-vehicle safety features. In times like this, additional requirements especially requesting more regulation are counterproductive. Consequently, times need to be appropriate to support a market-based introduction of ITS and ICT based systems. The more, however, it is valid to stick to a number of principles like • Integrated approach to road safety • Shared societal responsibility • Interoperable and technology neutral solutions

Page 43 of 120

• •

Affordable for the customer and supported by positive business case Meeting legal requirements with regard to privacy, data protection, liability issues

According the sequence of the ITS Action Plan the industry recommends the following: (1) Real-time and dynamic traffic and travel information (RTTI) is an essential prerequisite for any professional traffic management when based on TMC, TPEG, DAB, digital maps and on-board GPS services and need to be implemented with high priority under consideration of the recommendations of the WG-RTTI. Special focus should be on the quality and completeness of the data collection, its interoperability and expansion to co-modality. In this context it is important to bring the different stakeholders (public and private) together under a common RTTI Deployment Platform (extension of TISA - Travel Information Service Association). (2) Concerning the deployment of ADAS and other safety & security services it is recommended that such ITS applications follow a market demand and are based on a solid business case and impact analysis. Many of the ADAS applications are still under development or have just reached a very low market share (far below 1 %), so that its potential impact needs to be further researched and evaluated. (3) This is also valid for HMI questions where the ESoP (European Statement of Principles) should only relate to information and communication devices and related applications while ADAS should initially follow an agreed Code of Practice. The following conclusions can be drawn: • The overall conclusion is that the ESoP is essentially adequate. • There is also a need to monitor ongoing developments such that the ESoP can be revisited periodically providing a balance between current relevance and stability. • It is appreciated that the Personal Navigation Devices (PND) industry is maturing and leading manufacturers appreciate the importance of good HMI. A larger concern surrounds other Nomadic Devices (NDs), particularly Smart Phones and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), where the hardware is multipurpose and not specifically designed for in-vehicle use. • The verification criteria for the ESoP as a whole need further intensified research on the one hand and reflection on how it might be used as a general design advice.. It should be stressed that the working group recommends that solutions on the level of individual Member States or regions should be avoided. • Separately from any ESoP development, the PND industry might develop certification procedures for NDs. However, how any verification procedures and criteria are used (e.g. self-certification, external certification) is a matter of implementation for individual stakeholders. (4) Major progress has been achieved in the area of electronic stability control (ESC), where systems will now be mandated from 2012 onwards for M1/N1 new vehicle types. ESC systems are mature autonomous safety systems with an already average European penetrations rate for new vehicles of above 50% (some

Page 44 of 120

countries higher than 90%). ESC has also be included in the new EuroNCAP evaluation scheme. (5) Concerning speed alert, the European Commission and the other stakeholders should solve the currently open issues with infrastructure related systems and utilise the implementation roadmap produced by the SpeedAlert project. Many manufacturers are currently providing the system based on traffic sign recognition or through cooperation with Nomadic Device Manufacturers. Discussions and research should be initiated between road operators, public road administrations and the (digital map) industry to ensure the reliable identification of all types of permanent and temporary speed limit signs. (6) Concerning dynamic traffic management and local danger warnings, the road authorities and operators should develop a joint European vision and strategy for the deployment and operation of dynamic traffic management and local danger warning systems in co-operation with vehicle and telecommunications industry. (7) Concerning eCall it is strongly recommended to finalize the standardization process before the end of 2010 and agree on the different operational requirements as currently driven by CEN (Public eCall OR, TPS (Third Party eCall Support Service OR),. The recommendations from the eCall Driving Group are still valid, in principle. Even though there might be a tendency to mandate eCall the option of a voluntary approach is also feasible to create a market demand for this life-saving service by making the customers aware of the benefits of eCall. Financial incentives and/or support are a valid means to support a faster ramp-up of eCall services and the necessary infrastructure. Due to long decision processes on the public side a binding commitment to create the necessary infrastructure is required to avoid that in-vehicle systems are introduced but no infrastructure available to forward the calls. (8) Also covered by the Implementation Roadmap is the setting up of cooperative systems to move into a fully connected interoperable society. The industry supports these activities as being an important pre-condition for further improvements in road safety and security but request full stakeholder involvement applying an integrated approach. It is also strongly recommended to continue with field operational tests to prove the systems' technical functionality and impact on road safety. A feasible approach is to start with vehicle to infrastructure and vice versa communication first before vehicle to vehicle communication is deployed. The latter will still take several years to mature but standards should be developed now. Key topic is on how to finance the initial infrastructure, as customers would be rather reluctant to pre-finance something they do not have an immediate benefit from. (9) As communication can also be done by other than vehicle-embedded devices, e.g. nomadic devices like next generation of PNDs, PDAs, smartphones (iPhone, Google Phone, etc.), including GPS functionality, these devices need to be included in the tests. As development and lead times in the consumer electronics area are much shorter an earlier introduction might be possible for such devices

Page 45 of 120

but require European-wide coordination and possibly some kind of framework regulation. The systems investigated in the Implementation Road Map working group do not cover all technical solutions affecting the safety of road traffic. For instance, nomadic devices have not been discussed in detail in spite of their growing influence on vehicle communication. However, an eSafety working group (Nomadic Device Forum) just delivered a very comprehensive report on the business opportunities and challenges PND (Personal Naviation Devices) will be facing in the next years. See: http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_working_groups/nomadic_device_forum.htm

8.6

Other stakeholders

The Implementation Road Map Working Group of the eSafety Forum has focused its work on vehicle- and infrastructure-based eSafety systems. New eSafety systems are likely to come faster into the market than in the past. The use of sensors for surrounding recognition like Radar, LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging), ultrasonic and video camera systems can enable warning systems (first step), enhance both active and passive safety systems (second step) and finally activate collision avoidance/mitigation actions like autonomous braking. A combination with enhanced traffic and travel information (RTTI) based on TMC and DAB, digital maps and on-board GPS / Galileo (satellite positioning) services can lead to a comfortable and safe way of travelling. Satellite positioning based eCall systems can bring those basic technical features into the vehicles, and the sensor signals could also be shared for other use than eCall. Technological development is on a high level, but there has to be a stronger customer demand, a higher awareness for safety functions and also a positive business case. Combining comfort functions with safety functions can lead to a high market demand. Regulatory prerequisites exist in some cases, radio-based systems e.g. automotive radar, TPMS and others needs significant support to get the regulatory framework such as frequency allocations in place and worldwide harmonized; just some conditions for type approving complex and safety related systems are still not defined. Concerns regarding product liability still need to be addressed in some cases.

8.7

Working Group recommendations

The working group identified, after an assessment of the safety potential and implementation status and readiness of the various eSafety systems, twelve priority systems for the eSafety deployment up to 2020. In addition to the Implementation Road Map working group, other working groups have also investigated the implementation of eSafety systems. The RTTI and Heavy Duty Vehicles working groups and the eCall Driving Group have produced detailed recommendations and road maps for their respective implementations.

Page 46 of 120

It is interesting to note that the list of priority systems as identified by the Implementation Road Map working group has its focus on autonomous in-vehicle systems on one hand and road infrastructure systems on the other hand. Co-operative (vehicle and infrastructure) and other networked systems, on the other side, are still mostly in the development stage. The situation is partly due to the diverging fundamental objectives of private and public stakeholders It is obvious that all solutions, which more or less need a PPP (Public-Private Partnership) arrangement between public authorities and private companies, are more complicated and also become very complex within the European context for standardisation and harmonisation. Setting up agreements between all Member States and a number of industrial consortia is time consuming and also affected by different national or single company interests. Vehicle-based systems have an advantage in this comparison; only the manufacturer and the customer have to agree on new systems (partly some homologation issues are to be solved). The exemption are radio – based systems where significant effort is needed to achieve frequency regulations in the European Members States and worldwide. Nevertheless, in order to reduce road fatalities in Europe, infrastructure-based, vehiclebased and co-operative solutions are required. Improvements in the infrastructure affect directly each vehicle/driver, which uses the roads, whereas the effects of improvements in the vehicles depend on the fleet penetration of these improvements. The costs for the eSafety systems are not always allocated to all of those getting the benefits from the systems. In many cases, the society and insurance companies are getting a positive business case in the form of reduction of accidents, fatalities and their costs while only the user/customer has to pay for the systems. When both savings and costs are put in the same equation, a positive business model could be developed leading to positive business cases for each stakeholder group. The systems investigated in the Implementation Road Map working group do not cover all technology solutions, affecting the safety of road traffic. For instance, nomadic devices have not been discussed in detail, except as alternative solutions to vehicle-based systems. Also systems, which are already or will, according to the working group’s judgement, certainly be a standard in the next generation of vehicles, such as e.g. ABS, seat belt reminders and most recently ESC, were also left out. The recommendations for the priority systems as identified in the Implementation Road Map working group are given below: Recommendations for in-vehicle systems: a. The automobile industry, European Commission, the Member States and other stakeholders should enhance the customer awareness of the safety benefits of such systems in vehicles through joint well structured and harmonized European campaigns, driver training & education programs, and media (consumer magazines). The awareness (and involvement) regarding eSafety systems among the personnel involved in the sales of new passenger cars could also be increased in some cases as shown in related studies.

Page 47 of 120

b. The Member States and insurance companies should give financial/fiscal incentives to customers to buy vehicles equipped with effective systems fulfilling the detailed specifications and standards drawn up for such specific systems. For this purpose, the discussion should start without further delay to clarify the possibility for incentives given by governmental authorities and/or insurance companies and other stakeholders, who benefit from the introduction of such systems to follow the example of tax incentives for lower emission vehicles. c. The EC and the Member States should support frequency allocations for radio-based systems. Earlier automotive applications used ISM bands (ISM – Scientific Industrial Medical). Meanwhile these bands are overcrowded, their usability for applications of automotive safety is limited. In addition higher bandwidth is required e.g. for automotive radar to achieve higher local resolution. Some sensor applications use also Ultra-Wide Band technology. Frequency allocation means frequency sharing with primary or secondary services and is very complex, time consuming and leading to restrictions if not done early enough. Support is needed to achieve viable frequency allocations especially for applications with high benefit for road safety. This includes also the possible support in the worldwide harmonization of the frequency allocations. d. European Commission should initiate actions to make information on the availability and actual integration of eSafety systems in vehicles available for accident research, deployment monitoring and other relevant purposes across Europe. e. The European Commission, together with the Member States, industry and all other stakeholders, should continue promoting R&D to improve existing safety and develop new improved safety systems. Research should also continue on co-operative (vehicle and infrastructure) systems, especially on applications dedicated to safety and energy efficiency. Improvements on existing systems through the addition of V2V and V2I communication functionality should also be considered. f. Stakeholders should jointly develop feasible sustainable business models for each application on the principle that investments and costs of operation and individual and societal benefits are correctly balanced. This should also cover nomadic and aftermarket device based solutions. g. Steps towards deployment should be supported by the European Commission through Field Operational Tests (FOT's) and CIP pilots considering appropriate and feasible sustainable business models for each application. In specific cases, it may be necessary to establish PPP (Public-Private Partnership) arrangements between public authorities and private companies.

Page 48 of 120

h. The role of nomadic devices in speeding up the deployment of safety applications needs to be further elaborated. The eSafety Nomadic Device Form has an important role to play in bringing together the different stakeholders in order to ensure safe integration, HMI and safe use of the systems comparable with embedded systems. Recommendations for autonomous vehicle systems: In order to increase and accelerate the market penetration of eSafety systems with highest safety benefits, such as and going beyond ESC, i. EuroNCAP should consider incorporating the presence and performance of such systems into their rating scheme as soon as proven technology, appropriate testing methods and safety benefit data become available. j. The European Commission and the Member States should consider regulatory actions (such as making a system mandatory equipment in new vehicles as already decided for ESC and Tyre Pressure Monitoring) only as a last option, when such action is judged as essential and beneficial for both industrial and public stakeholders and when the related technologies have proven their maturity. Socioeconomic reasons and respecting the principle of subsidiarity are other important decision criteria. Voluntary solutions should be favoured. k. The automobile industry, European Commission, the Member States and other stakeholders should continue to support R&D efforts to develop new technologies and solutions for in-vehicle safety systems as well as evaluating the effects of eSafety system on safety, mobility, environment, economy and employment. l. The automobile industry is invited to support the development and marketing of those autonomous vehicle systems that have the highest potential to deliver according to societal goals formulated by the European Commission, in particular reducing non-use of seat belts , driving while intoxicated (alcohol and drugs), and over-speeding. Recommendations for infrastructure-related systems: In order to increase and accelerate the deployment of safety beneficial infrastructurerelated eSafety systems, m. The Member States should ensure the deployment of socioeconomically feasible systems and services according to their responsibility and in line with the requirements accepted at the European level, e.g. equipment of PSAPs to receive all standardised (e.g. CEN and ETSI) types of eCalls, harmonisation of variable message signs, and European standards.

Page 49 of 120

n. Improvements in the infrastructure are required to implement a number of infrastructure-based and co-operative solutions. Although those improvements depend essentially on the Member States, the European Commission should develop all the necessary steps to support them through the instruments at their disposal (e.g. ITS Action Plan, EASYWAY project, TEN-T programme, Urban Mobility Action Plan, Road Safety Action Plan & Charter) and using new methodologies like Lead Markets (increase the willingness of countries and regions to take on the role as “early adopters” for eSafety systems) and PreCommercial Public Procurement. o. The industry, European Commission and the Member States should together take actions to ensure that digital maps with the information required by the eSafety systems are developed for all roads in the Member States covering commercial and private traffic needs. p. The actual systems will in the future be object of further integration and improvements. Safety will further increase, fuel consumption should be reduced just as the energy-efficiency of the road transport sector and the overall capacity of the transport system should improve. However, there are a number of issues the European Commission should assess and potentially address: • Standardisation of communication channels and protocols for public and private services across Europe; • Standardisation of equipment to enable interoperable 'intelligent road infrastructure' across Europe • Continuity of services and equal level of service quality all over Europe, across boundaries and modes of cooperation • Business models taking into consideration all (perceived) benefits and costs and the attractiveness for all involved parties. q. The European Commission and the Member States should continue to support R&D efforts to develop new technologies and solutions for infrastructure-related safety systems as well as to evaluate the effects of such systems on safety, mobility, environment and other socioeconomic factors Concerning eCall, r. The European Commission, the Member States, the industry and other stakeholders should support the European and national implementation platforms to ensure the deployment of all types of standardised public and third party supported eCall systems across Europe s. The European Commission should actively follow the standardisation activities in CEN and ETSI to ensure the timely delivery of standards and operating requirements t. The Commission and Member States need to ensure that open legal and privacy issues are solved prior to introduction to avoid liability cases going beyond technical product liability u. Service / system functionality needs to be sufficiently tested v. Industry lead time requirements need to be taken into account.

Page 50 of 120

Concerning RTTI, w. The European Commission, the Member States and the industry should follow the recommendations of the RTTI Working Group Concerning dynamic traffic management and local danger warnings, x. The road authorities and operators should develop together a European vision and strategy for the deployment and operation of dynamic traffic management and local danger warning systems in co-operation with vehicle and telecommunications industry. Concerning speed alert, y. Concerning speed alert, the European Commission and the other stakeholders should promote the deployment of appropriate systems and solve any open issues. For infrastructure related systems, these issues are related to quality of data, accuracy, coverage, and timely updating of data, and cooperation between public authorities, road operators and industry. For vehicle systems based on image processing, the open issues include identification and processing of all kinds of signs indicating speed limit values directly or indirectly, and potentially a further standardisation of traffic signs and their layout.

Page 51 of 120

ANNEX 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ON SAFETY EFFECTS OF PRIORITY SYSTEMS

Page 52 of 120

Priority eSafety systems and safety The following gives a summary of the research results on the safety impacts of the priority systems as recommended by the Implementation Road Map Working Group.

Electronic Stability Programme A study of accidents in Sweden shows that there are positive effects of ESC (Electronic Stability Control) overall and in circumstances where the road has low friction. The overall effectiveness on all injury crashes except for rear end crashes was 16.7 +/- 9.3 %, while for serious and fatal crashes the effectiveness was 21.6 +/- 12.8%. The effectiveness for serious and fatal crashes on wet roads was 56.2 +/- 23.5 %. On roads covered with ice and snow, the corresponding effectiveness was 49.2 +/- 30.2 %. The estimates are based on the assumption that rear end crashes on dry road surfaces are not affected at all by ESC. (Lie et al 2005) A study by DaimlerChrysler investigated the impacts of ESC with the help of German accident statistics. ESC was made available for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars starting in 1995. Between 1997 and 1999 the equipment level of Mercedes-Benz passenger cars with ESC increased rapidly up to 100%. The over-all-penetration of ESC for firstly registered passenger cars in Germany was 20% in 1999 compared to 100% for Mercedes-Benz (MB). The percentage of “loss of control accidents” decreased by about 30% for MB vehicles (accident years 2000/2001) whereas the percentage of the other vehicles is decreasing at a lower rate. Only about 10 percent of all accidents with MB cars were loss of control accidents, for the competitors the rate remained at a level of about 15 percent, which was also the level for MB before ESC became standard in all vehicles. The accident rate (accidents per newly registered vehicles) decreased by about 15% for Mercedes-Benz passenger cars, compared to a drop of 11% for the competitors. The percentage of accidents outside urban roads decreased for MB vehicles from about 35 % for model year 1996 down to about 30% for model years 2000 and 2001. No significant reduction was identified for the competitors. The percentage of accidents on icy roads dropped from about 5% for model years 1996 down to 2% for model year 2001. The reduction for the competitors is much lower. The percentage of fatal and injury crashes for MB dropped from about 13% for model year 1996 down to 11% for model years 1999 and 2000. No significant reduction was found for the competitors. (Breuer 2003) A study from United States (Dang 2004) analysed crash data from 1997-2003 from 5 USstates by comparing specific make/models of passenger cars and SUVs with ESC (Electronic Stability Control) as standard equipment versus earlier versions of the same make/models, using multi-vehicle crash involvements as a control group. The study found that single vehicle crashes were reduced by 35 % in passenger cars and by 67 % in SUV crashes. The study also showed significant or borderline-significant reductions in the multi-vehicle crash rates per 100,000 vehicle years with ESC. As multi-vehicle crashes we used as the control group and it is possible that multi-vehicle crashes are being reduced by ESC, this actually means that the true effectiveness of ESC could even be higher than we estimated for single vehicle crashes. (Dang 2004) Another U.S. study (Farmer 2004) compared crash involvement rates for otherwise identical vehicle models with and without ESC systems. ESC was found to affect single-vehicle crashes to a greater extent than multiple-vehicle crashes, and crashes with fatal injuries to a greater extent than less severe crashes. Based on all police-reported crashes in 7 states over 2 years, ESC reduced single-vehicle crash involvement risk by approximately 41 % and singlevehicle injury crash involvement risk by 41 %. This translates to an estimated 7 % reduction

Page 53 of 120

in overall crash involvement risk and a 9 % reduction in overall injury crash involvement risk. Based on all fatal crashes in the United States over 3 years, ESC was found to have reduced single-vehicle fatal crash involvement risk by 56 percent. This translates to an estimated 34 percent reduction in overall fatal crash involvement risk. (Farmer 2004) A recent German overview (Langwieder 2005) has summarised all available scientific studies on the impacts of ESC. The overview states that independently of the examination methods and the selection criteria in the different international studies, all studies resulted in quite similar estimates of ESC efficiency. In Germany, 100 per cent equipment of all cars with ESC is estimated to reduce the number of accidents with car occupant injuries by about 7 -11 %. The reduction in the car occupant fatalities would be approximately 15 -20 % (Langwieder 2005). A study made in UK (Frampton & Thomas 2006) was based on the national accident statistics of Great Britain. The crash experience of 10475 cars was analysed and compared to a closely matching set of 41656 non-ESC cars using case-control methods. Overall the cars with ESC were involved in 7% fewer crashes although the effectiveness is substantially higher under conditions of adverse road friction i.e. 20% reduction on snowy and icy roads. ESC equipped cars are involved in 25% fewer fatal crashes and in 11 % fewer serious crashes.

A study undertaken by the University of Cologne analyses that 4 000 lives could be saved each year and 100 000 injuries could be avoided each year on European roads if all cars would be equipped with ESC. The ESC analysis shows that for every Euro invested in ESC cost savings of 3.5 – 5.8 Euro arise to society. (Baum et.al., 2007) Erke (2008) summed up the evidence from empirical studies on the effects of ESC on accidents in a meta-analysis. The study concludes on a 49% reduction in single vehicle accidents, 13% reduction head-on collisions and 32% reduction of multi-vehicle fatal accidents due to ESC improving driving dynamics and reducing the probability of loss of control. However, a sensitivity analysis indicates results for single vehicle accidents likely to be affected by publication bias. The results for single vehicle accidents are in excess of what might be expected based on studies that have estimated the total amount of accidents that may be affected by ESC. Consequently, the proportions of accidents that can be avoided by ESC is assumed to be somewhat smaller than suggested by most empirical studies. Properties of the vehicles, time trends, and driver behaviour may have contributed to the large empirical effects. (Erke 2008) The eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008) studied the impacts of ESC in EU25 based on actual accident statistics of these countries and considering all empirical evidence compiled so far. eIMPACT indicated that the system would reduce fatalities in EU most likely by 16.6% and injuries by 6.6%. (Wilmink et al., 2008) Some recent studies indicate that ESC also involves behavioural adaptation. Rudin-Brown et al. (2009) shows that 90% of Canadian drivers who knew that their vehicle was equipped with ESC believed that ESC had made it safer to drive and reported being confident that ESC would work in an emergency. 23% of ESC owners who knew their vehicle had ESC reported noticing long-lasting changes in their driving behaviour. Hence, behavioural adaptation to ESC is likely in certain drivers; however, its proven effectiveness in reducing the likelihood of being involved in a serious crash probably outweighs any potential increases in unsafe driving. (Rudin-Brown et al. 2009) Vadeby et al. (2009) report that about 90% of Swedish car drivers with ESC know that the car is equipped with the system. On snowy and icy roads, the drivers consistently state that they

Page 54 of 120

are more likely to take a risk when they think they have ABS and ESC, than when they do not have it.

Obstacle & collision warning Concerning obstacle warning systems, simulator studies indicate safety benefits (Yamada, 2002). Hoetink A. (2003) Collision warnings systems are currently being developed as part of or complement to Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) system. Also a system predicting driver’s braking beforehand has been found as having safety potential as a collision warning system (Sakabe et al 2002). In a study compiling information from ACC systems it was found that the possibilities of current ACC systems in improving traffic safety and reducing congestion seem limited: although positive effects on driver safety and traffic safety were found, some negative effects are a cause for concern. Improving ACC systems with a Stop-and-Go functionality, and preferably also with collision warning or even collision avoidance capabilities, might improve traffic safety and at the same time reduce congestion (Hoetink 2003). Wakasugi and Yamada (2000) show that with a Forward Vehicle Collision Warning System (FVCWS) the average reaction time from the warning output to braking is 0.73 s and 95% of the drivers can react in 1.0 s or less. The results indicate that the warning system compensates for a decline in driver perceptual ability caused by sleepiness. Jamson et al. (2008) showed that both unadaptive and adaptive forward collising warning (FCW) systems benefited driver safety in rural conditions. When the system was functional, brake reaction time was reduced and during the braking events, drivers remained further from a collision with a lead vehicle. Neither sensation seeking nor an individual driver’s brake reaction time affected the speed of their response to the traffic events. Benefits of the adaptive system were demonstrated for aggressive drivers (high sensation seeking, short followers). The aggressive drivers rated each FCW more poorly than their non-aggressive contemporaries. However, this group, with their greater risk of involvement in rear-end collisions, reported a preference for the adaptive system as they found it less irritating and stress-inducing. (Jamson et al. 2009) Schittenhelm (2009) estimated that a normal driver is able to avoid a collision with a vehicle in front in 20 percent of all cases and to reduce the severity in an additional 25 percent thanks to DISTRONIC PLUS (ACC, collision warning) and BAS PLUS (emergency braking support). A normal driver is able to avoid or mitigate each second collision with a vehicle in front respectively each fourth with a vehicle behind thanks to the DRISTONIC PLUS (ACC, collision warning, emergency braking support) package. The eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008) studied the impacts of ACC in its Full Speed Range (FSR) version for EU25 based on actual accident statistics of these countries and considering all empirical evidence compiled so far. The system is effective but addresses only a very small part of the accidents. eIMPACT indicated that ACC-FSR would reduce fatalities in EU most likely by 1.4% and injuries by 3.9%. (Wilmink et al., 2008)

Emergency Braking Direct empirical evidence on safety impacts does not exist for Emergency Braking, which has not been introduced before 2006. Some papers address Emergency Brake Assist, which can be used for analogies to Emergency Braking.

Page 55 of 120

The introduction of automatic emergency braking changes the distribution of impact severity thus the resulting injury risk. Krafft et al. (2009) found that such braking can offer major benefits. A reduction of speed before impact with 10 % can reduce fatal injuries in car crashes with approximately 30 %. Page, Bruno and Cuny (2005) studied the expected and observed effectiveness of the Emergency Brake Assist (EBA) in terms of reduction in injury accidents in France. The evaluation of the expected effectiveness of EBA is based on the simulation of the reduction in injuries in non-EBA cars which could result in lower collision speeds resulting themselves in higher mean deceleration, would EBA have been available and applied in those cars. A sample of fatal police reports was used for the simulation. The observed effectiveness was estimated on the basis of accident statistics. The expected effectiveness was a reductions of 7.5% in car occupant fatalities and 10% reduction in pedestrian fatalities and the observed effectiveness a 11% reduction of injuries. (Page, Bruno & Cuny 2005) Daimler have carried out research in driving simulators to assess the effects of brake assist plus. This research involved 100 ordinary drivers driving around simulated highways and secondary roads and being presented with a range of critical situations such as approaching the end of a highway traffic jam at high speed and a vehicle ahead suddenly braking. In a vehicle with conventional brakes 44 percent of all drivers suffered a collisions but with brake assist plus fitted this was reduced to 11 percent, suggesting a substantial benefit for front to rear end collisions between cars. (Kulmala et al., 2008) Schittenhelm (2008) estimated that emergency braking support combined to a collision warning system would reduce rear-end crashes by 20% and in addition, reduce the severity of rear-end crashes by 25%. The rear-end crash avoidance potential is estimated to be 37% on motorways. Schittenhelm (2009) estimated that a normal driver is able to avoid a collision with a vehicle in front in 8 percent of all cases thanks to Brake Assist (classic). A normal driver is able to avoid or mitigate each second collision with a vehicle in front respectively each fourth with a vehicle behind thanks to the DRISTONIC PLUS (ACC, collision warning, brake assist, emergency braking, parking support) package. The German Insurers Accident Research (Kuehn et al., 2009) stated that a Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS), which is able to gather information from the environment, to warn the driver and to perform a partial braking manoeuvre autonomously (CMBS 2), could prevent up to 18 % of all car accidents with personal injuries in the data sample. CMBS3 including autonomous full braking could prevent 41% of all accidents involving cars. The eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008) studied the impacts of Emergency Braking in EU25 based on actual accident statistics of these countries and considering all impact evidence compiled so far. eIMPACT indicated that Emergency braking would reduce fatalities in EU most likely by 7% and injuries by 7.3%. (Wilmink et al., 2008)

Blind spot monitoring Due to the early stage of deployment no scientific evaluation for blind spot monitoring systems is available, but given by accident situation analysis (see Annex) lane changing accidents are calculated with about 3.500 fatalities /major injuries each year. Such systems are since 2004 available on several new vehicles. It has to be monitored what deployment rate will occur.

Page 56 of 120

Adaptive headlights Rumar (1997) has studied the feasibility of a unified, adaptive vehicle illumination system, including direct and indirect illumination systems, systems for adverse weather and street lighting conditions and daytime running lights. The extent of road safety impact of such a system will rely on how drivers will adapt their behaviour to the increased visibility conditions. Drivers have been found to compensate for the improved vision by increasing their speeds as demonstrated, for example, by Kallberg (1991).

Lane Departure Warning According to Abele et al (2004), lane departure warning systems can prevent or reduce the severity of the accidents in which two vehicles collide frontally (head-on collision), accidents in which a vehicle leaves the road without colliding with another vehicle (“left roadway” accidents), and accidents in which two or more vehicles collide laterally (side-collision accidents. Abele et al (2004) concluded the following estimates of the impacts of lane departure warning systems: - Head-on collisions: lane departure warning enables a driver to react, on average, 0.5 seconds earlier than he or she would without the system. This effects a collision reduction of 25 % for all relevant accidents. Furthermore, in 25 % of the accidents, a reduction in accident severity can be assumed. - “Left roadway” accidents: Time gains of 0.5 seconds can also be assumed for this type of accident using a lane departure warning system. This translates into 25 % accident avoidance and 15 % accident severity reduction. - Side-collision accidents: It is assumed that the aggregate time gain is composed of 0.5 s for the warning phase (lane departure warning and lane change assistant affect different accident causes and therefore the time gains are not combined) and 0.2 s for the assistance phase (lane change assistant with haptic feedback). The cumulated time gain is 0.7 s. This leads us to an expected 60 % reduction in the number of accidents and a 10 % reduction in accident severity. A U.S. study (Pomerleau et al., 1999) utilised driver experiments followed by simulation of the lane keeping ability of real drivers, and provided estimates of crash potential with and without LDWS on several types of run-off road crash scenarios. The results of the study suggested that lane departure warning systems have the potential to reduce road departure crashes in passenger vehicles by approximately 10%, and reduce road departure crashes in heavy trucks by approximately 30%. The impacts on heavy trucks were relatively higher than those for passenger cars primarily because trucks have a higher frequency of drowsy related crashes and lower frequency of intoxication related crashes compared to passenger vehicles. (Pomerleau et al., 1999) A Dutch study on the impact of lane departure warning systems installed in heavy goods vehicles concluded that the system would decrease the number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles by 10% (Korse 2003). The eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008) studied the impacts of lane keeping support in EU25 based on actual accident statistics of these countries and considering all empirical evidence compiled so far. eIMPACT indicated that the lane keeping support system would reduce fatalities in EU most likely by 15.2% and injuries by 8.9%. (Wilmink et al., 2008) Lane departure warning will be considerably less effective than lane keeping support. Kuehn et al. (2009) estimated the theoretical safety potential of a Lateral Guidance System, consisting of Lane Change Assist and Lane Keeping Assist, to be up to 7 % on the basis of accident data analysis,

Page 57 of 120

Real-time traffic information Real-time traffic information about problems and hazards on the road network to drivers before the trip and during the trip to in-vehicle receivers enable the drivers either to avoid the problem by e.g. changing their route or to be better prepared for the problem by increasing their awareness and alertness. Real-time information on slipperiness and other road weather related problems has been estimated to reduce the risk of injury accidents in adverse conditions by 8 % on main roads and 5 % on minor roads in Nordic conditions (Rämä et al 2003). Several studies have been carried out on the RDS-TMC (Radio Data System – Traffic Message Channel) service providing event information to drivers with specific RDS-TMC receivers. While there exists little explicit evidence of safety impacts, studies indicate that the service is affecting driver behaviour in the assumed direction. A study in UK showed that 45 % of drivers with an RDS-TMC receiver had changed route due to on-trip RDS-TMC messages at least once. On the basis of information received before the trip, 23 % of the drivers had changed their plans (Tarry & Pyne 2003).

Dynamic traffic management and local danger warnings Incident warnings are provided by roadside VMS or beacons, and via radio and cellular information services. Studies usually show accident reductions on the IWS (Incident Warning System) equipped motor way sections. The whole range of the effect on the total number of injury accidents is from –35 per cent to + 9 per cent, where the largest reductions may include bias caused by the regression-to-the-mean effect. The effects are more beneficial on secondary accidents (Kulmala, Fránzen & Dryselius, 1995). According to Elvik et al. (1997), rear-end injury accidents have decreased as a result of queue warning systems on motorways whereas the number of rear-end accidents resulting in property damage only have increased. Japanese field tests (Makino 2004) of a local obstacle and congestion warning VMS system on a motorway indicated a 45% reduction in accidents after the VMS was installed, but the effect is probably biased due to the regression-to-the-mean effect. Safety can be improved not only by just reacting swiftly to incidents but also by preventing them through harmonisation of the traffic flow. This can be accomplished by ramp control (or ramp metering), lane control, route diversion schemes, and in general traffic management. Safety is also expected to be improved as a result of replacement of manual toll collection with automatic tolling on motorways due to the elimination of traffic channelling at toll plazas as well as of the possible queues and unnecessary stops (Bandmann & Finsterer, 1997). Lane control has little effect on injury accidents (Perrett & Stevens, 1996 and Elvik et al., 1997). Ramp control is considerably more beneficial to safety, the accident reduction on equipped motorways being up to 10 % as such, and more than 15 % as a part of an integrated motorway management system (Federal Highway Administration, 1997a; Perrett & Stevens, 1996). Route diversion schemes are beneficial to safety only when the diversion does not increase exposure (driving distance) too much and does not divert traffic to roads with higher accident risk. Unfortunately, this is very seldom the case. The opposite case is shown by for example Lashermes and Zerguini (1997). Route information and management systems employing VMS in Germany decreased the risk of road accidents by 15% and the risk of severe injury accidents by somewhat more, between 9 and 36 %. The impacts of the system depend on the quality of the traffic management

Page 58 of 120

system and the level of traffic volumes. On roads with high traffic volumes, the numbers of accidents were 22 – 64 % lower than before the implementation of the system. On roads with low or moderate volumes, the changes in accident numbers were statistically insignificant. (Siegener et al 2000) Influencing vehicle speeds with the help of variable speed limits has been tried especially in connection with weather-related traffic management systems by lowering speed limits in adverse conditions. A variable speed limit system integrated with a fog warning system reduced the number of injury accidents on a German motorway by around 20 % (Balz & Zhu, 1994), and a variable speed limit system integrated with a slippery road warning system on a Finnish motorway by around 10 % (Rämä, 2001). Both studies reported significant reductions in mean speeds (3 to 9 km/h) in adverse weather conditions, and the latter also a significant decrease in speed variation. An accident study showed that weather-related speed control reduced injury accidents by 13 % in winter and 2 % in summer on sections, where the control system was automatic and of good quality. Manually operated systems, however, were estimated to result in increased accident risks (Rämä & Schirokoff 2004). A Dutch fog warning system including a text warning (“fog”) and dynamic speed limit VMS signs on a motorway, reduced speeds in fog by 8 to 10 km/h, although in extremely dense fog, the system had an adverse effect on speed. This was due to the too high “lowest possible speed limit” display in the VMS (60 km/h). A more uniform speed behaviour was obtained due to the introduction of the system (Hogema, van der Horst & van Nifterick, 1996). Variable speed limits have also been applied by schools, resulting in a 20 per cent accident reduction (Elvik et al., 1997). In addition to speed control, the high accident risks caused by adverse weather conditions can be decreased by providing information, warnings and support to road users, but also by combating weather problems with the help of winter maintenance. A Finnish study (Rämä et al., 1996) showed that slippery road warning VMS decreased mean speeds by around 1–2 km/h when the signs were lit. The system was also shown to affect the direction of attention to find cues showing potential hazards, and to make passing behaviour more careful indicating an even larger positive impact on safety than that due to lower speeds (Luoma, Rämä, Penttinen & Harjula, 1997). The automatic fog-warning system on the M25 motorway in England displays the “Fog” legend on roadside matrix signals. The assessment of this system showed that the net mean vehicle speed reduction was around 3 km/h, when the signals were switched on as a result of the formation of fog (Cooper & Sawyer, 1993). Collision warning systems are probably beneficial to road safety in the fog (Saroldi, Bertolino & Sidoti, 1997).

Extended environmental information (extended FCD) The safety benefits from extended environmental information follow from the user services utilising the information collected. These effects are described in more detail under real-time traffic information, dynamic traffic management and local danger warnings.

eCall Considering the safety benefits the eCall system leads to a higher efficiency of the rescue chain. When medical care for critically (and severely) injured people is available at an earlier time after the accident, the death rate can be significantly lowered. This is known as the Golden Hour Principle of accident medicine. It expresses that in general, the earlier the medical help can reach the injured, the higher is the likelihood to avoid fatalities and longterm or permanent disability. One hour after the accident, the death rate of people with heart

Page 59 of 120

or respiratory failure or massive bleeding approaches 100 %. This is why the rapid reaction of rescue services is very important. (Abele et al 2004) Between 2001 and 2003, the E-Merge project approached the issue of decreasing rescue times and resulting safety benefits based on surveys conducted in different Western European countries. According to E-Merge and the eSafety Forum’s eCall Driving Group, 5 % to 15 % of road fatalities can be reduced to severe injuries and 10 % to 15 % of severe injuries can be reduced to slight injuries. For slight injuries, no positive effect of eCall was foreseen. (EMerge 2004, eSafety 2004, Abele et al 2004). In Sweden, the full implementation of eCall has been estimated to reduce the number of road accident fatalities by 2-4 % and the number of severely injured by 3-5% (Lind et al 2003). The eIMPACT project (Wilmink et al., 2008) studied the impacts of eCall in EU25 based on actual accident statistics of these countries and considering all impact evidence compiled so far. eIMPACT indicated that eCall would reduce fatalities in EU most likely by 5.8% and severe injuries by ca. 6% whereas the number of slightly injured will increase by a small percentage due to fatal and severe injuries transformed to slight injuries. (Wilmink et al., 2008; Kulmala & Sihvola 2008)

Speed Alert The largest study so far on Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) systems have been carried out in Sweden (Biding & Lind 2002). These studies involved 5000 equipped vehicles driven by over 10000 drivers (from different age groups) in urban areas as well as an accident study. Speed alert was one of the systems studied. The studies found out that all ISA systems result in better road safety without increasing travel time, and that there were quite minor differences between the impacts of speed alert and those of other types of ISA. The estimate was that if everyone had ISA, there could be 20% fewer road injuries in urban areas. Speed alert systems signalling with light and sound if the driver exceeds the speed limit are expected to reduce the number of injury accidents by ca. 10% and fatalities by ca. 18%. A voluntary system, where the driver can enable or disable control by the vehicle of the maximum speed has been estimated to affect safety in a similar fashion (Carsten & Fowkes 2000). Várhelyi (1997) has estimated that automatic speed limiting on rural roads would reduce the total number of injury accidents in Sweden by about 10%. Speed alert and ISA can also be implemented as a dynamic version, where in addition to fixed speed limits the system applies temporary limitations to maximum speed due to congestion, fog, slippery road surfaces, major incidents, outside schools at drop-off or pick-up times, etc. Dynamic ISA in conditions of low friction would decrease the total number of injury accidents by ca. 12% and ISA in darkness by 12% (Várhelyi 1997). Carsten and Fowkes (2000) estimate that the dynamic version of the compulsory ISA reduces injury accidents by 36% and fatal accidents by 59%. The eIMPACT analyses (Wilmink et al, 2008) concerned a system with visual and haptic (active accelerator pedal) taking into account fixed and variable speed limits. The impacts of Speed alert were studied in EU25 based on actual accident statistics of these countries and considering all impact evidence compiled so far. eIMPACT indicated that Speed alert would reduce fatalities in EU most likely by 8.7% and injuries by 6.2%. (Wilmink et al., 2008)

Dynamic navigation The most recent empirical study so far on navigation has been carried out in the Netherlands (Vonk et al., 2007). The study analysed a database of damages of a car lease company, the

Page 60 of 120

behaviour of drivers, user reactions and existing literature. The study indicated a 16% reduction in kilometres travelled when driving to a destination in an unfamiliar area. The drivers used, on average, 2 km/h higher speeds when using a navigations system, also yielding a higher percentage of time above the speed limit (17% with the system, 12% without). When driving to a destination in an unfamiliar area, the occurrence of inappropriate behaviour was reduced (0.56/run with the system, 1.3/run without). Drivers indicated that they are more alert and have less stress when driving and using a navigation system. The claimed damage costs of lease car drivers without the system were estimated to be 5% higher than those of lease car drivers with the system. The large U.S. Travtek field study (Imnan & Peters 1996) of navigation systems found that under normal conditions, traffic safety was not reduced. Oei (2002) noted that kilometres travelled may be reduced by 5-7% due to navigation systems. On the other hand, if reduced kilometres are resulting from more travel on lower-class roads, the average accident rate per kilometre travelled is increased for the user compensating for the reduced amount of travelling.

References Abele, J., Kerlen, C., Krueger, S., Baum, H., Geißler, T., Grawenhoff, S., Schneider, J. & Schulz, W.H. (2004). Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles. SEiSS. VDI/VDE Innovation + Technik GmbH and Institute for Transport Economics at the University of Cologne. Balz, W. & Zhu, J. (1994). Nebelwarnsystem A8 Hohenstadt–Riedheim. Wirkungsanalyse. Landesamt für Strassenwesen, Baden-Württenberg & PTV Consult GmbH. Bandmann, M. & Finsterer, H. (1997). Safety aspects of traffic management systems. Proceedings, 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 21-24 October, Berlin, Germany. ITS America, ERTICO & VERTIS. Baum, H. & Grawenhoff, S. (2007), Cost Benefit Analysis of the Electronic Stability Control System (ESP), University of Cologne. Biding, T. & Lind, G. (2002). Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA), Results of large-scale trials in Borlänge, Lidköping, Lund and Umeå during 1999-2002. Swedish National Road Administration, Publication 1002:89E. Breuer, J. (2003). Safety Benefits of ESP. DaimlerChrysler. Carsten, O. & Fowkes, M. (1998). External Vehicle Speed Control, Phase I results: Executive summary. University of Leeds and the Motor Industry Research Association. Carsten, O. & Fowkes, M. 2000. External Vehicle Speed Control, Executive summary of Project Results. University of Leeds and the Motor Industry Research Asociation. Cooper, B. R. & Sawyer, H. E. (1993). Assessment of M25 automatic fog-warning system: Final report. TRL Project report 16. Crowthorne. 11 p. Dang, J. (2004). Preliminary results analyzing the effectiveness of electronic stability control (ESC) systems. National Highway Traffic Safety Agency, USA.

Page 61 of 120

Elvik, R., Borger Mysen, A. & Vaa, T. (1997). Trafikksikkerhetshåndbok (Traffic Safety Manual). Transportøkonomisk Institutt, Oslo. 704 p. ISBN 82-480-0027-3. ISSN 0802-0175. E-MERGE (2004). E-MERGE Compiled Evaluation Results, Deliverable 6.3. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young. Erke, A. (2008). Effects of electronic stability control (ESC) on accidents: A review of empirical evidence. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 40, Issue 1, January 2008, Pages 167-173. eSafety (2004). eSafety Forum, Summary Report, The eSafety High-Level Meeting with Public Authorities, Brussels, 27 September 2004, Annex 1: eCall. European Commission, Directorate General for Information Society Technologies. Farmer C. (2004). Effect of electronic stability control on automobile crash risk. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia, USA. Federal Highway Administration (1997a). Review of ITS Benefits: Emerging Successes. FHWA-JPO-97-001. Frampton, F. & Thomas, P. 2006 Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control Systems in Great Britain. Vehicle Safety Research Centre, Loughborough University Hoetink, A. (2003). Advanced Cruise Control in the Netherlands: a critical review. 10th World Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Madrid 16-20 November 2003. Proceedings, CD-ROM. ERTICO, ITS Europe. Hogema, J. H., van der Horst, R. & van Nifterick, W. (1996). Evaluation of an automatic fogwarning system. Traffic Engineering + Control, November 1996. pp. 629–632. Imnan, V. & Peters, J. (1996). Travtek global evaluation & executive summary. FHWA-RD96-031. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Jamson, A.H. et al., Potential benefits of an adaptive forward collision system. Transport. Res. Part C (2007), doi:10.1016/j.trc.2007.09.003 Kallberg, V-P. (1991). Reunapaalujen vaikutus ajokäyttäytymiseen ja liikenneonnettomuuksiin (Effects of reflector posts on driver behaviour and accidents). Helsinki. Tiehallitus, kehittämiskeskus. Tielaitoksen selvityksiä (Finnra reports) 5/1991. Korse, M. (2003). Results of the trial with the Lane Departure Warning Assistant-system. Rijkswaterstaat 11 September 2003. Krafft, M.; Kullgren, A.; Lie, A.; Strandroth, J. & Tingvall, C. (2009). The effects of automatic emergency braking on fatal and serious injuries. 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, 2009, www.esv2009.com Kuehn, M.; Hummel, T. & Bende, J. (2009). Benefit of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems for cars derived from real-life accidents. 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, 2009, www.esv2009.com Kulmala, R., Fránzen, S. & Dryselius, B. (1995). Safety Evaluation of Incident Warning Systems -Integration of Results. HOPES Deliverable 35.

Page 62 of 120

Kulmala, R.; Rämä, P.; Sihvola, N.; Schirokoff, A.; Lind, G. & Janssen, W. (2008). Safety Impacts of Stand-alone and Cooperative IVSS (Internal), Internal Deliverable D4.3, EUProject; Socio-economic Impact Assessment of Stand-alone and Co-operative Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSS) in Europe (eIMPACT) Kulmala, R. & Sihvola, N. (2008). Estimates of ESC efficiency on severe injuries for eIMPACT socio-economic assessment. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 30 April 2008. Langwieder, K. (2005). Wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisstand zu ESP. 10 Jahre ESP, Berlin, 23. Februar 2005. Lashermes, C. & Zerguini, S. (1997). Socio-Economic Evaluation Of Traffic Operation Example Of Toll Charge Adjustments On A6- A5 Motorways. Proceedings, 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 21-24 October, Berlin, Germany. ITS America, ERTICO & VERTIS. Lie, A., Tingvall, C., Krafft, M. & Kullgren, A. (2005). The effectivess of ESC (Electronic Stability Control) in reducing real life crashes and injuries. 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV), June 2005. Lind, G., Lindqvist, E. & Persson, S. (2003). Short descriptions of ITS safety applications and their potential safety benefits. Stratega and Transek. Appendix version 1.0 2003-12-31. Luoma, J., Rämä, P., Penttinen, M. & Harjula, V. (1997). Driver responses to variable road condition signs. Proceedings of the Conference on International Cupertino on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety, Lund, Sweden, November 5-7, 1997. Makino, H. (2004). Verification of traffic accident reduction effect of AHS. Presentation at the ITS World Congress in Nagoya, Japan. Nishimura, Y. AND Nagaya, R. (1997) Road pattern visibility system in wintertime. Proceedings, 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 21-24 October, Berlin, Germany. ITS America, ERTICO & VERTIS. Oie, L. (2002). The safety potential of navigation systems. Training and Vehicle design, pp. 376-382. Rockport, Maine; SWOV, Leidschendam. Page B., Foret-Bruno Y-L. & Cuny S. (2005). Are expected and ob-served effectiveness of Emergency Brake Assist in preventing road injury accidents consistent? The 19th International Technical Confer-ence on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) - Washington D.C. June 6-9, 2005 Pomerleau, D.; Jochem, T.; Thorpe, C.; Batavia, P.; Pape, D.; Hadden, J.; McMillan, N.; Brown, N. & Everson, J. (1999). Run-Off-Road Collision Avoidance Using IVHS Countermeasures: Final Report. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT, Report No. DOT-HS-809-170, prepared by Carnegie Mellon University Perrett, K. E. & Stevens, A. (1996). Review of the potential benefits of Road Transport Telematics. Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 220. Rudin-Brown, C.M.; Jenkins, R.W.; Whitehead, T. & Burns, P.C. (2009). Could ESC (Electronic Stability Control) Change the Way We Drive? Traffic Injury Prevention, 10:4, pp. 340 - 347.

Page 63 of 120

Rumar, K. (1997). Adaptive illumination systems for motor vehicles: towards a more intelligent headlighting system. The University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute. UMTRI-97-7. Rämä, P. (2001). Effects of weather-controlled variable message signing on driver behaviour Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Publications 447. Rämä, P., Kulmala, R. & Heinonen, M. (1996). Muuttuvien kelivaroitusmerkkien vaikutus ajonopeuksiin, aikaväleihin ja kuljettajien käsityksiin (The effect of variable road condition warning signs). Helsinki. Finnish National Road Administration. Finnra reports 1/1996. Rämä, P., Kummala, J., Schirokoff, A. & Hiljanen, H. (2003). Road traffic information. Preliminary study. Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland. FITS Publications 21/2003. Rämä, P. & Schirokoff, A. (2004). Effects of weather-controlled variable speed limits on injury accidents. 11th World Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services, Budapest 24-26 May 2004. Proceedings, CD-ROM. ERTICO, ITS Europe. Sakabe M., Watanabe K. & Ohno H. (2002). Development of a collision warning system based on the prediction of driver’s braking action. 9th World congress on intelligent transport systems, Chicago October 14-17 2002 Saroldi, A., Bertolino, D. & Sidoti, C. (1997). Driving in the fog with a collision warning system: A driving simulator experiment. Proceedings, 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 21-24 October, Berlin, Germany. ITS America, ERTICO & VERTIS. Schittenhelm, H. (2008). Design of Effective Collision Mitigation Systems and Prediction of Their Statistical Efficiency to Avoid or Mitigate Real World Accidents. FISITA World Congress 2008 (F2008-08-109) Schittenhelm, H. (2009). The vision of accident free driving – how efficient are we actually In avoiding or mitigating longitudinal real world accidents. 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, 2009, www.esv2009.com Siegener, W., Träger, K., Martin, K. & Beck, T. (2000). Accident occurrence in the area of route information and management systems, allowing particularly for traffic load. IVT Ingenieurbüro für Verkehrstechnik GmbH. BAST. Sultan, B. & McDonald, M. (2003). Assessing The Safety Benefit of Automatic Collision Avoidance Systems. Transportation Research Group (TRG), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southampton. Proceedings, 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of vehicles. Nagoya, Japan. Tarry, S. & Pyne, M. 2003. UK – TMC Service evaluation 1998-2001. The European Commission, Directorate General Energy and Transport, TEMPO Programme. Krafft, M.; Kullgren, A.; Lie, A.; Strandroth, J. & Tingvall, C. (2009). The Effects of Automatic Emergency Braking on fatal and serious Injuries. 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, 2009, www.esv2009.com Tingvall, C., Krafft, M., Kullgren, A. & Lie, A. (2003) The effectiveness of ESP (Electronic Stability Programme) in reducing real life accidents. www.vv.se/aktuellt/ pressmed/pdfdokument/ESPFinal.pdf

Page 64 of 120

Vadeby, A.; Wiklund, M. & Forward, S. (2009). The expectations and views of car drivers concerning antilock brakes (ABS) and electronic stability control (ESC) systems. VTI rapport 647. 56 p. + app. 14 p. (Swedish with English summary) Várhelyi, A. (1997). Dynamic speed adaptation in adverse conditions. Proceedings, 4th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 21-24 October, Berlin, Germany. ITS America, ERTICO & VERTIS. Vonk, T.; van Rooijen, T.; Hogema, J. & Feenstra, P. (2007). Do navigation systems improve traffic safety? TNO report 2007-D-R0048/B. Wakasugi, T. & Yamada, K. (2000). Driver reaction time to forward vehicle collision warning - effectiveness of warning system under low awareness level. 7th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Turin 6-9 November 2000. Proceedings, CD-ROM. ERTICO, ITS Europe Wilmink, I.; Janssen,W.; Jonkers, E.; Malone, K.; van Noort, M.; Klunder, G.; Rämä, P.; Sihvola, N; Kulmala, R.; Schirokoff, A.; Lind, G.; Benz, T.; Peters, H. & Schönebeck, S. 2008. Impact assessment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems, Deliverable D4, EU-project; Socio-economic Impact Assessment of Stand-alone and Co-operative Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSS) in Europe (eIMPACT) Yamada, K. (2002). Evaluation of forward obstacles collision avoidance support system using driving simulator 9th World congress on intelligent transport systems, Chicago October 14-17 2002. Proceedings, CD-ROM.

Page 65 of 120

ANNEX 2: DEPLOYMENT OF ITS ON THE TERN IN MEMBER STATES

Page 66 of 120

% TERN/motorway length covered with dynamic traffic management in 2009

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 AT BE DE DK ES

FR GR

LU NL NO PT CH SE UK

Number of local danger warning systems on TERN/motorways in 2006

140 120

Number

100 80 60 40 20 0 AT BE DE DK ES

FI FR GR

LU NL NO PT CH SE UK

Country

Page 67 of 120

% TERN/motorway length covered with monitoring infrastructure of appropriate quality in 2009

100 90 80 70

60 50 40

Traffic status

Travel time Road weather

20 10 0 AT BE DE DK ES

FI FR GR IE

LU NL NO PT CH SE UK

Country

Page 68 of 120

ANNEX 3: DESCRIPTIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES FOR THE PRIORITY SYSTEMS

Page 69 of 120

Implementation Issues for ESC (Electronic Stability Control) A

System description ESC stabilises the vehicle and prevent skidding under all driving conditions and driving situation within the physical limits by active brake intervention on one ore more wheels and by intelligent engine torque management. As soon as ESC identifies a critical driving situation it intervenes by applying specific brake pressure to one or more wheels, as required. If necessary, the engine torque is also adjusted automatically. In this way, ESC helps the driver stabilise the vehicle – although the extent to which it can do so is of course limited by the physical laws governing the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle. A yaw-rate sensor and a lateral acceleration sensor continuously monitor the movement of the vehicle about its vertical axis and compare the actual value with the target value calculated on the basis of the driver's steering input and the vehicle speed. The moment the car deviates from this ideal line, ESC intervenes to counteract any incipient tendency to skid by applying a precisely metered braking force to one or more wheels. ESC systems combine the functions of ABS and TCS traction control and complement them with directional stability assistance.

Technology Availability ESC is in serial production since 10 years. During this time the cost have been reduced from 100% in 1995 to less than 25 % in 2005. ESC is based on ABS, which is standard in 15 EU Countries thanks to the ACEA self-commitment. That’s why the additional cost on TOP of ABS are relatively low ((ABS plus Yaw Rate Sensor with lateral acceleration Sensor, Steering Angle Sensor (Standard in vehicles with Electronic Powered Steering EPS, ), Pressure Sensor, enhanced ECU and enhanced hydraulic Unit)).

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability none

Organisation requirements none

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers none

Security

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance Market research result - End Customer Safety Study – (more than 5000 respondents (CATI)) See attachment Customer Awareness Market Research Result out of Focus-Group discussion with End Customer: New car buyers expect full safety standard in all available models.

Page 70 of 120

Key Success Factors Increased Consumer awareness especially in cost sensitive market segments ESC with high potential to reduce accidents. ESC saves lives. Proved by studies about ESC-effectiveness. ESC is commodity and available in all car segments. ESC is base for value added functions (safety and comfort) e.g. hill hold control, trailer logic, hill descent control, Brake assist...

Feasible Deployment Strategies technical availability: given for all vehicles organisational/ regulatory requirements: none infrastructure requirements: none other barriers: cost user acceptance: high

Improve customer business case by insurance and tax incentives increase customer awareness with EuroNCAP and campaigns verify safety benefits via accident data

business case: essential for customers, especially buyers of small cars

2005

2010

According to the V analysis of the implementation of ESC, the measures to be taken include the following: o the benefits of ESC have been verified in many countries with accident analyses. This is essential in order to assure public authorities and insurance companies of the actual benefits before they can make decision on any incentives. o customer awareness needs to be increased by including and maintaining ESC in the EuroNCAP system, which requires that the identification and performance of various ESC systems in different cars can be verified in a satisfactory manner. Information campaigns should be carried out about the benefits of ESC, and the information should also be included in the education programmes of driving schools, automobile clubs etc. In addition, car dealer training should include information of the operation and benefits of ESC. o customer business case needs to be improved by tax and/or insurance incentives making it attractive to purchase ESCequipped cars even in the small car segment o mandation of ESC by the European Commission in all new vehciles from 2012 onwards will increase the market penetration rapidly from that year.

Page 71 of 120

With the help of these measures, the market penetration of ESC in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Page 72 of 120

Implementation Issues for Obstacle and Collision Warning A

System description Systems detect obstacles and give warnings when collision is imminent. Current solutions with limited performance are a separate feature of Adaptive Cruise Control systems which use information obtained from radar sensors to give visual and acoustic warnings. Future systems will optionally use near range radar sensors or LIDAR in addition to the long range radar. The evolution of the function has been the following: 1) ACC without braking capability, 2) ACC including braking capability but without taking care of fixed obstacles, 3) taking care of some category of fixed obstacles i.e. those with a big equivalent surface to detection.

Technology Availability Available as ACC feature as an option in several European models. Safety systems based on long rage radar and additional near range radar sensors or LIDAR to be introduced in 2005.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability none

Organisation requirements none

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers For the systems based on 24 GHz short-range radar, the market penetration must not exceed 7%, automatic deactivation in exclusion zones and no new systems after 2013 due to risk of interference with other systems using the same frequency band. Liability problems need to be solved.

Security

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance

Key Success Factors Consumer awareness, willingness to bear additional cost, liability.

Feasible Deployment Strategies

Page 73 of 120

According to the V analysis of the implementation of obstacle and collision warning systems, the measures to be taken include the following: o The safety benefits of obstacle and collision warning systems have to be verified in accident analyses. This is essential in order to assure public authorities and insurance companies of the actual benefits before they can make decision on any incentives. o The industry makes progressively the system available in more models of new cars. o Clearer liability policies need to be created in order to safeguard the customer’s interests while not hindering the rollout of the safety improving systems o Customer awareness needs to be increased by including and maintaining obstacle and collision warning system in the EuroNCAP system, which requires that the identification and performance of various obstacle and collision warning systems in different cars can be verified in a satisfactory manner. Information campaigns should be carried out about the benefits of obstacle and collision warning, and the information should also be included in the education programmes of driving schools, automobile clubs etc. In addition, car dealer training should include information of the operation and benefits of obstacle and collision warning. o customer business case needs to be improved by tax and/or insurance incentives making it more attractive to purchase obstacle and collision warning system -equipped cars With the help of these measures, the market penetration of obstacle and collision warning systems in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Page 74 of 120

Page 75 of 120

Implementation Issues for Emergency Braking Support A

System description Based on radar (short and long range), LIDAR and/or camera vision emergency braking support systems provide support in situations with a high risk of a head to tail collision in order to avoid the collision or to reduce the collision speed and the total crash energy. Total crash energy reduction correlates directly to crash injury mitigation. Different levels of support are available: enhancement of driver’s braking if necessary, automatic activation of partial braking, automatic activation of full braking.. Some systems also trigger reversible measures of occupant protection.

Technology Availability Several systems are already available.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability none

Organisation requirements none

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers none.

Security none

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance Consumer awareness should be improved by information campaigns. Incentives given by insurers could accelerate market penetration. .

Key Success Factors Customer awareness, willingness to bear additional cost, driver acceptance (false alarms), liability .

Feasible Deployment Strategies The measures to be taken include the following: o The safety benefits of emergency braking systems have to be assessed in relevant test scenarios. This is essential in order to assure public authorities and insurance companies of the actual benefits before they can make decision on any incentives. o The industry makes the system available in more models of new cars. o Customer awareness needs to be increased by suitable information campaigns, and the information should also be included in the education programmes of driving schools, automobile clubs etc. Page 76 of 120

o customer business case needs to be improved by tax and/or insurance incentives making it more attractive to purchase emergency braking system -equipped cars With the help of these measures, the market penetration of emergency braking systems in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:.

Page 77 of 120

Implementation Issues for Blind Spot Monitoring Systems A

System description Systems, which give information/warnings to the driver about relevant obstacles in the blind spot around the vehicle, when the driver intends to change the lane. Systems can use cameras or radar sensors to detect relevant objects.

Technology Availability Available as an option in a few models since 2005 in production.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability none

Organisation requirements none

Security none

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance

Key Success Factors Consumer information, customer awareness and willingness to bear additional cost, driver acceptance (false/missing alarms, HMI), liability.

Feasible Deployment Strategies

Page 78 of 120

According to the V analysis of the implementation of blind spot monitoring, the measures to be taken include the following: o The safety benefits of blind spot monitoring have to be verified in accident analyses. This is essential in order to assure public authorities and insurance companies of the actual benefits before they can make decision on any incentives. o The industry makes progressively the system available in more models of new cars. o Clearer liability policies need to be created in order to safeguard the customer’s interests while not hindering the rollout of the safety improving systems o Customer awareness needs to be increased by including and maintaining blind spot monitoring in the EuroNCAP system, which requires that the identification and performance of various blind spot monitoring in different cars can be verified in a satisfactory manner. Information campaigns should be carried out about the benefits of blind spot monitoring, and the information should also be included in the education programmes of driving schools, automobile clubs etc. In addition, car dealer training should include information of the operation and benefits of blind spot monitoring. o customer business case needs to be improved by tax and/or insurance incentives making it more attractive to purchase blind spot monitoring -equipped cars With the help of these measures, the market penetration of blind spot monitoring in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Page 79 of 120

Page 80 of 120

Implementation Issues for Adaptive Head Lights A

System description Adaptive Head Lights improve night-time driving safety on twisty roads: the headlamps follow the direction in which the driver is steering, thus extending the illumination range in the relevant areas. In this way it is possible to spot pedestrians, cyclists and animals much sooner. Conventional headlamps have a range of about 30 metres when entering a corner with a 190-metre centre-line radius. With the Active Light System however, this is extended by a further 25 metres. The Active Light System is based on bi-xenon headlamps with dynamic range adjustment. A microprocessor integrated in the vehicle's electronic data network controls the system on the basis of real-time information supplied by the steering angle and speed sensors. Other possible functions include bending lights.

Technology Availability Available as an option in several European models.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability none

Organisation requirements none

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers Liability problems need to be solved.

Security

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance

Key Success Factors Customer awareness and willingness to bear additional cost, liability.

Feasible Deployment Strategies

Page 81 of 120

According to the V analysis of the implementation of adaptive head lights, the measures to be taken include the following: o The safety benefits of adaptive head lights have to be verified in accident analyses. This is essential in order to assure public authorities and insurance companies of the actual benefits before they can make decision on any incentives. o The industry makes progressively the system available in more models of new cars. o Customer awareness needs to be increased by including and maintaining adaptive head lights in the EuroNCAP system, which requires that the identification and performance of various adaptive head lights in different cars can be verified in a satisfactory manner. Information campaigns should be carried out about the benefits of adaptive head lights, and the information should also be included in the education programmes of driving schools, automobile clubs etc. In addition, car dealer training should include information of the operation and benefits of adaptive head lights. o customer business case needs to be improved by tax and/or insurance incentives making it more attractive to purchase adaptive head lights -equipped cars With the help of these measures, the market penetration of adaptive head lights in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Page 82 of 120

Page 83 of 120

Implementation Issues for Lane Departure Warning Systems A

System description Warning given to the driver in order to avoid leaving the lane unintentionally. Video image processing is the most important technology. Warnings can be acoustic/ visual/ haptic.

Technology Availability Systems have been available for commercial vehicles for several years, just recently introduced in some European and other passenger cars using video image processing technology. Systems are also under research and development

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability Good (unambiguous) lane markings

Organisation requirements none

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers Liability problems need to be solved.

Security

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance The comfort aspect as well as the safety benefit has to be communicated. Also aftermarket solutions are available, Hence, high penetration rates are possible quite quickly.

Key Success Factors Customer awareness, willingness to bear additional cost, driver acceptance (false/missing alarms, HMI), liability

Page 84 of 120

Feasible Deployment Strategies

According to the V analysis of the implementation of lane departure warning systems, the measures to be taken include the following: o The safety benefits of lane departure warning systems have to be verified in accident analyses. This is essential in order to assure public authorities and insurance companies of the actual benefits before they can make decision on any incentives. o The industry makes progressively the system available in more models of new cars. o Clearer liability policies need to be created in order to safeguard the customer’s interests while not hindering the rollout of the safety improving systems o Customer awareness needs to be increased by including and maintaining lane departure warning system in the EuroNCAP system, which requires that the identification and performance of various lane departure warning systems in different cars can be verified in a satisfactory manner. Information campaigns should be carried out about the benefits of lane departure warning, and the information should also be included in the education programmes of driving schools, automobile clubs etc. In addition, car dealer training should include information of the operation and benefits of lane departure warning. o customer business case needs to be improved by tax and/or insurance incentives making it more attractive to purchase lane departure warning system -equipped cars With the help of these measures, the market penetration of lane departure warning systems in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Page 85 of 120

Page 86 of 120

Implementation Issues for RTTI A

System description “Real-time Traffic and Travel Information” includes all information which is relevant to organize and to optimize traffic flow and which can give advice to the mobile user, usually the driver, and to contribute to road safety and efficiency. The eSafety goal is to provide the majority of drivers with actual intra-urban traffic information and to get adequate urban traffic information in 50% of all major metropolitan areas in the EU. RTTI contains * the collection of relevant traffic data, * the interpretation of that information and prepare it for further use and distribution, * the application of that information to operate infrastructural installations such as traffic lights or moving traffic signals, * the wireless transmission of the RTTI to the mobile user by public or private broadcast and/or two-way systems such as GSM, GPRS, UMTS, WLAN, Satellite transmission.

Technology Availability Beside verbal radio announcements which interrupt the regular audio program, the most commonly used service is RDS/TMC, which is in operation in quite some European countries, already. It offers digitally coded traffic information which can then be electronically selected and interpreted. Very often this is then used to adjust the routing of electronic navigation systems in vehicles to the actual traffic situation (-> “dynamic navigation”). RDS/TMC has a significant user base, which is growing all the time. A growing number of terminals such as in-car navigation sets, PDAs and mobile radios with built-in navigation capability are on the market. According to the eSafety Implementation Status Survey 2007, the market penetration of RTTI as TMC or optional traffic information was in fourteen European countries approximately 5% of all registered cars. In many European countries, RDS-TMC services are available free of charge for the users. The highest penetration can be seen in Germany, where RDSTMC messages are transmitted by 10 public broadcasters and 8 private broadcasters within 53 regional or local programs. This means, that full coverage in Germany has been reached and RDS-TMC messages can be received at any place from several programs. During the last years in some countries commercial services have taken up – mainly in France and the UK. These private companies normally operate their own data collection system, but use public data, too, where available. RDS/TMC services are already installed in some of the new Member Countries of the EU, too.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability The systems require monitoring systems of sufficient quality in order to serve the user and have a positive effect on safety and efficiency. The proliferation of RTTI services into further European countries and/or the extension of

Page 87 of 120

services in the countries already equipped is however sometimes hindered by a number of factors, such as * limited availability of traffic information content, * difficulties in defining the roles of the public and private sectors, * cost of broadcasting, * limited data rate in FM radio, * and economic difficulties with business models. The RTTI Working Group group has analysed some of the issues mentioned as being caused by - the limited capacity in FM which may be removed by using DigitalRadio (DAB) - the lack of data in most urban areas - and the lack of some push for starting-up in some European countries. The RTTI Working Group has proposed to the eSafety Forum that all EUcountries should agree or should be advised to enable and to extend the installation of the chain of information needed to establish RTTI services, so to have about 80% of all journeys served with adequate, standardized services in 2010. D

Organisation requirements To reach the target mentioned above, the RTTI WG recommended to the Member States * agree at their national level on a strategy and time schedule for the implementation of RTTI services, starting from RDS/TMC, covering as good as possible both interurban and urban areas * support the Traveller Information Services Association (TISA) to push the safety-related services features of TMC, building on the already existing and standardized European format for the data, messaging and transmission standards, * take steps to ensure roaming and interoperability across the RTTI services in all of the EU, * require the authorities to make available existing public data for the provision of RTTI services and to establish additional collection of RTTI when necessary, * agree, on the basis of the national RTTI strategies and the Commission Recommendation on TTI services, with the private service providers on the extent of the public (free of charge) services and the conditions for the commercial services, and establish public-private partnerships if necessary, * ensure the correct implementation for the standards by the service providers, * publish, following the guidance of the Commission RTTI recommendation clear guidelines for the private sector the conditions for establishing private data collection networks for commercial purposes, * require broadcasters, especially those operating under public licence, to carry the RDS/TMC traffic information on their FM services for public or private providers so that a minimum of 80% of journey drivers has access to a relevant service by the year 2010 or earlier, * require authorities to ensure through the appropriate standardisation and regulation bodies that frequency spectrum and broadcast capacity will be made

Page 88 of 120

available for the more advanced digital broadcast services such as DAB, DRM, DVB-T and eventually satellite-DAB, * support the development of more advanced services which are possible by 3G Mobile Communications, DAB, DVB-T and satellite broadcasting, WLANs and others. The TISA association is aiming to solve some of these issues with its own working groups. E

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers See D and the proposals made there to get the necessary regulatory requirements installed and the existing barriers removed.

Security

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance In many European countries, RTTI is run in coordination between the authorities or operators of the main roads, the public and private broadcasters and some automobile clubs. The cost of the RTTI services are then covered by these groups, and no extra charge has to be born by the users. They deliver the traffic information normally free of charge to the broadcasters. These distribute that part of the information to their audience which they feel will be relevant to the road users. Very often they add some more and extra information which they may get from other sources such as the automobile clubs, from local police or organisations. In case of private broadcasters and Public Private Partnerships some other business cases are applied. The most common one is: Encryption of the TMCservice and a once-per-life down-payment for the car-radio installed into the vehicle. The existing RTTI-service via RDS/TMC is widely accepted – especially when the service is free of an extra monthly or annual charge. In countries with that service about all navigation systems installed by the car manufacturers have the RDS/TMC-feature installed, already. Due to this the strong expansion by about 1 million customers p.a. in the Member Countries of the European Union is understandable. The next step expected by the users is a more detailed digital information on the urban traffic situation and so to allow a dynamic navigation in towns.

Key Success Factors There are many factors for success, the two most important ones may be: a. Customer’s awareness and interest in the RTTI-service, augmented with: * more and more actual and correct traffic information * not only warning for traffic problems but giving information of the end – or even the expected time for end - of a traffic problem * extension to inner-urban traffic information

Page 89 of 120

* eventually extra features such as expected travel times * reasonable costs b. enabling of the installation of RTTI-services by the authorities, * providing existing RTTI-data to the operators and broadcasters, *and giving support and allowances for private installations – mainly then, when public organisations and communities show no or only small interest to install an adequate RTTI service. I

Feasible Deployment Strategies

According to the V analysis of the implementation of RTTI, the important measures to be taken include the following: o All stakeholders to follow the migration path from RDS/TMC to DAB/TPEG (Digital Audio Broadcasting/Transport Protocol Expert Group) so that also urban information can be included in the European services. o European Commission to provide their support to the member states’ and other stakeholders’ co-operation in e.g. the TISA activities. o The benefits of RTTI are acknowledged but the safety benefits need to be quantified with empirical studies. o The industry and other stakeholders should provide the integration of RTTI into the general onboard telematics platforms in the vehicles. o The member states, services providers, broadcasters and other stakeholders should develop common strategies and business models to facilitate efficient PPP models for RTTI service provision. o In order to achieve full European coverage and to accelerate market penetration, the penetration of navigation systems equipped with RTTI should be promoted via campaigns and incentives. o In order to improve data quality and thereby user acceptance and demand, the co-operation and data sharing between public

Page 90 of 120

and private owners of real-time transport related data should be improved. With the help of these measures, the market penetration of RTTI in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

A more detailed set of recommendations and roadmap is found in the final report of the RTTI Working Group of the eSafety Forum.

Page 91 of 120

Implementation Issues for Dynamic Traffic Management and Local Danger Warnings A

System description Dynamic traffic management systems and local danger warnings are used to increase the safety and flow of traffic in cases of disturbance caused by incidents, congestion and adverse weather. The systems are operated automatically, semi-automatically or manually from traffic control centres based on fixed monitoring systems or mobile sensors (FCD etc.) on location. The systems employ Variable Message Signs or VMS to give the information to the drivers. Three categories of VMS exist based on the types of messages given: 'regulatory messages', 'danger warning messages' and 'informative messages'. The dynamic traffic management systems usually use regulatory messages, sometimes accompanied by danger warning and informative messages, and local warning systems use danger warning messages. New pictograms arise with mixed functions: informing about road closures ahead (informative-to-compulsory); informing about congested exit ahead (informative-to-danger).

Technology Availability The technologies needed to implement the systems exist. The VMS signs vary from single matrix devices which can display just one sign/symbol (in on/off mode) via line matrix displays which can display any text or which can display a varying combination of pictograms and text to graphical panels which can display anything. Also combinations of signs/symbols and texts are in use (Multi-purpose VMS). Various technologies are used in the signs, e.g. fiber optics, leds, prisms. The telecommunications between the VMS, monitoring systems and traffic control centres utilise various wire and wireless technologies. The traffic or environmental monitoring systems required by the systems are primarily based on fixed road infrastructure based monitoring stations utilising e.g. inductive loops, microwave detectors, video detectors, infrared detectors, etc. Specific systems are used for monitoring weather conditions. There are situations for which no pictogram or no satisfactory pictogram exists. New or adequate pictograms may be needed for the following regulatory pictograms: 1) Switch off the engine if congestion persists, 2) Switch on hazard warning lights and 3) High Occupancy Vehicle Lane; Danger warning pictograms: 1) Unauthorised person(s) on the road, 2) Oncoming vehicle, 3) Weather conditions such as fog, rain, snow and 4) Vehicle broken down; Informative pictograms: 1) Road-exit closure, 2) Road-exit congested, 3) Lane closure and 4) Tunnel closure, 5) Way to city centre, and 6) Truck Parking. Major technical issues relate to the future developments in technology and vehicle equipments enabling the use of cars and other motor vehicles as mobile sensors. This means that we need to solve the in-vehicle sensing issues as well as the communication issues, which mainly relate to vehicle-toinfrastructure and roadside-to-control centre communications, but also

Page 92 of 120

vehicle-to-vehicle communications. In-vehicle technologies for producing monitoring information required by the systems exist (travel time and traffic status, accidents) or are under development (road surface friction, incidents, pedestrian and animal detection). C

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability The systems require monitoring systems of sufficient quality. The high quality of the monitoring information input is essential to the high quality operation of the dynamic traffic management and local warning systems, which in turn is directly linked to the effectiveness of the systems. The type and quality of the monitoring system are dependent on the aim of the traffic management and local warning system as listed below. - Speed management /speed harmonisation (traffic-related): Cross-section traffic parameters (traffic flow by vehicle class; spot speed – average and standard deviation; occupancy) and/or queue length and/or camera output - Speed management (weather-related): Cross-section road weather information (temperature - air, road, ground, dew point; precipitation; visibility; wind - speed, direction, gusts) and cross-section or continuous road surface condition information (water/snow existence; black ice existence; friction; levels of salt on road); additionally camera output - Ramp control/metering: Cross-section traffic parameters and queue length on motorway and ramp - Network traffic control: From main parts of network cross-section traffic parameters and/or link travel times and/or queue lengths; camera output - Lane control: cross-section traffic parameters lane by lane; camera output (geographical position of stationary objects , e.g. vehicles); automatic incident detection - Tunnel control: cross-section traffic parameters; queue length, camera output; automatic incident detection; automatic fire detection, stopped vehicle detection - Bridge control: cross-section road weather information (especially wind speed, direction, gusts and black ice); cross-section traffic parameters - Incident warning: Output from Automatic Incident Detection (AID) systems or cross-section traffic parameters; queue length; camera output; - Local warnings (school children): Output from pedestrian detection system, or manual or clock-based trigger system - Local warnings (large animals): Output from animal detection system - Local warnings (slipperiness): Cross section road surface information - Local warnings (queue): Cross-section traffic parameters; queue length; camera output - Other systems: hard shoulder availability (intensity of traffic flows; specific VMS in use; operations: open, closed, leave hard shoulder). - Intelligent truck parking (number of places available, services offered, free/tolled condition)

Organisation requirements The systems are currently usually fully operated by traffic control centres under the jurisdiction of the road operator/authority or the police.

Page 93 of 120

The use of data from in-vehicle systems to improve the quality of the monitoring systems will require new organisation-related solutions. E

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers Both regulatory rules and warning messages shall be indicated on VMS’s with symbols as prescribed by the Vienna Convention (1968), and texts shall be minimised. Supplementary brief texts according to the Vienna Convention can be used. This could also be extended to informative and advisory messages on VMS’s. This is especially recommended where these messages along the Trans European Road Network (TERN) are meant for all drivers, thus including a growing percentage of foreign drivers, avoiding language confusion. (CEDR 2003). The current representation of regulatory rules on the European VMS’s almost completely conforms the signs of the Vienna Convention. This seems to be rather evident as they have the same legal status/value everywhere in Europe. Regarding danger warnings, the different approaches of the European states already appear, ranging from warning signs conform the Vienna Convention to entirely textual descriptions which may vary per region. The differences between the European states are most apparent with informative signs. Where the Vienna Convention gives some recommendations for informative signs like (non-variable) directional signs, it does not contain prescriptions nor recommendations for pure textual messages on VMS’s. This lack probably is the cause of the variety of the national and local guidelines which describe these panels in more detail. Besides the fact that each county/region currently uses its own language, they also apply different national and even local approaches to the use of VMS. The common practice of VMS in the CEDR member states shows a mixture of different languages and, in some cases, 'invented' pictograms which are not being used all over Europe or which are an interpretation of the Vienna Convention. One key question is using always “rich” pictograms that integrate a lot of information (specific and consequence oriented) hence minimizing or eliminating the need of complementary text. The most harmonised areas are the colours and the use of symbols and pictograms in regulatory and danger warning message signs. In some cases the harmonisation is based on practices and the development should be followed and kept consistent. Examples of already harmonised objects are light emitting (e.g. LED or fibre optic) signs with inverted colours in speed limit systems and in danger warning signs on main roads; a red circle indicating a mandatory speed limit; avoidance of text messages in lane control; small amount of information; no unnecessary information; pictograms instead of text messages and, combined messages; no flashing warning signs; and approval procedures for new pictograms. The accident pictogram (a variation of the pictogram suggested by COST30bis, 1985) has been promoted within the last RE.2 at the UNECE level. However, the use of the accident pictogram is not recommended (rises distracting expectations and do not say much about the specific road context one should expect). An alternative is to show the consequences of the accident i.e. to just show the congestion pictogram. The current definitions for the maximal length of text messages are not equal, except for the definition for number of lines, and they should be made more uniform. If a text message is Page 94 of 120

shown, it should be as short as possible and have minimal amount of the words. Internationally understood expressions or symbols (e.g. ←,→,↑,↓,‹,›,+,-,=) should be preferred. The liability issue has delayed the deployment of VMS in some cases. The problem is due to cases where a danger warning message is not displayed, although the danger (about which the system should warn) is present at the location, and the driver interprets the absence of warning as an indication of no danger and then is involved in an accident or a near-accident due to the danger event. Liability is very much connected to the reliability of the system and its control algorithms and monitoring infrastructure. The final responsibility lies in any case with the driver. For all deployments the reliability of the systems is important. Information on the qualities of VMS is occasional or does not even exist, but the quality should be controlled. Sitting criteria should be specified in national guidelines. There is a substantial variation in the control principles both nationally and between countries. A more harmonised use of variable warning signs would be beneficial to the drivers. For this purpose the documented principles should be collected for the common use and analysis. In long term, the differences in the use of pictograms should be minimised. For text messages, the approval procedures should be developed. The existing message prioritisation practices should be discussed and evaluated. F

Security The issue of security has been recently raised concerning the question of Intelligent Truck Parking and related services. This issue reflects a double need of truck drivers: safe parking in order to avoid driving beyond scheduled legal times and safe loads, free from spoiling or stealing.

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance Road users find the systems useful, and usually comply well with the regulatory messages and danger warning messages. For these reasons, the systems have been also found to be very effective for reducing the risk of accidents and their consequences. The systems are, however, quite costly to implement and to maintain (keeping the system accuracy and credibility, and responding to the new coming situations that need new signs). The systems are usually only installed if the expected benefit-to-cost ratio is high enough.

Key Success Factors There are considerable costs involved in the implementation of VMS systems. The extent of the costs are naturally linked to the location, the objectives of the system, the VMS signs, control system, monitoring infrastructure required, communication systems etc. The costs of route and network control systems on motorways are in the range of 0.15-0.2 M€/motorway-km, and of a line control (speed management) system on a motorway can be estimated to be in the range of 0.05-0.1 M€/motorway-km and the investment cost for one VMS

Page 95 of 120

in a larger system to be 15 000 – 30 000 €. The annual maintenance and operation of the systems can be 5...10% of the investment costs. For most road authorities, the decision to implement the system will be based on the benefits of the system in comparison to its costs. The main benefits of the systems come from improved safety and efficiency. Evidence exists of an accident reduction of 25% from motorway traffic management systems, a 13% reduction in wintertime injury accidents due to dynamic weather related speed management systems. The benefit/cost ratio of the system will depend much on the location, accident situation and traffic volumes, e.g. the benefit/cost ratio for a motorway control system on a motorway with average daily traffic volume of 95 000 vehicles was estimated as 5.6. Concerning local danger warnings, studies indicate injury accident reductions of 5-15%. A key success factor is to maintain and improve the effectiveness of the systems while keeping costs at a reasonable level. The former is ensured by high quality of the systems and high user acceptance enabled by the efficient and understandable control of the VMS and supported by the harmonised deployment of them on the European level. The latter is supported by the increasing use of mobile, in-vehicle based systems for producing the necessary monitoring information required. Cost-benefit can be improved by integrating different harmonisation processes: VMS, in-vehicle, navigators, road kiosks and the internet. The same pictograms and possibly message structures should portray the same situations through the different display devices and so their understanding could mutually reinforced though different contexts and nations. I

Feasible Deployment Strategies CEDR (Conference of European Directors of Road) has worked for many years toward the implementation of harmonised VMS based traffic management and danger warning systems in Europe. The last efforts have been the FIVE action as well as the VMS Platform funded by the UK but terminated in the spring of 2004. A successful implementation of the harmonisation of VMS around Europe - and setting up a Platform to coordinate that work - depends first and for all on the willingness of the NRA’s to implement the FIVE Framework. A CEDR Sub-Group on Telematics has been asked to present a TERN deployment strategy for VMS (Implement FIVE) and to seek a structure to implement this strategy. For VMS harmonisation, we apparently need today two teams: the legal team and the working team. The main body concerning VMS harmonisation (the legal team) is not, to my view is WP.1 at the UNECE level. European nations having ratified the 1968 Convention will adopt UNECE dispositions concerning VMS. UNECE, however, has not money nor technical resources: they can only receive good proposals, evaluate them and accept or reject them. Hence, WP.1 should be fed with ideas and recommendations concerning VMS. The working team is required for this purpose and it needs to be made of people directly involved with the VMS reality and needs, people able to fix Page 96 of 120

priorities at the specific level and to get together frequently (5-6 meetings a year and electronic work). Currently, this team is made up by EasyWay European Study ES4-Mare Nostrum. ES4 “feeds” WP.1 through the so-called VMS Unit. CEDR and its member NRAs are among the membership of ES4.

According to the V analysis of the implementation of dynamic traffic management as well as mainly infrastructure based local danger warnings, the measures to be taken include the following: o The safety benefits of all new types of systems need to be verified with actual accident data in controlled before and after studies. o The implementation of the FIVE framework should be ensured by the European road authorities and operators in order to achieve the harmonisation according to user needs and requirements. o A common European strategy for deploying and operating dynamic traffic management, loac danger warning and also other infrastructure-related eSafety systems should by developed and maintained by the road authorities and operators together with the other stakeholders o The European Commission should continue to provide their funding support to the deployment of these systems within the context of the TEN-T programme and also with other instruments to ensure the deployments on the critical road sections outside the TERN.

Page 97 of 120

With the help of these measures, the market penetration of these systems for problematic parts of the European road network is forecasted as the following up to 2020 for :

Page 98 of 120

Implementation Issues for Extended Environmental Information A

System description The idea of Floating Car Data (FCD) is to monitor individual vehicles to gather data concerning the traffic situation on the whole road network. The invehicle equipment records the location of the car, speed and possibly other information such as acceleration or deceleration, and sends the recorded information to the central system or to other cars. The central collected data can be used as content for different applications and services. Floating car data can also be implemented as a decentralised system as in the German FleetNet project.

Technology Availability The technology needed to implement FCD systems exists. There have been several implementations with varying features. Trials have been carried out and actual FCD deployments exist in Europe (e.g. France, Germany and UK), USA and Japan. Technological solutions such as the wireless communication and location systems used vary from one case to the other. In addition to speed and location, many other kinds of information can be collected. First FCD systems transmitted travel times and locations out of range-outs or time-outs. Enhanced methods compare the onboard travel times with expected travel times to transmit only travel times which exceed a certain threshold value. Different kind of sensors can be mounted in the car and the results of measurements transferred. In modern vehicles numerous control devices and subsystems generates data which can be used by intelligent algorithms to detect traffic situation and safety relevant events and situations (Extended Floating Car Data – XFCD). For example, the operation of ABS brakes can be used to detect slippery road conditions.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability In case of floating car data no roadside equipment is needed. Satellite location systems and means of communication between cars and central system exist. Usually, the location data is produced by a GPS receiver. In future, the corresponding European system called GALILEO together with GPS offers complementary added value compared with either on their own. GPRS, GSM, UMTS, WLAN can be used for wireless communication. At present, GPRS is widely available and offers packet switched data connection which is cheaper to use than circuit switched GSM data. Methods for the data fusion of the data from different sources (stationary detectors, floating cars, manual reports) are needed and are already used for travel time and traffic status FCD by e.g. ITIS in the UK. The system also requires centres, which receive the various data and where very actual and precise information of local hazards, traffic and road conditions (slippery roads, fog etc.) will be prepared.

Organisation requirements The floating car data are collected from individual cars. At least, there should be an organisation which defines standards for the in-car equipment and an organisation to take care of the overall maintenance of the system. The same

Page 99 of 120

organisation could also be responsible for the further development of floating car data system. An organisation is also needed to deploy and maintain local transmitters and/or receivers to collect/distribute FCD and local information as well as to maintain the real-time data pool. It is likely that in most cases a public service actor needs to be involved e.g. via a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP). In order to avoid the development of further proprietary systems, it is necessary to set up standardization committees in early development stages. The ISO International Organisation for Standardisation in its Working Group TC 204/Subworking Group SWG 16.3 for vehicle probe data for wide area communication is already working. Their new work item proposal contains “Architecture, Basic Data Framework and Core Data Elements” E

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers Data protection and privacy issues should be dealt with when the system gathers data on the movement of individual vehicles. Questions related to the ownership of the data collected must be answered before starting the implementation.

Security

Business Case / Customer awareness and Acceptance Monitoring traffic with conventional roadside equipment is costly. FCD could be one way to produce real-time data for traffic control purposes. A part of the cost could be paid by the authorities paying for the data while the other part can be recovered by the value of real-time services (such as prediction of travel times) offered to the public. In addition, the business model chosen should be feasible with the technology used. New generation of extended floating cars will transmit only data which are relevant to know in the centre: e.g. detected slippery conditions on the road, congested traffic with precise located congestion fronts and weather related visibility obstructions (fog, snowfall). To avoid unnecessary repetition of in-vehicle message feedbackchannel-referencing has to be implemented. Every message sent over the air (digital audio broadcast-DAB, traffic message channel-TMC) into the vehicles contains what the centre already knows and does not need to get informed. An intelligent message management in the vehicles with feedback channel referencing will keep the number of send messages explicitly low. Special attention needs to be given to deletion of outdated messages.

Key Success Factors One of the most crucial issues is, who will pay the costs and why. There should be a valid business model or a way to share the costs between different parties concerned e.g. in a PPP. Data protection and privacy issues should be taken account when designing the system to minimize the potential for abuse the data collected and to ensure the user acceptance. Important is to send all Floating Car Data of a geographical area into one single data pool in order to get the highest quality of content for the services. It doesn’t make sense to have numbers of data pools, each with some data.

Page 100 of 120

Feasible Deployment Strategies

According to the V analysis, the measures to be taken include the following: o Verify the safety and other benefits as well as the benefit/cost ratios in different conditions and test the technical performance of the system in large scale demonstrators o Clarify the flow of information between the vehicles and the FCD servers as well as between FCD servers and traffic information or management centres (both public and private) while maintaining privacy of equipped vehicles o Develop good business models for European conditions in the context of large demonstrators so that all stakeholders including the drivers have a sufficient business case o Create a sufficient size of vehicle fleet, usually 5-10% of vehicles on a network is sufficient. In order to quickly reach the required critical mass, the deployment is perhaps best to do one area at a time o Improve and maintain data quality by co-operating and carrying out data fusion with the owners of roadside monitoring infrastructure

Page 101 of 120

With the help of these measures, the market penetration of extended FCD in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Page 102 of 120

Implementation Issues for eCall A

System description eCall is targeted by the European Commission to become a harmonized European emergency service, which is based on precise satellite positioning and additional information of vehicles involved in a severe accident (vehicle identification, time of incident, eCall qualifier, identification of service provider as described in a minimum set of data or MSD). Severity will be defined from a personal injury point of view. The generated information will then be sent to a Public Service Answering Point (PSAP) or another type of certified first level emergency centre via a mobile phone connection. It is the intention that the eCall is triggered off by dialling the European emergency number 112 either automatically (deployment of airbag or (later on) crash sensors) or manually (press of a dedicated button). When a voice connection to the next PSAP is set up, accident and vehicle related data (MSD) are transferred through GSM/GPRS communication, using the same channel. In a second phase, it might be possible that when the customer has a contract with a private emergency service provider, additional information (full set of data) could be sent to this service provider, filtered, completed and made available for the responsible PSAP. As the contractual optional connection to a private service provider is flagged on the operator screen at the PSAP the operator might pull down these additional information via the Internet. A possible valuable service might be language/translation service in case the accident happens in a different country and the accident victim has no knowledge of the local language. The PSAP, the emergency centre or service provider has to be able to receive and process the voice call and data set. The information is then sent to the local emergency authorities in order to dispatch the necessary emergency vehicles. The service should work in principle all over Europe.

Technology Availability

Vehicle integrated GSM/GPRS communications

Roaming to overcome language difficulties

Low cost in-vehicle communication system

Emergency call routing all over Europe

only available in part of the vehicle park, but the percentage is slowly increasing conference call via private service provider or local language. Only very large PSAPs are able to serve many languages not available yet in Europe to create volume market. Mainly integrated either in embedded navigation systems or Telematics Units European call and SMS routing through private network only. Not available in all member states. No public crossover systems exist

Page 103 of 120

PSAP receiving technology

Vehicle sensors

theoretically available, however, implementation depending on E112 roll-out. In-band-modem software provided licence free but investments needed to upgrade to receive E112 calls. Airbag deployment sensors used in existing applications. Might be completed later with other types of sensors.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability

GPS Information

available in small part of the fleet but increasing together with strong growth in embedded and nomadic navigation devices; available in most HGVs (Heavy Goods Vehicles) Road infrastructure not necessary but traffic accident information could be displayed on variable message signs to avoid rear-end collisions GSM Communication Technology all over Europe future of GSM in Europe unclear Receiving technology in PSAP’s and others theoretically available, implementation depending on E112 roll-out map D

Organisation requirements Collaboration with and between all EU Member States (EU-25) and other key stakeholders of the emergency value chain in Europe All stakeholder representatives have to get involved in detailed discussions to work out necessary plans and solve open questions, in particular solve the commercial aspects, regulatory and data protection issues. Commission invited the signees of the MoU to start national and/or regional implementation/rollout platforms in the beginning of 2009. Development of and agreement on a business plan before starting the system development and implementation Development of and agreement on an implementation (roll-out) plan before starting the system development and implementation Receiving PSAP infrastructure needs to be specified, tested and in place eCall system architecture, standards, protocols and interfaces need to be agreed in advance before development of in-vehicle systems. Simultaneously the necessary receiving infrastructure needs to be prepared.

Page 104 of 120

Vehicle model cycles and starting dates for vehicle production must be considered, taking into account vehicle type-approval. Matching of voice calls and data sets (technology). Roaming requirements must be solved. E

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers Data protection and privacy issues have been solved but liability issues still open. Legislation not harmonized across Europe.

Security Misuse of the systems and the data needs to be avoided. Emergency frequencies need to be dedicated and protected against manipulation

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance The interest of drivers and customers to pay for emergency call activities is rather low. As long as the customer is not made aware about the benefits of a harmonized European emergency call service he/she is reluctant to pay for this service. The current situation of different state of deployment of rescue services and gaps in rescue chains in different European countries is making it difficult to find common solutions. Today there is no business model discussed and accepted among the different stakeholders. The ECDG (eCall Driving Group) has identified significant savings in the health and social cost side outnumbering the investment needs in in-vehicle systems and infrastructure. Models of tax and financial incentives have been presented and discussed. So far no agreement is reached. . The results of the new eCall Assessment study will allow progress on the Business Case area, while European FOT should increase customer awareness of the benefits of the service.

Key Success Factors The commitment of the larger EU member states, where the major traffic volume takes place, is key. Availability of suitable technologies in the Member States and in the vehicles Availability of an accepted business model by all involved stakeholders (financially, technically and organizationally) leading to positive business cases Availability of an accepted implementation plan by all involved stakeholders (financially, technically and organizationally)

Page 105 of 120

Feasible Deployment Strategies

According to the V analysis of the implementation of eCall and the roadmap produced by the eCall Driving Group, the measures or the roadmap to be taken include the following, taking into account the rollout plan delay due to the missed deadline for MoU signatures by June 2005: o Verify the safety impact of eCall in European conditions with actual European accident data o Form “eCallNet” consortium and establish financial support for it o MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) signatures from all key stakeholders of the eCall service chain including the member states – December 2005 (EC) o Commission to adopt 2nd eSafety communication with actions for the member states and industry – September 2005 (EC) o eCall Business Model prepared for decision taking by key stakeholders including insurances – June 2006 (All) o ETSI standardization and eCall interface – starting 2006 (ETSI) o Implementation and rollout plan prepared for decision taking – first attempt 2006 (All) o Start system development – after standardisation is finally adopted (ACEA) o Rollout of infrastructure in key member states – after standardisation is finally adopted (MS) o Full-scale field test by “early adopter” member states – until Dec 2008 (EC/MS) o Finalize infrastructure in all other Member States and staggered introduction of eCall as standard option – Sept 2010 (MS, ACEA) o Promote customer awareness by campaigns and attempt to improve business case by incentives

Page 106 of 120

The eCall Roadmap has been changed in the last years due to the delay in some of the deployment strategies, namely: • Standardisation: new date expected for the finalisation of the standardisation work within ETSI and CEN is now 2nd quarter of 2009. • Not all key stakeholders have signed the MoU. France,UK and 11 others are still missing. • eCall Business Model issues on hold • Rollout of infrastructure only started in few MS due to lack of decision concerning standardization Taking into account these delays, the last date communicated by EC (September 2010) for the eCall introduction as an option in all new-type approved vehicles seems difficult to be achieved. According to the current status standardization and approval work will probably last until end of 2009. Industry would then need three years to offer eCall as a standard option on all new type-approved vehicles after this date. This might bring eCall implementation to end of 2012. However, with the help of these measures, the market penetration of eCall in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Page 107 of 120

Implementation Issues for Speed Alert A

System description The system alerts the driver with audio, visual and/or haptic feedback when the speed exceeds the locally valid legal speed limit. The speed limit information is either received from transponders in speed limit signs, from vehicle camera for traffic sign recognition or from a digital road map, requiring reliable positioning information. Some open questions exist such as: • Voluntary or mandatory equipment of vehicles • Type of speed limits to be included: General regulations, local speed signs, temporary speed limits (e.g. “70” between 07.00 – 10.00h), dynamic speed limits depending on traffic and other conditions • Road categories to be included: motorways, rural highways, urban roads • General deployment for selected road categories or equipment of specific parts of road networks, such as accident black spots, tunnels, bridges • Types of vehicles to be equipped: all vehicles, passenger cars, lorries, hazardous goods transports, buses, • Categories of road users to use speed alert: all drivers, young/aged drivers, drivers under rehabilitation, commercial companies/drivers, other specific groups • Definition of architecture (e.g. dynamic speed limits require infrastructure link) • Legal relevance of speed alert for e.g. enforcement • Availability and update procedure for European-wide database of legal speed limits that is standardised, certified and reliable • Business model for the system including its whole life cycle

Technology Availability The basic technology needed to implement speed alert systems exists. There have been several successful large-scale tests with varying speeding feedback solutions, and voluntary speed alert or limiter systems are on the market. However, suitable solutions need to be achieved on how to convey speed limit modifications to on board units (OBUs), e.g. electronic Map on CD-ROMS, local short range communication, wide range communication (DAB) or traffic sign recognition cameras.

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability The basic information infrastructure required by the system, i.e. up-to-date fixed speed limit information in digital road Map, is only partly available in Europe for all roads in Finland and Norway, and in the near future Sweden, and limited coverage (motorways and main roads) for a large part of Europe. Currently, European road authorities and map providers work together in the ROSATTE project to develop harmonised exchange platform to improve availability and accessibility of speed limit information for optimal integration into digital maps. This initiative is also supported through the ITS Action Plan priority “Optimised use of road, traffic and travel data”.

Page 108 of 120

The systems based on traffic sign recognition do not require anything from the infrastructure sign except that the speed limits signs should comply to existing standards and regulations concerning them. D

Organisation requirements There has to be an organisation responsible and liable for updating the speed limit data banks in regular time cycles, as soon as speed limits are changed, and for the actual update reporting procedures. The organisation responsible for conveying temporary and variable speed limit information is required, if they are included in the system.

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers In order to have a nation- or European-wide implementation of the system, the following aspects have to be solved: data quality requirements, questions of responsibility, liability, updating, timing of the updating, legal relevance of speed alert systems and speed limit signs as well as their possible contradictions.

Security As speed alert application is an information and warning system without any intervention on the vehicle control, security aspects are not fundamental. As long as the application relies only on digital maps to access to static speed limit information and information updates come from new CD / DVD releases, the security risk is very low. Security issues arise from the infrastructure vehicle communication used to provide dynamic speed limit information (variable speed limit and temporary speed limit) and updates of static speed limit information. The consequences of hacking this communication, and transmitting incorrect speed limit information to all drivers should not be neglected but also not overestimated, the driver being still in control of the vehicle. This is a security issue common to all in-vehicle applications exploiting vehicle-infrastructure-vehicle communications.

Business Case / Customer awareness and Acceptance So far, there has not been substantial market (car buyer) demand for the system. The market demand for speed alert will probably be increasing in the future with the expected increase of automated speed enforcement throughout the EU. The growing awareness for traffic safety issues among organisations and the use of speed alert as a tool to ensure delivery of safety quality-assured transport services for a company might also increase market demand. It is also obvious from the pilots that user acceptance for speed alert will increase with increasing familiarity with the system. The large majority of portable navigation system are providing speed limit information, and many also a speed alert functionality showing how the current speed of the vehicle differs from the speed limit. Many vehicle manufacturers are since 2008 using camera-based traffic sign recognition technology that can read traffic sign (speed limits and other traffic restrictions) and display the information on the dashboard, and this is another basis for speed alert. The same camera is also used for other purposes than speed alert, thereby improving the business case.

Page 109 of 120

Key Success Factors Many road and other authorities are regarding speed alert as a key system for improving road safety, and the large-scale implementation in the short-term will depend on European and national regulations aiming at mandatory or voluntary deployment of the system. European and national decision making will, however, require that the open questions as listed above will be settled. The most urgent factor for the map based systems is the need for an accurate and up-to-date speed limit database that is readily accessible to all potential service providers.

Feasible Deployment Strategies Together with another EU project PROSPER, SpeedAlert has developed the European wide deployment strategy for informative and voluntary-based speed alert. The SpeedAlert project has established a common classification of speed limits in Europe, defined the system and service requirements of invehicle speed alert system, defined the functional architecture of speed alert, harmonised the definition of speed alert concepts and identified the requirements for standardisation. The project has built consensus with all key stakeholders leading to the definition of recommendations and associated deployment roadmap for successful European-wide implementation. It is quite likely that deployment has to build on voluntary systems. In a longer perspective mandatory systems could be deployed for certain customer groups, such as learning drivers, frequently caught speeders, drivers wishing for insurance bonus etc.

The V model is also based on the work of the SpeedAlert project. According to the roadmap produced by the SpeedAlert project (www.speedalert.org), the following measures need to be taken to promote the deployment of informative and voluntary speed alert systems:

Page 110 of 120

In order to deploy an autonomous system for static speed limits with limited coverage and to reach a consensus by all stakeholders for speed alert deployment by 2006: o Establishment of European roll-out plan endorsed by public and private sectors o Assessment of technical and economical feasibility of speed limit data collection and maintenance at European level o Development of cost/benefit analysis and business case o Promotion of tax/insurance incentives to strengthen end-user interest in speed alert applications In order to deploy an enhanced autonomous system for static speed limits by 2009 o Ensuring the European-wide procurement of speed limit data by progressively establishing appropriate public/private partnerships o Development of adapted procedures to optimise the speed limit data maintenance process by public authorities o Development of action plan to support market introduction of incremental map update solutions to enhance in-vehicle speed limit up-to-dateness In order to deploy a cooperative system for variable speed limits and to have speed alert applications as standard option in all new cars by 2015: o Deployment of pan-European standardised infrastructurevehicle communication service for provision of dynamic content o Implementation of appropriate certification process of speed limit data to support exploitation by ADAS applications

With the help of these measures, the market penetration of speed alert in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020 for :

Page 111 of 120

Implementation Issues for Dynamic Navigation A

System description The system of dynamic navigation describes the use of current traffic data for adjusting the routing process with electronic navigation systems. This enables road users to avoid routes with accidents, roadworks, road closure, closing of road, and overall traffic jams in “real time”. The Traffic Message Channel (TMC) provides basic services that are established through a European-wide compatibility of receivers and free or low-cost provision of traffic relevant information for most countries in Europe. The current network used for receiving these kinds of traffic information is based on a RDS infrastructure. More enhanced and individually sourced content in the area of traffic information has been used to improve the standard TMC services in terms of accuracy and quality. For these kinds of services other networks are necessary and currently GSM networks are used to enable a more advanced dynamic navigation. The availability of real time traffic information frees up potential to maximise efficiency as it noticeably lowers the time required for travelling. It also eases the flow of traffic by appropriately distributing and re-routing cars in areas with high traffic volume. Dynamic navigation is also ranked as a high importance factor in terms of fuel and emission reduction. Dynamic navigation based on real-time traffic data is also very likely to have a positive impact on traffic safety as drivers are better informed about hazardous situations such as a tail of traffic jams, ghost drivers, or the overall high traffic volume.

Technology Availability Technology required for enabling dynamic navigation can be split into two parts: 1. The channel for providing the traffic data and 2. The device for receiving and processing this data. Channels for traffic information: The Traffic Message Channel (TMC) is a specific application for the FM Radio Data System (RDS). It is used for broadcasting real-time traffic and weather information specifying the relevant locations. In many European countries TMC services are available free of charge for users. In the context of dynamic navigation the RDS/TMC information, more specifically the location, the direction or the duration of a traffic event can then be used to give instant route guidance i.e. alerting the driver of a problem on the planned route and calculating an alternative route to avoid the incident. The alternative route is presented directly to the driver unlike occasional roadside information services such as variable message signs. All TMC receivers use the same list of event codes, while the location database contains a country-specific set of location codes for the entire European road network.

Page 112 of 120

There are also several commercial TMC services in Europe. These services are established through a network of private RDS broadcasters and improved in terms of coverage and content accuracy. Such improvements are possible due to joint use of different sources for traffic information. In Germany for example TMCpro uses a stationary system of 4,000 infra-red detectors and 5,500 inductive loops to measure the velocity of the traffic flow. Additional information comes from cars equipped with a GPS tracking unit, which transmits the vehicle’s location and its speed. Official traffic reports from police authorities complete the input for a more accurate and timely information on the traffic situation. TMCpro and other advanced TMC services are not delivered free of charge and users need to pay a premium when purchasing the navigation device. Dynamic navigation based on TMC relies on the use of location tables since 'traffic events' (such as accidents or congestion) have to be superimposed onto the maps in users' GPS devices by matching the reported location into a location table. The importance of these location tables are expected to decrease as new technology will be able to match traffic events without the current location tables soon. All current types of TMC services have limitations in the areas of road coverage, content, and frequency of traffic information sent. These shortcomings of TMC services have been used by manufacturers of navigation devices to give additional value to their customers by providing more enhanced traffic information through GSM network. GSM connectivity allows two-way communications between the navigation device and the back-end structure. It also permits sending of a greater amount of data to the devices in shorter intervals. The embedded SIM card also allows a very accurate positioning of the navigation devices and can be used to generate its own floating car data (as described under the part on extended environmental information). Floating car data does not only play an important role for congestion alerts but also for neutralising reported traffic jam. An example of this is when a specified number of cars equipped with a GSM navigation device drive through a reported traffic jam at normal travelling speed and they deliver proof to a back-end system that this particular traffic jam does not exist anymore. Such information can then be distributed with very short delay to all subscribers of services. Values for typical update cycles like this are below one minute and therefore come close to the RTTI scenario. Dynamic navigation based on GSM network also use TMC and TMCpro data, which is reprocessed, aligned and matched against each other and then distributed to all GSM-navigation devices within a certain area around the traffic incident. This push procedure enhances therefore not only the timeliness but also the relevance of traffic information provided to every individual road user. The service contracts for GSM based dynamic navigation are mostly based on monthly payments. Devices for traffic information:

Page 113 of 120

The term dynamic navigation is aligned with the introduction of navigation systems that were able to give advice on re-routing based on TMC information. There are basically two different solutions for in-car navigation today: portable navigation devices and in-build navigation systems. In most cases in-built navigation systems are a part of an entire car entertainment and telematics platform, which includes navigation, telecommunication, media player and other functionalities. The systems are well-integrated in the car’s infrastructure and meet high automotive safety standards. Since they are designed as multipurpose devices, no additional screen is needed for the navigation functionality. With regards to the software, in-built navigation systems can follow overall design patterns, which are then repeated in the entire HMI-infrastructure of a car. The actuality of the software and hardware features set can be however evaluated as on a lower level than as they are on a PND. This is caused by the fact that PNDs follow a much a shorter product life-cycle than the in-built systems. Therefore new technologies are implemented quicker in portable navigation devices. In terms of map material there is also a difference between PNDs and in-built navigation systems, as most in-built systems require the purchase of a relatively expensive CD or DVD for map-updates, which for European map material can cost up to 200 Euros per copy. For PNDs, map updates start at much lower prices and the maps can be downloaded onto the device with the customers’ PCs. There is also a higher frequency on releases of new map-material for PNDs. Another important difference between the two kinds of navigation systems are the purchase prices. Where in-built navigation systems, that inherent several functionalities, can easily cost up to 3500 Euros (starting at around 1100 Euros), PNDs with the same feature set start from even under 100 Euros. Premium PNDs with comprehensive map material and software feature sets as well as large screens and GSM connectivity for enhanced traffic information or LBS (location based services) can cost up to 500 Euros. In terms of safe incar integration of PNDs there is still under supported, as most PNDs sold today are used with suction cup holders that are placed on the windscreen of the car. These can cause problems in case of an accident and also with regards to the field of view (FoV) or airbag deployment. More findings on this topic can be found in the current final report of the nomadic device forum. However there are several bilateral collaborations between car and PND manufacturers, where PNDs are safely integrated into the car. Such cooperations also allow additional functionalities of a PND such as using the car loudspeakers for voice response or getting access to sensor data of the car. One can also expect that the proportion of mobile phones and mobile internet devices used for dynamic navigation in cars is going to increase in the future as these devices already have GSM connectivity and can also be used for navigation purposes.

Page 114 of 120

Road and Information Infrastructure Need and Availability A system that provides traffic information is readily developed and available in some but not all European countries. That is why the quality of traffic data provided and also the cost behind this system needs to be monitored. Even in countries where TMC services are well integrated, most traffic information is available for motorways only. That is why in an additional future step the extension of services to urban roads should be developed until high-quality traffic information is available for the entire road network. In terms of information infrastructure there are limitations due to the FM radio network used for TMC information. The transfer rate is limited to 60 bit/s, which highly restricts the number of TMC messages that can be received. In combination with the missing reverse channel, this strongly limits the potential of such traffic information network for dynamic navigation. Therefore, great future potential for traffic information networks is linked to the establishment of GSM, GPRS, UMTS or LTE connectivity as they allow extensive two-way data transfers between device and back-end structure.

Organisation requirements As PNDs deliver cutting-edge technology in terms of processing traffic information at a fraction of the cost of in-built navigation systems, an interface (NaviFIX) as proposed by the Nomadic Device Forum (NDF) for safe in-car integration of PNDs needs to be promoted. Other organisation requirements for dynamic navigation are close related those of RTTI: • Strong support for the development of more advanced networks for data transfer e.g. GSM, GPRS, DAB, LTE. • Ensuring cross-border functionality and a standardised strategy for implementation of real-time traffic information • Decision about the extent of the feature set of free TMC services and a overall structure that leave room for provision of commercial services • Easier access to traffic data of authorities

Regulatory Requirements / Barriers As shown under section D European actions are need to be aligned and barriers removed in the areas of: • Network to be use • Cross boarder functionality • Business strategy for commercial traffic services and PPP • Safe integration of PNDs in cars • Improvement of traffic information content • Roaming issues for cellular networks • Strategy to promote equipment of cars with navigation safe devices for dynamic navigation

Page 115 of 120

Security In order to reduce misuse of positioning information and avoid a tracking possibility, special “data only” GSM cards should be used. These GSM cards cannot be used to establish a voice connection and therefore, they do not need to be personalised (assigned to a certain person). Another possibility to improve security is the arrangement of changing ID for the navigation devices. It needs to be investigated if these solutions are efficient enough to ensure system security.

Business Case / Customer Awareness and Acceptance Basic TMC services are delivered in most European countries free of charge (except in France and Great Britain). The applied business case for commercial traffic services against payment arises from a more accurate data provision. Dynamic navigation based on cellular connectivity allows other premium services such as location based services, community services or further advanced traffic information (FCD). TMC services are widely accepted in Europe. For example almost two out of three navigation systems that are sold in Germany with TMC functionality or at least to provide the possibility to upgrade to this service easily. Further steps on the way to greater customer awareness for the benefits such as reduction of the total time of travel, fuel consumption and reduced emissions due to dynamic navigation. In addition to that a European wide strategy for improving the quality and extent of services provided as well as standards for safe installation of PNDs in cars could also help raising customer awareness for the topic.

Key Success Factors Various factors for the success of dynamic navigation can be found. The following are the most important once: • • • • •

Improvements of traffic data in terms of accuracy and relevance Improvements in the communication infrastructure used for traffic data Extension of traffic information services to secondary and urban roads Establishment of a basic set of free data throughout Europe, while leaving enough room for commercial service such as advanced traffic information, LBS, and community services - Making advanced dynamic navigation affordable and safe, by establishing standards for safe PNDs and also promoting an installation interface (NaviFIX) as shown in the final report of the NDF. This would push the market penetration rate for cars equipped with dynamic navigation functionality dramatically.

Page 116 of 120

Feasible Deployment Strategies Safe installation standards for PNDs through NaviFIX

Technical availability: devices and infrastructure available but differences in service in Europe

High market penetration by supporting devices for retrofitting

O/r requirements: Standards for PNDs, cross border functionality, extension of content, room for commercial services

Promotion of extended environmental information

Infrastr. requirements: improvements of services to urban and secondary roads, as well as in networks

Full coverage and promotion of RTTI in Europe Quantify safety benefit

Other barriers: network change required, system costs, PPP, integration of PNDs

Quantify cost and environmental benefits

User acceptance: high for TMC, lower for commercial services

Enhancement of services based on two-way communication networks

business case: quality services with benefits of LBS and adv. navigation features

2010

2015

According to the V analysis of the implementation of dynamic navigation, the measures to be taken include the following: • Introduction of basic TMC services free of charge across Europe • Enhancement of accuracy of travel information and extension of services to secondary roads • Development of a common strategy to move from a RDS-based network to a more advance, faster network that allows higher amounts of more frequent data and two-way communications in the future (GPRS, GSM, LTE, etc.) • Raising customer awareness and accelerate market penetration by promoting devices that allow of dynamic navigation • Provide evidence for the benefit of dynamic navigation with empirical research (for reduction of time travelled, cost savings due to less fuel used, reduced emissions and improved road safety) • Promotion of safe installation interface for PNDs and safety standards for PNDs, since they deliver latest technology of dynamic navigation at affordable prices to customers.

Page 117 of 120

With the support of these measures, the market penetration of dynamic navigation in new cars in Europe is forecasted as the following up to 2020:

Dynamic Navigation Very high High Medium Low Very low 2010

2015

2020

Business as usual Implementation support

Page 118 of 120

ANNEX 4: MEMBERS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ROAD MAPS WORKING GROUP

Page 119 of 120

Implementation Road Maps WG - List of members 2006-2010 Name Hans-Jürgen Mäurer Risto Kulmala Jörg Breuer Wolfgang A. Reinhardt Bernhard Labudek Joachim Scholten Roland Niggestich Fritz Bolte Juhani Jääskeläinen/Francisco Ferreira Brian Knibb Erich Bittner/Martin Kretzschmar/Daniel Schüle Heinz Friedrichs/Sandra Pastore Eva Boethius/Bengt Hallström Oliver Deiters Sabine Spell Alessandro Carrotta/Irina Silva Martin Pichl/Helena Hutarova Vincent Blervaque Catherine Lovell/Chris Ward Anders Holt Bipin Radia/Willy Maes/Eric Kenis Antonio Lucas/Enrique Bodí Sabine Schattke Björn Hedlund Antonio Marques Walter Hagleitner Jacob Bangsgaard/Irina Patrascu Gerhard Rollmann Theo Kamalski Michael Schürdt

Organisation DEKRA VTT Daimler ACEA ADAC BMW BMVBS BASt EC DG-INFSO KGP Bosch Bosch SRA DEKRA Volkswagen eSafetySupport Czech Republic ERTICO UK DfT NPRA EC DG-TREN Univ. of Valencia VDE CLEPA ETRA I+D ADAS Man.Cons. FIA Foundation SARA Group TomTom MEDION

Strategic Research Agenda ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Working Group RTD

Update 2010

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

List of contents

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................3 Vision - 2030 ..........................................................................................................................4 State of Play - 2010 ...............................................................................................................6 Recommendations for Future R&D......................................................................................10 1. Sustainable Road Transport ........................................................................................11 1.1 Road Users .............................................................................................................11 1.2 Vehicles ..................................................................................................................12 1.3 Transport Services .................................................................................................12 1.4 Logistics Services ...................................................................................................13 1.5 Road Operators ......................................................................................................14 2. Sustainable Urban Mobility ..........................................................................................15 3. Road Transport Safety .................................................................................................16 4. ICT and the Decarbonisation of Transport ...................................................................18 5. Deployment ..................................................................................................................20 5.1 Field Operational Tests and Data Collection ..........................................................21 5.2 Modelling and Simulation .......................................................................................22 6. Horizontal Issues ..........................................................................................................24 Glossary ...............................................................................................................................27

Page 2 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Executive Summary The long term vision for Intelligent Mobility is based on zero accidents, minimised delays, near zero environmental impact, and fully informed travellers. To reach this state will require the development of a fully integrated multimodal transport network, which will ensure efficient and safe movement of people and goods. This will require public authorities, industry, and other private organisations, in partnership, to undertake a substantial RTD effort, building on what has already been achieved, and moving forward ICT-based eSafey technologies to the point where their deployment will bring about the realisation of the long term vision. To this end, RTD actions are needed in six areas: Sustainable Road Transport; Sustainable Urban Mobility; Road Transport Safety; ICT and the Decarbonisation of Transport; Deployment; and Horizontal Issues. Research in the area of Sustainable Road Transport needs to address the needs of road users and road operators. It also need to be focused on the development of systems for vehicles, transport services, and logistics services, while addressing the new challenges and opportunities that arise from the use of electric and hybrid vehicles. In the area of Sustainable Urban Mobility, a coordinated, efficient and integrated approach is required to address the development of safe and sustainable urban mobility. The research will need to address several areas: data collection and analysis of the state of the transportation network; integrated transportation networks; and urban mobility of goods. Road Transport Safety has been, and remains, a major goal for the European Union. An additional effort should be made to achieve the targets for reducing the number of road fatalities. At the same time, investment in the development of electrical vehicles is also opening up novel areas of investigation on safety related applications. These new areas must also be addressed. With respect to ICT and the Decarbonisation of Transport, there is a need for new ICT solutions, or for existing ICT systems to be adapted, to integrate electric vehicles fully into the urban mobility system. The main areas to address are integration with other modes, demand management, and charging. On the matter of deployment, this, along with market development, have always been a major problem with ICT-based ITS, and, to overcome this problem, Field Operational Tests and data collection must be developed further. Modelling and simulation must also be considered. In particular, with regard to modelling, two important areas must be addressed. The first of these relates to researching traffic models, and the second relates to researching emission models. Horizontal issues remain an important area requiring attention in future research activities. Overall these horizontal matters cover a broad range of topics. Specifically, the horizontal issues that need to be considered include assessment methods, quality standards, business models and deployment aspects, training and education, human factors and organisational perspectives, and international R&D collaboration.

Page 3 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Vision - 2030 It is 2030. For over 40 years, Europe’s ICT for Intelligent Mobility community have been working on the development of Intelligent Transport Systems. With the recent wide take-up and deployment of research results developed within the European Commission’s Framework Programme 8 (2014 to 2020), Intelligent Mobility has now moved very close to the objectives that were set back at the turn of the century: zero accidents, minimised delays, near zero environmental impact, and fully informed travellers. This achievement has come about largely as a result of the development of a fully integrated multimodal transport network, which ensures efficient and safe movement of people and goods. In partnership, all the stakeholders—public authorities, industry, and other private organisations— have dedicated substantial efforts toward the achievement of the above objectives. Thanks to the wide availability of low cost wireless communication systems, relevant information flows constantly and seamlessly from each source to all interested users. All road infrastructures have been digitised in detail with respect to their geometry, characteristics, speed limits, etc. Distributed monitoring of traffic conditions means that all traffic incidents can be detected, and information about these (such as road works, accidents, stationary traffic, or slow moving vehicles, etc.) can be transmitted in real time to targeted road users. A large portion of road traffic (about 80% of new vehicles) is cooperative, and contributes to the generation of very accurate, up-to-date and precise traffic information. All vehicles are equipped with automatic emergency call systems and can signal different types of abnormalities (stationary traffic, slow moving vehicles, emergency incident, etc.). In-vehicle open platforms with flexible and integrated Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs) provide access to onboard nomadic devices applications, as well as access to online services related to safety, navigation, entertainment, and many other telematics functions. Most of the infrastructure (80% of critical road sections and intersections; 10% of all road networks) is also cooperative, meaning that the infrastructure is able to detect and interact with vehicles. In particular, the most important intersections in urban and rural areas are equipped, based on different decision criteria, with systems that address safety, traffic flow and environmental issues. Geo-referenced information, either static or dynamic, is widely available and very accurate in terms of both space and time. This information is provided in coordination with public authorities to manage properly any emergency situation. Information about different kinds of mobility options is made available in an overall serviceoriented transportation network, allowing connected travellers to choose between different context-aware travelling options according to their priorities and needs, and taking into account financial and regulatory incentives. Travellers in all types of vehicles (private vehicles and public transport) are also part of this mobility resource database, sharing not only position data, but also destination information and planned traffic-based route (or the most likely route based on personal habits). People share their data without any major worries concerning privacy risks. Since mobility demand has continued to increase since the turn of the century, the average speed in urban areas in particular, has remained quite low, but the estimation of travel time has become more precise and reliable, allowing users to choose more appropriate transport modes considering their needs in term of time, flexibility, cost, and environmental impact. Security is still an issue, but technologies are used to guarantee security on public transport,

Page 4 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

and also on a large part of the road network, allowing users to choose their travel modes with fewer security constrains. Vehicle technology has been further developed. About 30% of the new vehicles are either fully electric or are hybrids. For urban freight delivery, hybrids have become important and these constitute 80% of the overall fleet. Fully electric drive-chains are only possible on small delivery or special purpose vehicles. Incentives have pushed the diffusion of dedicated city vehicles that are used for urban mobility. These incentives include new ownership models, tax reduction, priority parking facilities, city access, and reduced road pricing. New urban vehicle concepts have also been made available. Three wheel and single passenger city vehicles are two examples of such dedicated city vehicles. Road operators have focused on network operation, so as to manage both mobility and demand and also to control traffic flows in real-time to ensure safety, throughput, and sustainability in all conditions. Road pricing is widely accepted as a solution to manage urban and inter-urban mobility demand, and to provide incentives for more sustainable solutions. Technology now allows sophisticated pricing schemes that take into account time, position, environmental criteria, etc., for all travellers. Driving behaviour has been influenced using incentive schemes promoting safer and more efficient behaviour. Special attention has been be paid to incident management to maintain the network operation and even to prevent incidents using advanced traffic management and real time targeted traffic information. Cooperative solutions have allowed the introduction of supervised autonomous driving solutions, which use dedicated lanes, both in cities and on motorways. The first applications were in green corridors specially designated for collective transport, including, outside cities, long distance freight transport operating in platoon mode. Service levels in public transport have been improved, thereby increasing the competitiveness and attractiveness of this method of travel. Rapid Transit systems have become quite diffused, with driverless vehicles on both rail and on the roads (using dedicated lanes). Demand-responsive transport has also become popular, in which it is possible to identify, in real time, the specific mobility needs of given areas. Park-and-ride facilities have also become ubiquitous around cities, and these facilities all have automated booking services and good interfaces with other travel modes. Freight transport demand has also increased, not only because of economic growth, but also owing to an increase in e-commerce for goods purchased daily, such as groceries. Also, freight logistics has been integrated into the overall transportation network, allowing new efficient solutions for freight delivery. Zero-noise night delivery has become common in cities, which allows better traffic distribution during the day. Road safety has remained an issue, but the risk level has been greatly reduced for most user groups including Vulnerable Road Users. Impaired driving, especially under the influence of alcohol or drugs, has become nearly impossible. Speed limits are widely respected owing to sophisticated green-wave concepts and strong enforcement and reward schemes. Drivers will often accept to be supported so as to stay within the speed limits, for example, through the use of automatic speed adaptation or simply through the delivery of speed advice. Semiautomated driving, or, under very restrictive conditions, fully automated driving, are commonplace, which has helped to reduce accidents that are related to driver failures. Drivers are supported through the use of onboard systems, which also benefit from the deployment of cooperative solutions at intersections, and these solutions also help avoid secondary events that can arise from earlier traffic incidents or abnormalities. Since a large portion of vehicles are equipped with these systems, communication with other vehicles has improved safety both on motorways and on primary roads.

Page 5 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Onboard speed regulation has not only imposed limits on speed, but has also enabled the implementation of speed-related vehicle safe-following distance control. Infrastructure-based systems have also contributed towards drivers staying within speed limits and have enabled safe-following distance control to become part of traffic management. Infrastructure-based systems have also enabled the introduction of standard road safety evaluation methods. Public authorities also have specific criteria to promote safe roads through the use of public funds. Vulnerable Road Users are more protected, both physically and legally, for example through the wide use of dedicated lanes inside city areas for manually-powered transport such as bicycles. Priority at intersections for Vulnerable Road Users is normal at traffic lights. Cooperative solutions are also widely available to protect Vulnerable Road Users. Driver education has become a lifelong task. The training of new drivers has been improved through the use of realistic driving simulators. Other road users, such as cyclists and pedestrians, are also now better trained and more safety aware. An increasing demand to use travel time for secondary activities such as entertainment, learning, etc., resulted in specific attention being given to the driver. In-vehicle HMIs have been optimised to minimise distraction from the driving task, and these HMI have been personalised for each driver. In addition, access to entertainment services is differentiated between drivers and passengers. Unsafe behaviour, both voluntary and involuntary, is autonomously detected by means of real-time distraction monitoring systems. Immediate feedback, as well as post-trip feedback, is provided by driver-coaching systems. The use of these coaching systems is linked to economic incentives, such as tax and insurance premium reductions. Identification of the most efficient road safety measures is more precise, and is guided by new data collection and analysis methods, including large-scale naturalistic driving studies and automated site-based analysis, as well as accident and incident modelling techniques.

State of Play - 2010 Significant reductions in road traffic accidents has been the wish of European transport stakeholders for many years, and the determination to achieve this wish has been in pursued in several EU programmes. The White Paper1, European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, set the policy objective of achieving a 50% reduction in accidents and deaths by 2010 (from the 2001 starting point). However, this objective has only been reached in a few countries, such as France and Italy. Mostly the reductions achieved are as a result of increased use of enforcement (in the French case) and an increase in infringement penalties (in the Italian case). Some contribution to the achievement of the above objectives has been made by the use of specific passive safety tests which are dedicated to the assessment of risk for Vulnerable Road Users. In every new road construction or adaptation, in both urban and sub-urban road networks, road infrastructure design now also takes into account the needs of Vulnerable Road Users. However, with regard to the use of technologies and their contribution to achieving the policy objective of reducing road accident fatalities, diffusion of technologies to improve safety has only reached a high level for a few specific solutions, such as Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Anti-lock Braking (ABS), and Airbags. More advanced solutions, such as Automatic Cruise Control (ACC), emergency braking, lane departure warning, etc., are generally only available in a very limited number of vehicle models, and sales of these are

European Commission, COM(2001)370, 12/09/2001 Page 6 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

very low, both in terms of number and in terms of the proportion of total European vehicle sales. With regard to actual reductions in road fatalities, in 2008 within the EU27, some 39,000 people were killed in road collisions2. This is 15,400 less than in 2001, but still far from the target figure (27,000) which the EU set for itself in its Road Safety Target for 2010. The average annual reduction since 2001 has been only 4.4%, instead of the 7.4% needed. This shortfall will delay the EU in reaching its target, possibly until 2017. Transport authorities (especially in urban environments) also have their own policy objectives, and these are, in typical order of priority: lessening the environmental impact of transport; improving road safety; reducing congestion; and enhancing accessibility. City authorities are introducing demand management measures to restrict car-based journeys in the city centre, through access restrictions, environmental and low emissions zones, parking policy, and to a lesser extent, road use pricing. Specific strategies and measures are being developed to minimise the impact of the transport of goods in urban areas through the use of small electric delivery vehicles and quiet night deliveries. Improved attractiveness of public transport, potentially leading, in cities, to a shift from car usage, is a policy objective of many city authorities, and this is often accompanied by policies to encourage a reduction in transport demand. All these measures have implications for the mobility needs of the European population. With respect to the development of cooperative driving, in Europe this was first promoted and addressed in the EUREKA PROMETHEUS3 Programme (1987-1994) and later on, by the DRIVE I project supported by the European Commission (EC) in Framework Programme 2 (FP2) and by the DRIVE II and the TAP EC Programmes. Activities have focused on studies and applications of bi-directional Vehicle-to-Infrastructure communication (V2I), followed later by Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication. Initially the technology was not able to fulfil the needed requirements for cooperative driving, and therefore the focus of the European automotive industry turned to stand-alone vehicle safety systems such as ESC and ACC. However, the development of intelligent vehicle safety systems is spiral-like: the same topics are revisited over time, but on each occasion on a new and higher level to reach the goals set in the late1980s. With the progress that has been made in communication technologies, the European industry has looked again in recent years at the opportunities offered by applications such as incident detection, traffic information systems, and guidance and cooperation among vehicles. Using available real time information, bi-directional communication with vehicles can, on the one hand, inform drivers of static and dynamic facts related to transport and traffic safety, and on the other hand, enable vehicles to act as mobile sensors collecting information concerning surrounding traffic conditions, like for example, local weather information. New applications for safety, as well as enforcement and information, have proven to be very effective in delivering, in some cases, 50% reduction in fatalities. The aim of cooperative driving solutions is now mostly focused on supporting foresighted driving and early detection of dangers and hazards allowing the driver to adapt the vehicle speed accordingly, thus increasing the distance between vehicles in those instances. This is realised by means of communication-based systems that extend the drivers’ horizon and warn of potentially dangerous situations ahead. The main expected application areas for cooperative driving are: • 2 3

Traffic information exchange between vehicles and background systems;

CARE - European Road Accident Database Programme For A European Traffic with Highest Efficiency and Unprecedented Safety Page 7 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

•

Early hazard warning systems;

•

Driver support for merging into traffic flows;

•

Platoon driving within a dedicated infrastructure (lanes);

•

Cooperative intersections.

On the matter of standardisation, this has received a considerable push forward through the allocation in Europe of a dedicated frequency band for vehicle safety communication. 30 MHz have been reserved, between 5.875 and 5.905 GHz, for the exclusive use of communication of safety relevant information. This frequency allocation is quite in line with the frequency band that has been reserved in the USA for Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC), thus allowing the same chip set to be used in both regions, and also building on the IEEE standard 802.11p, both of which will generate scale effects and thus make equipment cheaper once deployment starts. Additionally, a band of 40 MHz has been reserved between 5.855 and 5.875 GHz and 5.905 and 5.925 GHZ for traffic related applications, but there is no exclusive use of this for C2X communication. Commonly agreed standards for V2V and V2I communication in Europe are under preparation by the ETSI Technical Committee, ITS. The Car2Car Communication Consortium (C2C-CC), the non-profit organisation initiated by European vehicle manufacturers and open to suppliers and other research organisations, was established to increase road traffic safety and efficiency by means of inter-vehicle communications. The consortium promotes solutions for common European standards for C2X communication. With regard to technical development activities, both CALM (an ISO activity) and the C2C-CC, have worked on architectures and protocols that are mostly complementary. Additionally, a number of research projects have been carried out in Europe, but also in Japan and the USA, to integrate different Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS), cooperative driving systems, and safety functions, into a single platform by means of sensor data fusion. Prototype applications such as the systems demonstrated by the PReVENT subprojects WILLWARN (Wireless Local Danger Warning) and INTERSAFE, clearly show the potential of cooperative systems, but these systems are not yet providing solutions for commercial use. Moreover, agreement still needs to be achieved between the road operators on the one side, and car manufacturers on the other side, concerning the communication technologies, procedures and services to be used between infrastructure and vehicles and its fallbacks. Valorisation of existing mature GSM/UMTS technologies is being addressed which will allow road operators to avoid the investment in a specific network for the road infrastructure. A more modern communication infrastructure is also being considered which will better support the action of motorway operators using private devoted networks, for example, WIMAX type networks. Operated just by road operators, this will give them the possibility of maintaining a close relationship with their customers, the road users. Beside the technical questions, the roles of the partners in the value chain for the implementation and provision of V2I and I2V also need to be defined. A qualification process regarding the information given to drivers, needs to be set up from the source, right up to the in-car delivery. Harmonisation activities have been undertaken in the EC funded support action COMeSafety and in the projects CVIS, SAFESPOT and PRE-DRIVE C2X, in support of enabling the interoperability of safety systems. Intelligent Transportation Systems and Services (ITS) and Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSS) will in the future play a key role in improving safety on European roads. However, as of 2010, there is still a moderately slow market introduction, and safety applications are still high cost items, and they tend to be limited to a small part of the premium car market segment. Future safety systems must therefore be made more Page 8 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

affordable so as to penetrate all vehicle segments, since small and medium-size cars constitute the largest part of vehicles in use on Europe’s roads. One activity that is being addressed consists in increasing the sensing capabilities to perceive obstacles, anomalies and hazards, both for vehicles and traffic monitoring systems. Cameras (video, FIR and NIR), radar technologies (77 & 24 GHz) and laser technology to sense the surrounding space as well as the objects around the vehicles, still need to be developed for mass-market use so as to enable monitoring and prediction of vehicle trajectory, driver behaviour, and traffic flows. New driver information and support application technologies making use of GPS-enabled location functions and services are also emerging: these functions and services range from consumer-oriented offerings in Asia, business-oriented and consumer-oriented applications in North America, and personal navigation and traffic information services in Europe. The number of nomadic devices and personal navigation devices (PND) and smart phones (3G phones) is increasing. The associated technology for nomadic devices is mature, and useful functions for travellers can be developed with open interface solutions when connecting mobile terminals to vehicle systems. Mature wireless communication and positioning technologies providing functions and services to aftermarket and nomadic devices, can already enable some cooperative driving-type functions: mobile phones and portable navigators are channels which are able to provide personalised information for Travel and Traffic Information (TTI) provision. Infrastructure-based systems such as Variable Message Signs (VMS) are an option in densely built-up areas, while TV and teletext are channels that are only viewed before a journey. Digital content and broadcast technologies could however be used in multiple ways to provide information. In general there is however, no single channel that can provide complete and comprehensive information to all types of travellers. The issue is still how to create business cases around these technologies that would speed up the market penetration of intelligent traffic services. From the road operators’ perspective, there is still a difference between various classes of roads in terms of both road equipment and the number of staff devoted to operation and technology deployment. There are also typically two or three road authorities responsible for different categories of road in an urban area: the highways authority generally has responsibility for the motorways entering urban areas; the city or transport authority manages the vast majority of non-motorway roads; and local (secondary) roads are managed by smaller administrative units (for example boroughs). In some cases a metropolitan or regional transport authority exists (for example in London and Brussels). However, institutional cooperation among the different parties is developing so as to achieve a more regional approach to traffic management since there is growing recognition that journeys do not stop at administrative boundaries. In the case of some roads, the time is ripe for a new approach to the operation that could deliver further benefits in terms of efficiency of the road transport system, safety of road users, and environmental sustainability. This is especially true for the secondary road network and the urban road network, but is also the case for many motorways which are part of the Trans-European Road Network. Road operators have reasonably accurate and timely knowledge of what is happening on the primary road networks in terms of road works and incidents, but a correct understanding of traffic conditions and behaviour needs to be gained in a wider range of cases. This requires the infrastructure to be equipped with traffic monitoring systems able to gather information on the number and type of vehicles flowing in each road section, per lane and direction, giving moreover, real-time information related to accidents and other perturbing events occurring on the road network.

Page 9 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Furthermore, new central data processing systems will need to be developed for control centres, both for dealing with new sets of information, and new volumes of data related to the quantity of data that will be received from the most congested sections at peak hours, both in urban and inter-urban environments. Control centres will have to be able to process all the information from traffic control systems. In addition they will also need to be able to process large volumes of data provided by vehicles that are capable of communicating with the infrastructure. Based on foreseen traffic management plans, control centres will need to be able to supply traffic information to travel information systems and services, as well as directly to consumers in their vehicles, so as to maximize the traffic throughput and flow, and to minimize the travel times of road users. There is a growing desire among road authorities for traffic management systems to become proactive, and to move away from reactive systems. This means being able to, for example, predict traffic flow and volume, and then to take pre-emptive measures to avoid incidents such as traffic build-up, air pollution peaks, etc. This will require a far more intelligence infrastructure than that which exists in 2010, notably in terms of data collection, fusion and analysis, short-term traffic forecasting, modelling, and decision support systems. ICT-based mobility services for goods are also part of the global picture. There are significant inefficiencies inherent to freight transport, mainly owing to loading rates: the sectors fragmentation translates into high empty running rates (percentage of truck-km run empty), which range between 40% and 60%4. Process-related inefficiencies include: useless trips; unwanted stops; lack of synchronization between transport modes; and lengthy administration processes. Collective goods transport solutions are also attempted via logistic brokers. These are asset-less logistic services providers who act as intermediaries between transport demand and supply, providing services to optimise loads and routes. Inter-modal freight transport is promoted and supported as the way to ensure that the most competitive and efficient transport solution, or a combination, can be employed for the entire journey. The unabated growth of road freight testifies to the difficulties encountered by logistic users in managing door-to-door consignments over multimodal transportation networks. Related information management costs and burdens are too high for the majority of small logistic companies. Finally, turning to the matter of Human-machine Interfaces (HMIs), in-vehicle HMIs are increasingly integrated and mapped in a many-to-many way, to applications. HMIs however are still mainly used for onboard (native) applications although some provisions for basic integration of nomadic devices (e.g. media players and phones) are offered by most vehicle manufacturers. At the same time, as described above, the number of applications that can potentially interact with drivers is increasing rapidly, including online services and cooperative systems. These mainly run on nomadic devices, and here the situation is still relatively far from an open interface by which means drivers can access all applications via a single HMI. The proliferation of applications also implies a potential distraction problem and there is a lack of design guidelines concerning how to achieve safe integration of a large number of applications into a single HMI, and also concerning how to safely fix nomadic devices in vehicles.

Recommendations for Future R&D Recommendations for future R&D are presented in the following pages, under the headings of: 4

European Environment Agency, Environmental issue report No 12. Page 10 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Sustainable Road Transport

Sustainable Urban Mobility

Road Transport Safety

ICT and the Decarbonisation of Transport

Deployment

Horizontal Issues

Sustainable Road Transport

1.1

Road Users Road transport user requirements are clearly connected to better planning capabilities. Delivery on this requirement needs a strong effort from all service, transport and road operators to redefine their systems so as to improve access to information and other mobility services, and to facilitate user and stakeholders’ interaction. This can be achieved with real-time, multimodal travel advice, which is adapted to user preferences. This advice must demonstrate to users, real benefits in terms of monetary, environmental, and time savings. Associated with the development of this next generation of real-time traveller information systems, will be research on ambient intelligence to connect databases and different data sources, so as to provide the fore mentioned capabilities. In addition, users require facilities for reserving and paying for mobility services, for example, Internet-based facilities, e-tickets, etc. and new ICT applications will need to be developed to meet these requirements. Moreover, users in Europe are also increasingly becoming older and so, to ensure social inclusion for an aging population, the development of new mobility concepts is needed for keeping people mobile and active. Examples could be advanced car sharing, new taxi services, autonomous vehicles, and advanced public transport. A single technical platform is also desirable from the user perspective. Such a platform should provide a full range of public and private-sector mobility services, including real-time information, reservation facilities (car-share, parking space, park-and-ride, bicycle hire), payment mechanisms (public transport, etc.), incentives, and personalized information (favorite places, promotions, etc.). Such services will also need to be developed to run on this platform. For the user, the underlying technical paradigm should be Many-to-Many (M2M) connectivity, where travellers can be connected to databases and other information sources concerning their mobility and travel as a whole, including choices while on the road. This should be a long-term social goal for traffic management and mobility support. In addition to onboard applications, there are already a proliferation of third-party applications and services accessed through wireless communication (telematics, V2V, V2I) or via nomadic devices. Many of these applications interact with drivers and this implies the need for integrated, flexible, Human-machine Interface solutions. This raises both technological and human factors challenges. The technological challenges concern the HMI architecture, in particular, information prioritisation and protocols for mediating the driversystem interaction. Human factors issues mainly concern the development of interaction design principles for integrated HMIs. While these issues are critical for the deployment of

Page 11 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

cooperative systems, they have not been sufficiently addressed in previous collaborative research.

1.2

Vehicles Vehicles are a major component of the overall transport system, and in this area, major developments are underway which are related with multiple objectives, such as increased energy efficiency, higher safety levels, and lower environmental impact, including a reduction in CO2 emissions. To achieve these objectives, vehicle manufacturers are introducing assisted and partially autonomous driving which are expected to improve the efficiency of vehicles of different types (buses, cars and trucks) as well as drive train modes (conventional, hybrid, electric). To achieve integrated safety systems, it is necessary to improve the sensing capabilities of vehicles. Sensors are often too expensive, bulky, not robust, and too many different types of sensor are needed. So, it is necessary to develop more generic sensors, reduce their size and cost, and improve their performance, so as to accelerate the penetration rates of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSS) and to ensure European leadership in this area. The introduction of Green Vehicles in the Transport System requires information systems as well as systems for interfacing and exchanging between transport modes or types of clean vehicles. Demand management information and control, and interfaces among various levels of environment zones (traffic and network information, management systems) are also required. Moreover, improved facilities are required for the safe and secure transport of goods on road networks, along with inter-modal transport systems, both offering data-security, vehicle tracking and monitoring, safe resting places and appropriate routing, and monitoring of users for security in cases of crime.

1.3

Transport Services Different transport services need to be coordinated so as to assure the best services to travellers of the future. Coordination of different services has to be ensured, along with the information that is made available for traveller planning and cooperation among the different transport services. To achieve this, ICT is needed to promote the efficient use of all modes through improved interfacing and by means of better transport hubs. The development of new mobility concepts will also contribute to safer, more sustainable, and better individual and collective transportation services. Integrated payment and ticketing systems for public transport, demand management systems (parking and road pricing), other mobility services (car share, public bikes), and non-mobility products and services (for example retail) should be developed. New combined systems offering information about real-time and forecasted parking availability, and reservation and payment, should be offered to users. New energy efficient transport of goods, freight distribution, and improved logistics will have to be developed. This will be associated with development of complementary modularisation principles and architectures for goods carriers and vehicles so as to facilitate improved transport and energy efficiency. Furthermore, an open ITS framework for goods logistic systems, along with and cost and time databases for different modes of transport, need to be developed. Incidents in the transportation of hazardous goods create the risk of a high negative impact in terms of public security and environmental damage. The minimisation of these risks requires research focused on new technologies and solutions that can achieve a very high Page 12 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

level of driving safety (driving monitoring, safe distance enforcement, etc.) and also the development of systems for initial as well as continuous driver monitoring. Vehicle tracking along its route to detect any anomalies in space and time will also help to reduce risks, as will the monitoring of the condition of freight. Risks can also be minimised along the route, by performing safest, securest, and environmentally conscious routing and re-routing. Armed robbery of, and from vehicles, has become a challenge to the logistics industry. For economic reasons, in case of theft, but also in terms of public security in those cases where large vehicles are misused as weapons, for example, in a terrorist attack, the development of appropriate countermeasures requires research focused on solutions which detect criminal acts automatically, in real time, and without the involvement of the driver. New solutions should either result in avoidance of damage, or lead to minimal related damages, by triggering appropriate measures, for example, automatic stopping of the vehicle. Such systems should also allow police intervention before the freight can be transferred to another vehicle.

1.4

Logistics Services Comprehensive and integrated usage of new technologies (such as RFID, wireless sensor networks, advanced ICT platforms, and common application architectures) must be directed at optimal management of freight transport chains, to reduce environmental impact and increase efficiency for the community of users and logistics services providers. Several key developments are expected. The first of these is platforms for collaborative and interoperable freight management. ICT solutions addressing the process-related inefficiencies that arise from the high degree of fragmentation in the logistic sector need to be developed. These solutions should address empty running, useless trips, unwanted stops, lack of synchronization between transport modes, and lengthy administration processes. These solutions must also support process models that simplify relationships and information exchanges among the involved stakeholders, along with clear and unambiguous concepts for governance, cohesive policies, and decision-rights. Processes to be supported include inter-modal freight traffic management based on sharing of transport demand and supply data. Here available transport services should be easily identifiable and there should be capabilities for automatically combining these into efficient, environmentally friendly door-to-door transport alternatives. In addition, monitoring and efficient management of complex multimodal flows should be supported, enabling individual logistic users to integrate their ICT systems with carriers and logistic operators for seamless door-to-door transport management. Cargo mobility information services is another expected development, allowing cargo to connect itself to logistic service providers, users, and authorities, so as to provide information services whenever required along the transport chain. The goal should be to integrate intelligent packages and containers, and vehicle and field devices, through a ubiquitous infrastructure which provides basic information services, for example, identification, track and trace, proof of delivery, and all with very low integration costs. Furthermore, the infrastructure should be open for companies and providers to integrate their own advanced services, for example, eco-friendly route selection across modes, realtime monitoring, and load optimization across operators. Finally, data infrastructures for energy-efficient logistics should be developed enabling distributed and centralized decision support based on intelligent analysis of efficiency related information, cross-referencing environmental data, and other relevant sources from public and private stakeholders. This will provide the means for carbon footprint estimation Page 13 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

across several dimensions (for example sector, supply chain, transport mode, company) and enable evaluation of environmental impact reduction policies, to support authorities, government agencies and other public decision makers. An additional purpose of the data infrastructures will be assessment of energy-efficiency strategies from the business perspective, providing the private sector with the means to evaluate the impact of sustainability policies in business and market-related terms.

1.5

Road Operators Road operators are the organisations who will be mainly responsible for reducing congestion and improving environmental conditions. The main means to achieve this will be by delivering better mobility and safety conditions. To pursue these objectives, congestion management will need to be treated as a separate issue. Very different methods will be required to address this. Above all, traffic policymakers and the private sector should work together and use ICT, in addition to demand management measures, to alleviate congestion. A real-time knowledge of network status will require full road network monitoring covering all road users (public transport, commercial vehicles, cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.). The implementation of cost-effective traffic data collection covering the whole network (combining UTC and other data, for example, vehicle floating data) will be mandatory, as will data mining, filtering, fusion and processing and connection of databases. This will assure the attainment of full road network monitoring and management, and will allow the development of an intelligent road infrastructure with embedded sensor networks. The definition of cost-effective data transmission and standardised reliable communication channels is also fundamental to make viable, equipping the whole road network. In addition, the development of open ITS frameworks will be required to allow system compatibility and interoperability leading to efficient area-wide and regional traffic management associated with new advanced traffic control to support environmental zones. Vehicle identification, tracking and monitoring will also be required to establish the environmental footprint and occupancy level, and subsequent traffic strategies and supporting systems need to be defined and evaluated.

Efficient traffic management and reliable real-time traffic information should be provided to users, based on: •

Reliable, real-time multimodal travel and traffic management and information that can be accessed anytime and anywhere;

•

Evolution of traffic information platforms to multimedia content centres for cooperative and co-modal content and services for the end user;

•

Development of open ITS frameworks that allow for system compatibility and interoperability leading to efficient area-wide traffic management within dense urban areas, on roads with highly fluctuating traffic densities, and across jurisdictional boundaries to inter-urban roads and adjacent urban areas;

•

ITS applications recommending routes, in coordination with traffic authorities, for high fuel efficiency and low environmental impact;

•

Applications assessing the impact of ITS on greenhouse gas emissions; and

•

Models for route planning and re-routing that combine safety, cost-efficiency, environmental protection and personalisation of service.

Page 14 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Next generation traffic management systems that are multimodal and designed to move people and goods efficiently and safely, need to be designed, developed and tested. New (and integrated) monitoring technology is needed to provide a good indication of the people and goods (volume and destination) circulating on a road network (in cars, public transport, commercial vehicles, soft modes, etc.). New strategies and systems need to be defined to manage people and goods movement (rather than vehicle movement) against a variety of different objectives (efficiency, safety, reduced emissions, etc.). Moreover, traffic management strategies and systems will need to become proactive, that is to say, they will require a short-term traffic forecasting function which enables incident prediction and appropriate management interventions to be made. Improved monitoring of people and goods movement covering the whole road network is required, along with tools for real-time local incident prediction based on vehicle-by-vehicle or flow data. Furthermore, appropriate technology for disseminating traffic information and recommended routes (especially in the event of an incident) to all road users (including incentives and penalties) has to be developed. Definition of appropriate decision-support systems also has to be tackled and more automation needs to be brought into traffic management, that is to say, self-managing (less intervention of traffic controller), selflearning (learn from incidents) and self-correcting (systems adapt themselves to new situations and knowledge) capabilities should be provided. Concerning the accessibility for the end-user, more research in the field of ICT can improve the accessibility of digital content. On the other hand, as demonstrated in several EU funded ICT projects, the development of ICT applications in infrastructure gives possibilities and opportunities to increase the accessibility of multimodal transport systems (for example, cooperative systems (CVIS, SAFESPOT, COOPERS), and e-Inclusion of the elderly and disabled (ASK-IT, etc.)).

Sustainable Urban Mobility Urban mobility is concerned with the mobility of people and goods in the urban environment, facilitated by the management of the urban mobility network. The increasing availability of real-time multimodal transport and traffic information together with better interoperability between services and systems in the transportation networks, enable the provision of personalized urban transport services to all users. Emerging technologies, systems, and solutions also allow the use of scarce resources in the most optimal way and with minimal environmental impact. The research required for the development of safe and sustainable urban mobility will be based on a coordinated, efficient and integrated approach. This will need to address several areas: data collection and analysis of the state of the transportation network; integrated transportation networks; and urban mobility of goods. With regard to the first area, data collection and analysis of the state of the transportation network, new technologies are required for sensing, data collection, processing and distributing, for all traffic, on all road networks, and for all modes. Soft modes and public transport should also be included in this. The objectives should be to estimate and inform on the status of the transportation network; and to predict the impact and consequences of incidents, infrastructure works, special events, communication infrastructure failures, including the behavioural changes of travellers as referred in sections 1.1 and 6. Concerning integrated transportation networks, the integration of multiple networks management is the key for a coherent development of urban mobility, focussed on the Page 15 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

reduction of social exclusion and provision of access for all. The integration of stand alone traffic and travel information is required. These systems must also be able to send and receive information from contiguous service providers from other transport modes and road operators, as well as local and national authorities who can contribute most significantly to the development of urban mobility. To assure the total interoperability of all these systems and services, a strong standardisation effort should be made, focussed on flexible architecture. The definition of digital map specifications also needs to be addressed to allow the interoperation of data from different sources in all digital map types, independent from suppliers, as well as to facilitate the sharing of map information among different stakeholders. This is expected to be a major element supporting urban mobility development. Also, traffic information for route planning and guidance, considering environmental impacts and restrictions, for example in Low Emission Zones, needs to be further studied and developed. The definition of Business Models and PPPs in ICT/ITS systems for transportation networks may lead to new urban mobility solutions using multi-criteria (safety, security, efficiency, environmental protection) and routing schemes optimisation. An example could be interoperable road tolling, parking, and public transport payment and management systems. On the matter of urban mobility of goods, future urban logistics will go beyond traffic monitoring and enforcement, aiming at the implementation of real-time cooperative freight transportation systems. Here there are two significant issues to be addressed. The first is transparent data acquisition and use, allowing effective monitoring and coordination of urban freight traffic while safeguarding privacy and commercial sensitiveness of crucial logistics information. The second is cooperative real-time demand management solutions, allowing cargo owners (consigners or consignees), logistic operators, and control authorities to apply consolidation strategies for urban goods deliveries and pick up, as well as advanced cooperative routing.

Road Transport Safety Road safety has been, and remains, a major goal for the European Union. The objectives mentioned earlier in this document were not met, and as a result an additional effort should be made to recover the situation and address the resulting delays in attainment of the objective of reducing road fatalities. At the same time, investment in the development of electrical vehicles is also opening up novel areas of investigation on safety related applications, which are related to new aspects associated with electrical vehicles (for example, charging batteries). The safety and security of new hybrid and electric vehicles should be considered in the research of the safety of alternative propulsion systems, namely integrated safety for the electrified vehicle (explosion, fire, high-voltage, gas, EMC, noise), new HMI concepts, new body design and enhanced low-weight materials, and distributed drive train architectures. Increased utilisation of electric vehicles will generate additional opportunities for different control systems within the vehicles to increase safety and for easing navigation, entertainment, life assistance, besides environment control systems that will allow the vehicle colour selection according to the driver’s mood or the weather conditions, etc. Safety impact assessment methods for electric and hybrid vehicles, and the review of assessment and definition of safety standards, should be performed, as well as impact studies of self-driven vehicles in urban and inter-urban environments. Page 16 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Electric vehicle driver assistance and cooperative systems research for interaction and exchange of safety relevant information, for example, for Vulnerable Road Users (acoustic perception, sensors and actuators adapting to the object crashed into) is also needed. Moreover, concerning new high voltage systems and components, there will be a need for elements that address regular use (instructions), maintenance, and repair, together with information and database systems for the rescue and emergency services and intervention, namely post-crash automatic intervention (safe batteries, high-voltage systems risks). Research on crash mitigation for electric and low-weight vehicles (complete vehicle crash behaviour) is also required, as well as collision avoidance and intelligent vehicle dynamics and adapted structural architectures that will improve significantly, safety on the roads. Better human body modelling for improving computer simulation of advanced protection systems and virtual safety testing is needed, and in addition, driver behaviour modelling for computer simulation of driver behaviour in critical situations should be covered. This can be used both for parameter optimisation during development and general safety benefits estimation. Functional safety and reliability through remote diagnosis of vehicles, aimed at the prediction of vehicle faults, is another area requiring attention. Contributions to the development of the road environment will also be welcome in view of facilitating the functioning of vehicle ICT systems. Research concerning safety of smart intersections, offering different applications using several communication channels to users, and liability in the event of a systems failure, needs to be tackled. Public authorities are currently responsible, but this would change if other systems, not under their full control, are implemented. The new Many-to-Many (M2M) services paradigm will become more significant and this is creating a shift from product-centric to services-centric smart services. However, a broader approach is needed where traffic participants are connected enabling journey planning and decisions on alternative means of transport as well as keeping those on the road aware of traffic and incidents ahead. From a technical perspective, what is needed is a system where all travellers and other stakeholders may be connected through systems applying the principles of M2M communication. V2V and V2I communication along with driver information support will allow the connection of independent safety-systems, vehicles and roads, in an integrated and fail safe cooperative system, optimised for energy efficiency and light weight vehicle usage. Also enabled, will be driver safety information, with V2V and V2I communication systems and post-crash information, for example, on possible fire hazards for rescue operations. V2V and V2I communication and driver information support will also allow ICT/ITS for safe and ecological driving, providing dynamic routing to avoid traffic congestion and to improve traffic fluidity, thus reducing CO2 emissions. In this context, cooperative systems, C2X communications, and the reliability of sensor and communication information is important. HMI solutions to enable safe interaction with a large number of onboard, nomadic and infrastructure based applications, including online services and cooperative systems need to be developed. This also includes the seamless integration of nomadic devices, and this is an important goal to pursue. HMI design guidelines need to be developed for general HMI integration as well as for information, warning, intervention, and automation strategies for specific safety functions. The development of such guidelines should to be guided by an enhanced understanding of the basic mechanisms whereby distraction causes crashes. This understanding could be obtained by means of combining naturalistic driving studies (see section 5 below) with simulator studies and driver modelling efforts.

Page 17 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

ICT and the Decarbonisation of Transport There is a need for new ICT solutions, or for existing ICT systems to be adapted, to integrate electric vehicles fully into the urban mobility system. The main areas to address are integration with other modes, demand management, and charging. With regard to Integration with other modes, since large-scale deployment of electric vehicles will probably also occur in captive fleets (car clubs, public cars, etc.), solutions will be needed to facilitate the transition to other modes so as to maximise inter-modal transport. From an ICT perspective, solutions will be needed in terms of integrated information, ticketing, billing and payment, etc. On the matter of demand management, there is an important role for ICT to assist the electric vehicle driver (passenger or freight) in selecting the most energy efficient route, or a destination, or both, which offer charging facilities. ICT solutions should be developed in the areas of traffic management (priority, access to restricted zones, etc.), real-time information (for example traffic conditions, charging station, parking availability, etc.) and route guidance. Integrated charging systems are needed, and key here are payment and billing where there are a whole range of options that should be explored, for which ICT solutions will be needed, including in situ payment (via Smartcard or mobile phone), or remote payment (for example to an energy supplier), which can be integrated with payment and charging systems across all modes on the network. Transport system integration5 needs to be investigated, focusing on exploration of the potential of ITS for energy efficiency, and providing convenient transition between modes. Application of sensors and C2X for autonomous driving, promotion of the green image of electric vehicles, development of best practice for implementation of road infrastructure measures supporting rapid uptake, reviewing the effects of large scale deployment on future infrastructure developments, and EU wide signage of roads and vehicles, also needs to be considered. In the area of customer systems, customer-based ICT solutions are needed. These should provide services such as location identification, routing and availability of charging stations (including information on queue times, energy cost and payment means), advanced charging management systems, and driver alerts on remaining battery charge. With regard to the charging systems, the charging station is the interface between the power grid and the vehicle and as such it forms the starting point for metering, as well as further customer services and billing processes. These all require advanced ICT solutions, notably a system architecture involving functions such as vehicle identification, authorisation, and payment and billing solutions. The use of electric vehicles for urban delivery is being increasing adopted in cities. This will place an additional burden on the charging system. Integrating electric vehicles into the grid is a key issue. The access of electric vehicles to the power grid and their optimised integration in the grid’s infrastructure and operation is an important element of the electrification of the transport system. Energy loads purchased by electric vehicles may contribute to an additional stress on the power network, but may provide wide potential for advanced ancillary services for network management as well, that is to say, bidirectional vehicle-to-grid (V2G) interactions. This is determined by the charging station, the battery system and operating converter, and by the applied control architecture in terms of appropriate ICT solutions. Ancillary services include the provision of balancing

ERTRAC/EPOSS/SMARTGRIDS European Roadmap ‘Electrification of the transport systems (November 2009)

Page 18 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

power, voltage and frequency control, and the reliable supply of energy from renewable energy systems. Grid integration will require: •

Development of adaptive onboard and plug-in charging, as well as contact-free charging, along with the creation of systems to provide information on charge status;

•

Development of simulation, monitoring and management tools;

•

Development of protocols and devices for V2G communication;

•

Investigation of quick charging technologies and the creation of a network of quick charging stations;

•

Development of bidirectional charging technologies and the establishment of business models for bidirectional trading;

•

Establishment of a first generation charging infrastructure along with the creation of business models for charging, and the connection of regions by highways with charging stations;

•

Standardised billing concepts.

Information Exchange Standards are also important and these need to be identified. The development of new concepts such as smart grid or vehicle-to-grid has created the need for an appropriate communication protocol for electric vehicle charging. These standards need to be focused on a number of critical areas: •

Vehicle identification and billing, allowing payment for charging at public charging stations, but also individual billing of used energy to the user’s account when the vehicle is charged at any outlets connected to a smart meter;

•

Charge cost optimization by choosing the most appropriate time window when electricity rates are the lowest;

•

Grid load optimization by controlling charger capacity as a function of grid demand and external parameters such as costs;

•

Further advanced ancillary grid services by using electric vehicles connected to a grid dispersed storage unit, with highly flexible generation and consumption characteristics (vehicle-to-grid);

•

Appropriate billing and user compensation functions for vehicle-to-grid operation.

Eco-technologies have been making their way into the auto industry for many years and include everything from onboard trip computers to powertrain control solutions designed to improve the efficiency of a motor vehicle. Eco-telematics leverages many of the technologies and shared resources already being deployed in cars, like HMI, navigation, powertrain control, and connectivity. Eco-telematics is considered a necessity for OEMs taking a position on sustainability. An increasing regulatory environment creates an economic incentive for further development. Fleet managers need to be able to compare all their drivers’ fuel consumption and CO2 emission records on a single chart. Company drivers should be able to upload information onto a company system, which will give them and their fleet managers instant access to their driving styles. This should allow comparisons with other company drivers so that fleet managers can identify and reward efficient drivers and identify and train the least efficient. Several other research topics related to electric vehicles also need to be considered. First among these is a smart ICT tool simulator that allows simulation of the impact of electric vehicle introduction on the electrical network, including planning of charging points, Page 19 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

electrical network growth, and smart management of mobile charging, etc. Second there is modelling of the battery charge and discharge cycle. Algorithms for electric vehicle battery pack management, optimizing the useful life of batteries and the onboard information of the battery status, should be developed. Third, development of control systems for the vehicle electric distribution network should be investigated along with smart control of vehicle electrical devices to optimise battery life. Finally, the development of data communication interfaces between the green car and the infrastructure, including transmission of information (protocol definitions) to feed the demand management models, has to be considered. There are also several ICT Topics related to efficiency that require attention. These include ICT for advanced and eco-efficient logistic applications, and new control and traffic management models oriented to energy efficiency (reliable real time traffic information accessible from anywhere, eco-routing and eco-navigation, etc.). Novel methodologies or systems for verification of high occupancy traffic lanes, new systems and software to facilitate ride sharing and parking reservation, automatic information about arrival and ticketing, and information to the driver about environmental costs, as well as ecologic insurance policies, are also relevant. Secondary research on electro-magnetic compatibility, user acceptance, business models, and standardization requiring demonstrations, validations and field tests is also needed, along with research on testing and simulations of components (e.g. batteries, tanks) to work on specific risks present in electric or hybrid vehicles. The road itself could play a role in the reduction of Green House Gas emission, in different ways. One way this could be achieved is through the reduction of energy loss occurring at the point of interaction of the vehicle tyres with the road surface. A second way is through optimisation of the speed profile, based on road geometry and traffic conditions. A third contribution could arise from optimisation of traffic distribution, in particular commercial vehicles, to extend the life of the road surface, increasing the time between road surface maintenance interventions. Finally, there are specific infrastructure matters such as green corridors where vehicle platoon operation would be possible, and where electric vehicles could be charged while moving. Road user behaviour has a clear influence on the energy spent on road mobility. Driver behaviour that is more environment-friendly could not only be based on driver education, but also on a series of supports that can help drivers to adopt eco-behaviour. Such behaviour should take into account speed adaptation, based on real traffic, green route planning, safe platoon mode, and optimisation of energy use (for hybrid vehicles).

Deployment Deployment and market development has always been a major problem with ICT-based ITS and, to overcome this, Field Operational Tests must be developed further. FOTs are large-scale test programmes, using ordinary drivers, covering a wide range of driving conditions, undertaken over an extended period of time. They enable the collection of data that cannot be produced by conventional test and demonstration methods associated with RTD activities. The data collected from FOTs can then be used for socio-economic and technical evaluations, leading to concrete information concerning the costs and benefits of advanced ICT-based systems in vehicles, and their impacts on driver behaviour, traffic safety, the environment, and transport efficiency. FOTs can be undertaken, in principle, with any type of road vehicle fitted with relevant ICT-based systems: cars, trucks, buses.

Page 20 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

5.1

Field Operational Tests and Data Collection Larger scale FOTs, including all types of drivers (that is to say private and professional drivers) and vehicles (that is to say, cars, trucks, and buses) for after market and close-tomarket functions, or innovative functions in prototype form, encompassing ecological functions and covering more countries, are needed so as to prepare the European market and its relationship with other regions. FOTs need to be undertaken that consider urban traffic environments, intersections and the larger road network, motorways and corridors (testing various penetration rates), cooperative systems including CO2 emissions, and new ITS services and new low carbon vehicles or services. The ideal should be to move from FOTs involving 20 to 200 vehicles, to FOTs involving a much larger number of vehicles, with the exact scale and scope taking into account the results of the first FOTs undertaken in Europe. Such a major change also requires a revaluation of the assessment methods used in FOTs because of the alteration in scale. These large scale FOTs may be combined with naturalistic driving studies with the purpose of studying accident causation (as done in the US SHRP2 project). For these new type of FOTs, there is also a need for standardization and harmonization of the test bed infrastructure. Given that people do not change their travel habits and behaviour easily, it will be necessary to find ways to support and motivate travellers to adopt sustainable travel. FOTs can play a role here. Various ICT measures need to be studied and evaluated. Even though environmental impacts such as pollution and possibly noise could be solved, congestion remains and will increase. To tackle this, effective measures are needed, where various ICT-based solutions can be of help (pricing, pay-as-you-drive and others). Experiments with these, and other even more innovative approaches, are needed, and may be undertaken using FOTs. The introduction of any innovation requires the monitoring of a lot of new data. This should be collected according to the requirements of new challenges, and not be based on following old models, modelling schemes, and methodologies. Innovation and market introduction need to be done smoothly and in a phased way. Therefore, experiments and observations concerning new applications or services should be done in such a way that different market segment reactions may be captured and understood. A full understanding of the behaviour mechanisms inducing these reactions needs to be achieved before full deployment in the market. It must be considered that FOTs are an essential tool to test several ICT systems in real traffic, and thus FOTs provide the opportunity to evaluate the impacts on driver behaviour and the transport system. Data collection should be concerned with data warehousing, micro scale traffic data, reliable dynamic Origin Destination matrices, CO2 estimation and traffic data needs, naturalistic driving observations, safety and eco driving data for professional drivers, eco-green driving advisory HMI data, and data for modelling and simulation. FOTs aim to support the decision-making of industrial stakeholders and public authorities responsible for transport and mobility. Therefore, European FOTs should bring together industry and public authorities, including local governments, so as to ensure that the necessary relevant partners are contributing to the evaluation of systems. From the previous paragraphs, it should be clear that the use of real-life data is extremely important. There are, however, large differences between Member States in the availability of data. Consequently there is a need for a number of actions. First, there should be an analysis of the data needs for accurate simulations that include situation-sensitive and human behaviour sensitive emission models. Second, good Page 21 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

empirical data on the system level impacts are required at several levels: at road section/intersection level, at corridor level, and at network level. Third, available traffic databases (public and private) in the various Member States should be analysed. Fourth, access tools are required for the various traffic databases (possibly with a conversion to a standardised format). Fifth, real-world driving data has to be generated enabling the characterisation of the influence of detailed traffic conditions and human driving behaviours on emissions, as well as the development of appropriate emission models. Sixth, mobility should be supported by rapid and user-centred information systems providing travellers with information on their choices, real-time travel conditions, and the carbon foot-print that their choices create. Data related matters are crucial and there is a lack of basic data for setting up accurate simulations. Information on roads (curvature, slopes, traffic-calming measures) and on rules and regulations in the network (for example, speed limits) has to be collected. Specific modes can have a considerable impact on the results of the simulations. Therefore, easy access to several types of data would be useful. These data include public transport schedules, and the information systems used by public transport operators to maintain their schedules. Freight movement data is also important. Data on commercial vehicle movements generated by logistic systems could therefore be extremely valuable, but such information is normally confidential. Acceptable ways need to be designed for gaining access to such confidential data. The optimisation of mobility from the environmental perspective is subject to intensive study and experimentation. Large scale tests like FOTs can produce valuable data. This data should be fed back into traffic databases and made available for future work. With respect to FOTs, it should also be remembered that improvement of transport and services for disabled people (not only PMR) focusing on evacuation issues, need to be considered. Moreover, for the evaluation and assessment of FOTs addressing HMIs, IVIS, ADAS and cooperative systems, it is necessary to have available accident and pre-accident data, which should be scientifically collected and structured. There is also a need to have real accident data such as that obtained by Japanese NPA through the equipping of a test bed of 300 digital cameras at intersections or merging areas. In addition to data collection, there is a strong need for improved methods for analysing FOT and naturalistic driving data. A particular critical issue here concerns the identification of valid surrogate crash measures (for example crash relevant events) and models for relating these to actual crash risk. To cope with new challenges and new ITS services, there is a need to confirm the validity of analysis methodologies. There are several aspects to the validation issue. Important aspects include transport demand changes, traffic behaviour and routing changes, and safety benefits. Providing a standardised way of quantifying the reduction in CO2 emissions attributable to a specific ITS implementation (already installed) is also important for validity, as is the estimation, before implementation, of the costs and benefits of a proposed ITS strategy, for example and in particular, the trade-off between safety, efficiency, and environmental factors as well as the relationship between the system performance or service quality level on one hand, and the benefits and costs on the other hand. 5.2

Modelling and Simulation There are two important areas relevant to modelling. The first are issues concerning traffic models and the second are issues that relate to emission models. With regard to traffic models, simulation seeks to provide an accurate representation of (potential) real-world systems. Current technology needs a careful calibration to be able to Page 22 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

provide reliable data. This means that sets of calibration data must be available to verify or tune simulations to different circumstances. Such circumstances include environmental conditions (weather, road surface) and details of driving behaviour. Probably the most challenging factor is simulating human behaviour. Current models do not always take into account the type of driver behaviour relevant to CO2 emissions or energy consumption, or both, and tend only to consider a few parameters. It is necessary to establish to what extent it is feasible to develop validated driver behaviour models taking into account elements such as drivers’ responses to traffic signals, driving advice, etc., regional differences in driving behaviour, variable external conditions (for example, the weather, road condition, visibility), representative distribution of driving behaviours as well as their evolution or sensitivity to typical ITS measures, and interaction between individual vehicle behaviour and traffic flows. Present simulation models do not enable the study of the effects of intelligent systems on safety. There is a need to develop new modelling tools including the human being as one of the units simulated, and the occurrence of different kinds of driver errors so as to have the possibility of real safety simulation. Both intra-individual and inter-individual differences and variation need to be taken into account in the models. When traffic management strategies interact with driver behaviour, an accurate model of the traffic management strategy is important. Details of the actual traffic control strategies operating in the simulated environment are therefore needed. These should include direct interaction with the simulated driver or vehicle behaviour when the traffic control strategy uses cooperative technology. Also required is an interface (preferably universal for all simulation environments) between simulation models and simulated traffic control strategies. It is necessary to have transport demand models which not only consider modal choices, but also consider dynamic route planning and trip timing. On the other hand, a definition of models optimizing the urban transport of people and goods (distribution, routing and pickup) regarding efficiency and environmental impact should be studied and defined, making use of demand and access management systems. In particular, modelling and analysis tools should be developed that will allow integration and cross-reference analysis of collected data from transport networks with operational data from logistics operators, thus providing comprehensive performance evaluation. Improved network forecasting, simulation and modelling tools, as well as decision support systems for the implementation of advanced network management strategies, should contribute towards foreseeing incidents in advance, so that these can be better researched and understood. With regard to emission models, and especially instantaneous emission models, these are continuously being improved. Current models however, do not provide, for the most part, satisfactory treatment of the vehicle (engine) response to the details of driver behaviour, microscopic approaches validated for the assessment of ITS applications, and appropriate scales and parameters for combination with the traffic models. Appropriate models are therefore needed, taking into account the driving behaviour and conditions at the required scale (consistent with traffic models). Such models should be based on real-world driving data with a sufficient range of driving conditions and behaviours. To set up a representative simulation it is necessary to know the mix of vehicles that constitute the simulated demand. For this it is useful to be able to derive vehicle characteristics from measured data. The most accurate way is to gather vehicle registration data and retrieve vehicle characteristics from the various European vehicle registration databases. It is also useful to be able to compile a database with representative vehicle Page 23 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

mixes for the situations to be simulated. This database should enable predictions to be made for future vehicle mixes (in which hybrid and electric vehicles will play a bigger part). Modelling fuel consumption on a larger scale is also necessary. Fuel consumption depends upon the details of driving behaviour which, in turn, depends upon the traffic management. To set up a simulation able to show the impact of traffic management on a useful scale (area, city or region), a great deal of modelling is required. To perform a detailed simulation of a single (complex) controlled intersection can require several days work. Extrapolating this to a city scale (several hundred intersections), would amount to years of effort, which is clearly not a practical proposition! To effectively simulate CO2 emissions for a large network, approximation or extrapolation is therefore essential. Models and tools for driver behaviour simulation on different time scales and granularity, informed by FOTs and other sources of driver behaviour data are also necessary, as is an accurate model of driver behaviour in response to the infrastructure and traffic management measures. Simulation development also needs to be addressed. In this respect, there is a need to use distributed interactive simulation to design and evaluate cooperative ITS, and to undertake driver modelling and simulation for ITS design.

Horizontal Issues Horizontal issues remain an important area requiring attention in future research activities. Overall these horizontal matters cover a broad range of topics. Specifically, the horizontal issues that need to be considered include assessment methods, quality standards, business models and deployment aspects, training and education, human factors and organisational perspectives, and international R&D collaboration. Assessment methods are an important horizontal topic area. A better understanding is needed of the impact that ITS can have upon green, clean, safe and more efficient transport. To this end, it is necessary to further develop methods and procedures to assess the contribution (impact) of ADAS and ICT/ITS systems. Additionally, traffic information for route planning and guidance, considering environmental impacts and restrictions (for example in Low Emission Zones) needs to be further studied and developed as referred in section 1.2. Concerning ITS and climate change, the most carbon friendly solutions need to be identified, while in ITS and impact assessment, large scale assessments of new technologies are required to understand their benefits (at all levels)—hard evidence is needed. Related to the above is the matter of quality standards. The development of methods and procedures is required to assess the impact of vehicle and infrastructure related ITS functions with a view to possibly developing certification procedures and exploring the relationship between the technical performance and the impacts of the function. Also, European benchmarks and trends in infrastructure-vehicle technologies aimed at traffic information and traffic management require additional standardisation work, and the same applies to vehicle and infrastructure-vehicle technologies aimed at improving road safety. Business model and deployment aspects are also an area requiring attention. In relation to this, technologies and the definition of standards to promote new insurance models based on vehicle usage and driver safe behaviour need to be developed. Additionally, outline deployment road maps, business models, business partnership aspects of ADAS and cooperative systems, need to be considered as part of the overall business model for ICT systems. Moreover, research should incorporate scenarios and use cases to determine the Page 24 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

effects of the implementation of dynamic traffic management, where there is a high degree of uncertainty about whether or not applications will be used and to what extent. For political decision making processes, such evidence is important. Legal (data protection and privacy) and liability issues must also be considered. A special need for research arises as a result of the scope of ADAS features, and also because of RTTI systems and data collection techniques, which requires the processing of personal data. Owing to improvements in terms of telecommunication possibilities and computing power, it is now possible to develop V2V and V2I communication as well as security functions, IVIS, and comfort related functionalities that require not only processing of personal data, but also the storage of such data. It may even prove necessary to transmit personal data to achieve the goal of an enhancement of safety for other drivers, once a danger has been detected by another vehicle. Consequently, aspects related with data protection, public acceptability, and privacy within data collection and analysis, must continue to be researched so as ensure the correct deployment of research results. Training and education must also be addressed. There is a need to develop European training curricula for drivers and riders considering new ITS systems and drivers’ information processing capabilities. Adequate training tools for driver and rider behaviour and specific ITS functionality must also be considered. Migration from theoretical training and road testing, towards interactive multimedia training and driving simulators should be explored, examining the potential of ITS to train drivers and riders, including testing the usability of such systems. With regard to such ITS based training systems, the development of Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR) driving simulators have to be investigated, where the user interacts with real vehicle environments and receives visual feedback from a Virtual Environment (VE). ITS training modalities also need to be adapted to specific populations such as riders, novices, professionals, the elderly, and the disabled. Moreover, the developed training methods and tools need to be validated and results analysed. It would also be very helpful to develop a multidisciplinary pan-European training course on the subject of ITS and cooperative systems, either as mandatory, or as additional training for obtaining a driving licence. On the matter of driving licences, the possibility of electronic driving licences, with possible restrictions and control for responsible use of vehicles, should also be studied in more depth. Strategies targeted at raising public awareness through pan-European campaigns that will promote driver and rider training in ITS, should be designed. Additionally, driver-coaching for achieving behavioural change through feedback must also be considered. This may be related to both ecological and safe driving and may involve direct feedback on driving performance through the in-vehicle HMI, as well as post-trip feedback to the driver or other stakeholders. A key research issue here concerns the identification of suitable incentive schemes linked to multi-stakeholder business models. There is a need also to consider instruments aimed at covering large scale development and deployment including various types of, but not limited to, FOTs, during the different stages of research, development, and deployment. This could be an ELSA (European Large Scale Action). However, as for innovation, research has to be cooperative with various types of stakeholders (and also stakeholder driven). Hence it is necessary to think in terms of clusters of big research projects, which could be industry or operator driven, or both, through a PPP. Or these could be policy driven through a PPP or a JRI. Another possibility is an academic driven approach through a JRI, especially in nurturing frontier research in focused areas useful for future projects that could then be covered in PPPs. An academic driven approach could also be useful for reliable data collection.

Page 25 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

General human factors and organisational issues in the implementation of ICT-based solutions for enhanced mobility need to be considered. In addition to technical challenges related to system interoperability and reliability, the efficiency and impact of new ICT-based mobility solutions ultimately depends on their ability to support the various different users to achieve their goals. This is not simply an issue of good Human-machine Interface design, but also involves more general, system-level and organisational issues. For example, a traffic management system must be understandable for the traffic managers as well as for the road users. Moreover, the willingness of people to use a system, and to comply with instructions and recommendations, depends on users’ motivation to do so. This motivation may be changed by various incentive schemes, which may involve many different stakeholders, with potentially different motives. Hence, research efforts are needed to identify, from the human factors and the organisational perspectives, the most efficient ways to implement ICT-based solutions. Finally, turning to international R&D collaboration, several areas have been identified for international cooperation and these are mainly aimed at cooperation with stakeholders in the Americas, in Asia and in emerging economies. Innovation and research on these topics is advancing fast in other areas of the world and international collaboration is necessary to allow Europeans (industry and public authorities) to exploit research results quickly and to adapt them to regional requirements. International collaboration would allow, in some cases, experience from European cities to be used by industry to develop systems adapted to the needs of emerging countries. In relation to international R&D collaboration, there are three important areas that need to be considered: harmonisation of accident statistics; transportation of hazardous goods; and business models. With regard to harmonisation of accident statistics, an understanding of accident causation is essential for the development of safety and support functions, in particular, for the assessment of their impact. Existing national accident databases are often structured differently, which makes aggregation of data difficult. There is a general need for global harmonisation with the goal to obtain comparable data from different regions. The main target regions are North America, Japan and Australia. International R&D collaboration—especially in ICT research for transport—is inevitable in a global economy, and is especially important when it comes to the matter of the transportation of hazardous goods. Cargo monitoring is not limited to regions or continents, but has to be available for cross-continent transport as well. To achieve this there is an urgent need to harmonise communication protocols for international cargo monitoring. Growing demand for the transport of goods generates an emerging market for low-power and low-cost devices for tracking and tracing goods, and there is a need for global harmonisation of the communication interfaces used by such devices. Business model are a key issue for the deployment of ICT systems, namely, integrated models for micro and macro mobility based on data for people and goods, rather than data for vehicles. Business models for public-private partnership in urban freight transport services need to be sustainable and friendly on the community side, while on the business side they should be commercially viable. A key issue concerns how reduced costs in terms of such benefits as lives saved and CO2 reductions achieved, can be re-allocated in monetary terms to the stakeholders making the investments.

Page 26 of 27

Strategic Research Agenda – ICT for Intelligent Mobility

Glossary ADAS:

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems

C2X:

Car-to-X

CBA:

Commonwealth Broadcasting Association

EMC:

Electro-Magnetic Compatibility

FOT:

Field Operational Tests

HMI:

Human-Machine Interface

ICT:

Information and Communication Technologies

ITS:

Intelligent Transport Systems and Services

IVIS:

In-Vehicle-Information-Systems

IVSS:

Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems

NPA:

Nippon

OD:

Origin-Destination

PMR:

Private Mobile Radio

PPP:

Public-Private Partnerships

RTTI:

Real-time Travel and Traffic Information

R&D:

Research and Development

TMP:

Traffic Management Plans

US SHRP2:

United States Strategic Highway Research Program 2

UTC:

Universal Time Coordinated

V2I:

Vehicle-to-Infrastructure

V2V:

Vehicle-to-Vehicle

Page 27 of 27

Draft Concept proposal for a new

Task force on reviewing the eSafety Forum Version 23

Outline

• • • • • • • • •

Background Members of Task Force Motivation for a new Forum F From Vision Vi i to t Actions A ti Work Process Rules and Roles Forum structure Illustrations Proposal for new logo

Background •

As agreed during the 34th eSafety Forum Steering Group Meeting on 10th December 2008, a task force was set up to review the current working structure of the eSafety Forum in order to adjust its activities to – The changing political and economic and ecological environment – The future technological g challenges g and requirements q – The business opportunities ICT and ITS can bring with regard to road safety, better traffic & transport management, energy-efficiency and cleaner mobility

•

The task force will work on recommendations for – A future vision, a mission, a new structure of the forum, the steering group as well as the working groups – A cclarification a cat o of o tthe e role oeo of tthe e Forum o u vs. s tthe e ITS S Directive ect e will be made ade at the appropriate moment – Improving efficiency and implementation of results

•

The task force will report back to the Steering Group mid 2009 3

Members of Task Force

• Albrecht Frank • Botman Wil • Camolino Rui • Coda Alessandro • Dionelis Kallistratos • Jääskeläinen Jää k läi JJuhani h i • Mäurer Hans Jürgen • Meyer Hermann • Reinhardt Wolfgang • van der Kroon Paul 4

Motivation for New Forum •

Since its establishment in 2003, the eSafety Forum has successfully advanced on the implementation of 28 recommendations established in 2002. There is now a need to move increasingly towards deployment ¾ New Forum should work on specific services along their deployment roadmaps

•

Energy efficiency and environmental performance are increasingly important policy goals. ITS services can make contributions to achieve these policy goals. ¾ New Forum should go beyond safety

•

ITS services have developed to be ready for deployment. In this context of the revised White p paper p on transport, p , the EU Commission has implemented p an ITS Action plan and is proposing a European ITS Committee and ITS Advisory Group. ¾ New Forum should also contribute to these deployment oriented activities

• •

The effectiveness of the Forum can be further strengthened by improving rules and roles. A new vision and related mission would further motivate the work 5

Vision, Mission, Objectives, Strategy, Issues & Actions

Vision

Actions

Mission

eSafety Forum

Objectives

ICT for safe safe, smart and clean road mobility

Issues

Strategy

From Vision to Actions

- Vision -

Safe, smart and clean mobility with – – – –

zero accidents, zero delays, no negative impact on the environment and connected and informed citizens citizens,

where products & services are affordable and seamless, privacy is respected and security is provided.

From Vision to Actions

- Mission -

•

To work towards this vision, the Forum provides a platform for all ITS stakeholders in Europe to discuss, define, coordinate and support activities to further innovation, research, development, deployment and use of ICT based transport systems and services.

From Vision to Actions

- Objectives -

•

The new Forum objectives cover the period from 2010 to 2020. To implement the overall vision the following objectives will guide id th the work k off the th Forum: F – Another …% reduction in the number of fatalities across Europe starting f from currentt level l l (2010) – Another …% reduction in the number of seriously injured persons across Europe starting from current level (2010) – …% % reduction of road traffic related congestion – …% improvements in energy-efficiency – …availability of real time traffic and travel information through ICT applications in road traffic.

From Vision to Actions

- Strategy -

•

Strategic focus will be on roadmaps, the overall development/ deployment p y p processes and will cover requirements q for all stakeholders along the whole value chain

•

Ensure that all relevant stakeholders are participating in the Forum

•

Stakeholder expert-driven expert driven proposals leading to recommendations

From Vision to Actions

- Issues -

1. 2.

3 3.

4. 4 5.

The availability of accurate road and traffic data The technical, financial, organisational and legal framework (standardisation, certification, liability, privacy, security, HMI) for cooperative systems Th technical, The h i l financial, fi i l organisational i i l and d legal l l framework f k (standardisation, certification, liability, privacy, security, HMI) for assisted/ partly automated driving ITS related personalised mobility services Other ITS tools and methods for safe smart and clean mobility (including eco driving, traffic management etc)

From Vision to Actions

- Actions -

1. 2. 3. 4.

Steer research, development and deployment Advise policy Raise awareness Prepare consensus

Work process (1) 1. Review of current achievements and challenges with respect to the 28 recommendations; 2. Forum members propose systems and services to be promoted; 3. Steering Group identifies systems and services with sufficient commitment to be p promoted and defines next steps; p ; 4. Service expert team identifies preliminary roadmap (with timeline), which leads to the deployment of the service; 5 Steering Group adopts the roadmap and officially implements the 5. necessary Working Group, which involves area specialists where needed. 6 Working Group defines work program to meet the roadmap; 6. 7. Working Group reports to the Steering Group providing recommendations (including deployment plan) to meet the roadmap roadmap. 13

Work process (2) 7. Wherever appropriate they co-operate with other external stakeholders; 8. Based on proposal of Steering Group, Forum discusses, rejects or adopts recommendations and communicates them to the appropriate policy/industry stakeholders. 9. Working Group is following up on deployment. 10. In order for the members of the Forum to be more actively involved in the Forum activities,, theyy will receive (periodical) (p ) reports p on activities, and be asked for their feedback (the reports will be sent one month before a Plenary Meeting would take place).

Rules and Roles

- Forum -

• • •

• •

• • •

Members must commit to Forum vision, mission Members must demonstrate expertise and interest in ITS by actively and reliably participating in the different workgroups Members must be willing to provide company experts in the required field of competence for the benefit of the Forum activities and be prepared to chair certain activities The Forum aims at decisions by consensus. The Forum can reject j recommendations by y the Steering g Group p or from working groups when no consensus is reached during the discussion and can ask for a revised proposal. Forum is chaired by y the EU Commission Troika EU presidency is invited to participate Relevant standardisation institutions are invited to participate

Rules and Roles

- Steering Group -

•

• • • •

•

Members must be members of the New Forum and represent the ITS value chain of ITS (e.g. road infrastructure operators, service providers, id R&D organizations, i ti automobile t bil iindustry, d t suppliers, li consumer organisations, etc.) Work group chairs and co-chairs are automatically members of the St i Group Steering G Steering Group is chaired by the EU Commission Steering Group can invite experts on a temporary basis to present their views Main task is to set up working groups, review progress of the work, give guidance and direction, discusses, reviews and adopts recommendations including roadmaps. Asks Forum for final approval for decisions of strategic importance

Rules and Roles

- Chairs of the Forum and Steering Group -

•

There is one Chair and three Co-chairs to chair both the Forum and the Steering Group meetings

•

The Chair is always from the Commission who nominates the Cochairs

•

The Chairs decide jointly about agendas of Steering Group and Forum meetings

•

The Chairs give strategic directions/make proposals to be discussed and approved by the other members

Rules and Roles

- Working Groups and Horizontal Groups -

•

After the establishment of a Working Group it will run until the successful deployment of the recommended results or when stopped t d by b majority j it vote t off th the St Steering i G Group members b

•

Working Group consists of at least 10 members who are committed (e.g. have enough time) to do the work.

•

gg group p will be p proposed p by y the Steering g The chairs of the working Group and approached by the Chairs for agreement.

•

When a WG chair is no longer in a position to do the work the Steering Group will look for a replacement.

Forum structure Forum: final approval for decisions of strategic importance Steering Group: set up working groups, review progress of the work, give guidance and direction, discusses, reviews and adopts recommendations including roadmaps

Forum (chaired by EC + 3 co co-chairs) chairs)

Steering Group (chaired by EC + 3 co-chairs)

Working Group System and Service 1

Horizontal Group A (International Co-operation)

Horizontal Group B (Research and Development)

Working Groups: define work program to meet the roadmaps; report to the Steering Group providing recommendations (including deployment plan) to meet the roadmaps

Working Group System and Service 2

Horizontal Group C (Implementation Roadmaps)

Horizontal Groups: support the Working Groups

Working Group System and Service n

Horizontal Group D (Legal framework)

Horizontal Group E (Standardisation)

Horizontal H i t l Group G F (Business models)

Illustration

- Overall Matrix Structure of Groups -

Systems and Service 1

Systems and Service 2

Systems and Service n

International Co-operation (H i (Horizontal t lG Group A) Research and Development (Horizontal Group B) p Roadmaps p Implementation (Horizontal Group) Legal framework (Horizontal Group D) Standardisation (Horizontal Group E) Business models ((Horizontal Group p F))

Suppo orting the W Working Grou ups

Working along roadmap from research to deployment

Illustration - Potential Elements and Time-Line of a Roadmap for Systems and Services to be developed within Working Groups -

- Awareness campaigns - Incentives - Media - Security provisions - Field operational tests - Impact Assessment - Pilots - Legal issues - Funding - Standardised interfaces & protocols - Impact Assessment - Organisational frameworks - Business models - Innovation - Overall ITS architectures

Roadmap for a Service Use Deployment Development

Research Innovation 2009

2012

2020

Illustration

- Working Groups outsourcing Tasks W ki Group Working G on specific ifi system t or service i provides t k tasks and follows work progress p g

receives reports and results

EU funded projects to identify appropriate technologies etc. Standardisation bodies put necessary standards in place

Field Operational Tests

provides id recommendations and follows implementation/ work

Pilots to initiate market introduction

Awareness campaigns to raise market penetration

Proposal for New Logo From

eSafet For eSafety Forum m to

eSafety Forum ICT for safe, smart and clean road mobility

Next steps

• • •

Forum is asked to approve this concept. Forum members will be asked to provide proposals for priority services to the Steering Committee. Forum members will be asked to provide their expert opinion on the potential of ITS to improve certain aspects of transport.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Towards a Transport-ICT ELSA Report of the Task Force of the eSafety Forum Requested by the European Commission DG INFSO Unit G4

Chairs: Bengt Hallstrom, Swedish Transport Administration Wil Botman, Federation Internationale de l’Automobile Brussels, 08 October 2010

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

TABLE OF CONTENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3 1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background .................................................................................. 5 1.1.1 Societal challenges - A clear view for the future........................... 5 1.1.2 Commission initiatives ............................................................. 5 1.1.3 The area of Transport-ICT ........................................................ 6 1.1.4 The landscape of research, development and innovation in Transport-ICT ..................................................................................... 7 1.2 The need for a Transport-ICT ELSA .................................................. 7

INVENTORY ........................................................................................ 9 2.1 Drafting a proposal for a Transport-ICT ELSA .................................... 9 2.2 The demand from authorities and user organizations ....................... 10 2.3 Current offer from industry and state of development ...................... 12

PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSPORT-ICT ELSA .................................................. 3.1 Challenges to be addressed in a Transport-ICT ELSA ........................ 13 3.2 Transport-ICT Test-beds ............................................................. 13 3.3 Subject matter for a Transport-ICT ELSA ........................................ 14 3.4 Estimated impact on societal goals ................................................ 15 3.5 Models of funding........................................................................ 15 3.5.1 EU funding resources ............................................................. 15 3.5.2 Bringing together national funding ........................................... 16 3.6 The instrument of a PPP ............................................................... 16 3.7 Involvement of stakeholders ......................................................... 17 3.8 Governance................................................................................ 18

Annexe 1 ................................................................................................... Matrix showing the societal goals and prioritized systems presented by the demand side and with response from the supply side ................................... 19 Annexe 2 ................................................................................................... Contributors to the report of the ELSA Task Force ........................................ 23

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Towards a Transport-ICT ELSA SUMMARY The European Commission (DGINFSO) requested a Task Force of the eSafety Forum to elaborate a proposal on a European Large Scale bridging Action (ELSA) on ICT in Transport. Objective of organizing an ELSA is to speed up innovation of the Road Transport sector by applying ICT through large scale implementation, testing and demonstration of the latest developments and to bring them to the market. The objective of innovation in transport is to address the societal challenges of environmental impact, safety and efficiency of road transport, which means reducing CO2 output, fatalities and congestion. New developments in ICT, like Future Internet and IPv6 offer also possibilities to offer new services to transport users through European wide Service Platforms. To secure an ELSA to stay on track towards these societal goals, an important the demand side should be in the lead. The Task Force organized a consultation with the demand side (authorities and users) and the supply side (industry) to assess the objectives of the demand side and the possible response of industry. A number of basic principles of how to organize an ELSA emerged: • Current developments in cooperative systems (V2V, V2I and I2V communication) offer a good starting point to develop connected vehicles and connected travellers. •

Developing the maturity of solutions by stepwise scaling up in a follow-up of activities, is an important prerequisite for authorities

•

Innovative technologies should be brought to the market in a number of test-beds which are more or less permanent for the duration of the ELSA.

•

In every test-bed a number of consecutive and parallel actions could take place to bring new developments to the market starting on a small scale, to demonstrate them, to test and evaluate them and to take decisions on next steps.

•

Evaluations and go/no-go decisions should be performed in a time-efficient way to have maximum throughput in a given timeframe.

•

Consortia should be founded per test-bed and should be more or less permanent to foster long term cooperation based on pre-commercial public procurement. Funding of these consortia could take place in a public-private partnership bringing funding together from a European and national level and from industry.

•

An ELSA should run for 6 or 8 years with activities of 2 year duration.

==========

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable transport is a core prerequisite for sustainable economic development. Connecting very complex business processes and providing different physical subproducts to geographically dislocated sites is essential to a prosperous economy and for the well being of citizens. Sustainable transport has always been an integral part of the European Union's Sustainable Development Strategy, from the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs of 2000 to this year's European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth "Europe 2020". As the economy grows, transport demand grows. Despite significant improvements in vehicle and engine performance, energy consumption in transport continues to increase. Transport is a sector in which CO2 emissions are still on the rise, contributing 17% of total CO2 in 2007 and increasing at a rate of about 1% a year. Rising levels of congestion reduce the contribution of transport to economic and social well-being. Addressing these unsustainable trends to ensure sustainable transport represents one of the most important socioeconomic challenges we face in Europe today. It is clear that further measures are necessary to reinforce transport’s contribution to society. Other important societal goals with respect to road transport are within the area of road safety and the efficient use of the available infrastructure. One of the big opportunities to be exploited is also the optimal use of all modes of transport (road, rail, water and air): the development of co-modality. The key for this development is not only the layout of the various transport modes but the use by citizens and businesses. Various Transport Information and Communication Technology (ICT) solutions have been developed but not brought to the market yet, due to various financial, entrepreneurial, organizational and other factors. Cutting through the innovation cycle and raising the investment in deployment are key actions in the present approach towards efficiently tackling the interdependent issues of reducing emissions and increasing safety. A European Large Scale bridging Action (ELSA) would be the right initiative to address the interdependent issues involved in an integrated approach, with contributions from public and private partners in a coordinated pan-European programme. This proposal outlines the benefits and the approach of a Transport ICT ELSA. The report focuses on the application of new ICT solutions in public and private road transport. The proposal consists of three parts: 1 Introduction and background including a description of societal challenges to be addressed and observations of what issues impede solving them 2 Inventory of the demand of authorities and user organisations, the offer of industry and the challenges of bringing these to the market. 3

A proposal for a European Large Scale bridging Action on Transport ICT.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

1.1 Background 1.1.1 Societal challenges - A clear view for the future Transport is key to the economic development of Europe and to the well-being of European citizens. Almost all businesses depend on transport and citizens need transport for a substantial share of their economic, social, cultural and recreational activities. With the increase in economic activities and the increase in population and its welfare, transport demand has risen markedly. At the same time transport has a number of negative impacts on both individuals and society in the area of environment and safety, whilst the efficiency of transport is affected by increased congestion. The road transport sector made significant progress in the area of improving pollution and fuel efficiency, but the environmental impact is still growing due to the increase of transport demand. Within the next 40 years, road transport needs to be largely decarbonised to decouple the effect on global warming (Commission communication on CARS21). Improvements have been achieved in road safety, with a reduction of fatalities in road traffic in Europe of 40% in the last 10 years. Still 35000 citizens died last year on Europe’s roads. More sophisticated measures are needed to achieve another 50% reduction in fatalities in the next 10 years (European Road Safety policy orientations) of which the application of Transport ICT is one of the crucial contributors. Financial and political restrictions and environmental challenges demand the existing networks to be used more efficiently. The efficient use of the pan-European Network established with EU support must be increased through a seamless interconnection of ICT systems. Also, urban networks exposed to high traffic volumes need special attention regarding the exploitation of their capacity supported by ICT. Opportunities for introducing traffic management systems should be used in the planning of costly maintenance and operating processes of the traffic infrastructure. Further efficiency gains could be reached by exploiting the interconnection of the different transport modes for transport of goods and for private transport. Increasing efficiency demands and decreasing budgets have led transport network managers and operators to increasingly outsource and purchase network management, maintenance and operation services. The purchasing and related procurement processes must also accommodate innovative solutions enabling full utilisation of ICT.

1.1.2 Commission initiatives With the recognition that the public sector can play an important role in driving research and innovation, create new opportunities for innovative products and services and to speed up the achievement of specific societal goals, the EC is currently considering how to support a set of focused projects of significant scale and duration cutting across the innovation cycle to develop modern pan-European service infrastructures. These initiatives, tentatively called European Large Scale bridging Actions (ELSA’s) will mobilise a critical mass of resources, including grants for R&D, pre-commercial procurement and support for innovation and deployment. In the area of ICT, the proposal for ELSA’s is contained in the 2009 Commission Communication "A Strategy for ICT R&D and Innovation in Europe: Raising the Game".

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Subsequently, in its March 2010 Communication "Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" the EC calls for the modernisation of the transport sector. The strategy requests Member States to develop smart, upgraded and fully interconnected transport and energy infrastructures, making full use of ICT and ensure a coordinated implementation of infrastructure projects, within the EU Core network, contributing to the effectiveness of the overall EU transport system. Furthermore, the Commission is putting forward seven flagship initiatives to catalyse progress, including three highly relevant to the building blocks of a Transport-ICT ELSA: o "Innovation Union" to improve framework conditions and access to finance for research and innovation so as to ensure innovative ideas can be turned into products and services creating growth and jobs. o "A digital agenda for Europe" to speed up the roll-out of high-speed internet and reap the benefits of a digital single market for households and enterprises. o "Resource efficient Europe" to help decouple economic growth from the use of resources, support the shift towards a low carbon economy, increase the use of renewable energy sources, modernise the transport sector and promote energy efficiency. Notably, in the context of the "Innovation Union" flagship initiative, the Commission proposed the establishment of a new Research and Innovation Plan to help solve particular problems connected with major societal challenges. The Plan, an ELSA type of initiative, will describe a set of strategic initiatives, entitled European Innovation Partnerships (EIP), bringing together R&D programmes with demand-side measures such as public procurement, standardisation and regulation. An equivalent of a Transport-ICT ELSA in the frame of an EIP would be addressing its core research challenges and visions as zero emissions, zero accidents and "smart connected electro-mobility".

1.1.3 The area of Transport-ICT Transport-ICT consists of systems from a wide variety of knowledge fields, all bound together by communication technology. Digital maps of high quality and technologies for interoperability are a key factor for service quality. Driver assistance systems and eCall improves safety, intelligent infrastructure supports traffic management tasks and intelligent logistics for optimised operation of heavy vehicles are a key issue for optimised traffic efficiency. With the interoperability and coordinated cooperation the contribution of all components will be maximised. With services built on Service Oriented Architectures (SOA), using Real Time Traffic Information (RTTI) provided on nomadic devices or on-board units featuring advanced Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs), the broad public will thrive to gain access to those services under the precondition, that the security of information is understood as essential to Transport-ICT. With the latest results of cooperative systems development at hand, demonstrations will be executed within field operational tests showing the systems’ viability and benefits on a large scale for interurban and urban areas. The medium to long term implementation of cooperative systems, both on vehicle to vehicle basis and between vehicles and infrastructure with newly installed equipment capable of cooperative technologies and legacy systems being refitted over time, is supported by the experience gained in field operational tests. While the focus is currently placed on safety due to perception by customers and financial models for implementation, this focus will shift to more strongly consider efficiency and clean transport in the future.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

The advent of future internet technologies (internet of things - every platform constitutes a node, internet of services, micro/nano-technology) will completely change the connected car paradigm if the relevant enabling technologies including mobile broadband access, communication protocols (including IPv6) and trust and security are mature enough to support the introduction of these advanced new concepts.

1.1.4 The landscape of research, development and innovation in Transport-ICT In Europe, a multiplicity of initiatives and projects has been executed in recent years comprising research in intelligent and green cars, cooperative systems technologies, connected vehicles, the internet of the future and European service platforms. More general technologies are developed e.g. Galileo for improved positioning required by advanced services. While Member States generally have their own agenda, national activities corresponding to the developments on EU level are widely implemented. TEN-T Projects and specifically Easyway support a harmonised approach towards the challenges and a strong tendency towards standardisation to improve technical harmonisation on European level is perceived. With Transport-ICT being part of a worldwide system providing opportunities but also competition for European solutions, other regions in the world already implemented these kinds of systems such as Smartway in Japan and Intellidrive in the US. The ELSA approach offers an ecosystem where new technologies can thrive in combination and coordination with each other.

1.2 The need for a Transport-ICT ELSA ICT will contribute to solutions in a very significant way by tackling the different challenges at hand. Despite large investments, deployment lags. Today, ICT in transport actors are proposing and realising solutions to the various technological challenges (e.g. cooperative systems) through field operational tests (FOTs) involving comprehensive evaluations and assessments of developed systems to arrive at standardisation and deployment. Due to the systems’ interrelationships with a multitude of other socio-economic factors (systems interoperability, technology procurement barriers, etc.) their eventual deployment becomes a long, laborious and occasionally prohibitive (time wise) process. The fragmentation of the transport sector perceived today is to be managed efficiently and as a whole. Today’s different supplier groups include road operators, automotive industries, ICT and service providers differing in business objectives as well as in technological background. Technological developments originating from recent research initiatives on European and national level may offer standardised and cost efficient solutions for the requirements of those actor groups. While Transport-ICT adopts the general technology trends and follows commonly established procedures, the very long time-to-market and thus return-on-invest is hindering a highly dynamic implementation of services and solutions, especially as the solutions need to span different groups of actors.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

These issues lead to fragmentation in the process of going from R&D through to deployment. Cooperation in European projects, no matter how successful, comes to an end before deployment has been achieved. Even the FOTs have not yet resulted largescale deployment. FOTs are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end: deployment. An instrument is needed to cover all essential phases in the innovation cycle of Transport-ICT, namely R&D, transition into product or service level and support for short time-to-market and return-on-invest fostering innovation and deployment of systems. This tool needs to bring all relevant actors of the heterogeneous ICT network together with the goal to develop individual R&D results into deployable solutions. This instrument needs to function as a financial and organisational tool to issue harmonised grants for the fields of R&D, pre-commercial procurement, innovative commercial procurement and support for deployment. Under sound financial conditions, the cooperation of different stakeholders can be fostered and, with large scale field trials, the maturity of solutions can be raised. The trials are also set to demonstrate the business potential and thus to increase the willingness of all actors to invest, since they provide the grounds to prove the positive effects in a convincing and impressive way. This proposed instrument is a Transport-ICT ELSA. A Transport-ICT ELSA is set to tackle the societal challenges by stimulating innovation in ICT applications, generating increased investment in R&D and the “happiness to invest” in ICT development on private side by increasing return-on-investment based on stable and commonly agreed political conditions and fortifying the “will for deployment” on public side, linking the stages of research, development, testing, deployment and acceptance in a more direct way, thus leading to more timely deployment. A Transport-ICT ELSA will constitute a broader framework for innovation (in terms of areas of application and in terms of technologies) compared to research programmes, linking various developments on shared elements. Overall, a Transport-ICT ELSA is set to increase the competitiveness of Europe in transport technologies. A Transport-ICT ELSA should result in a common European strategy and plan for deployment of ITS infrastructure and services, containing specifications for an open platform and for the communication from vehicles to vehicles and from vehicles to road infrastructure, as well as a service platform facilitating easy service deployment.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

INVENTORY

2.1 Drafting a proposal for a Transport-ICT ELSA The ELSA approach was first proposed by the European Commission within their communication “A new ICT R&D and innovation strategy: Raising the Game” COM (2009) 116 asking for large scale actions for deployment of ICT. In August of the same year, first consultations began involving representatives from the demand side (public sector and users) and supply side (major industrial players) leading to a report provided to the VISBY conference on 10th/11th November 2009 Based on these preliminary findings, the eSafety Forum Steering Group installed an ELSA Task Force on 16 December 2009 with the goal to deliver a more concrete proposal to the Commission on what an ELSA in Transport should look like and how the defined goals can be addressed. Representatives of the demand side (authorities and user organizations) and representatives from the supply side willing to contribute to an ELSA proposal participated in the Task Force. Two workshops in early 2010 elaborated on the requirements and expectations of public (31st of March) and private stakeholders (28th of April) and made concrete proposals for the design of an ELSA. The ELSA Task Force was set to provide its output by September 2010. The following figure shows the process in an overview. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 summarise the fndings from the workshops. ELSA Discussion Paper ELSA in Transport Presentation

ELSA Process Presentation

The ELSA Process ELSA Industry 14 September

Workshop 1: st 31 March Public Stakeholders

Visby Conference

ELSA Public Sector 15 September

eSafety Forum Observers 20 September

European Large Scale Action in Transport

10-11 November

eSafety Forum: Foundation of ELSA Task Force 16 December

Working Group

ELSA Task Force Final Report

Workshop 2: th 28 April Private Stakeholders

ELSA Vision Paper

Aug 09

Sep 09

Oct 09

Nov 09

Dec 09 ... Mar 10

Apr 10 ... Sep10

Figure: ELSA in Transport activities in 2009 and 2010 9

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

2.2 The demand from authorities and user organizations Member States, user organizations and other authorities’ representatives were asked for their priority goals in transport to be addressed in a Transport-ICT ELSA . Future ways of addressing these goals were also discussed. Traffic safety, traffic efficiency and environmental sustainability are the key aspects to be addressed in the European transport system. Traffic safety has long played a prominent role in the EU. Progress was made in this area, but the goal of halving the death toll by 2010 was not achieved. Further measures required to achieve these goals include advanced in-car systems for impaired driving, alcolocks and speed alert services. Others include the avoidance of accidents by cooperation between vehicles and infrastructure providing timely warnings, active emergency breaking systems, lane keeping systems and eCall. Concerning traffic efficiency, a lower number of frequent (e.g. peak hour congestions) and spontaneous (e.g. accidents) congestion events will improve the reliability of trip planning in general with specific city logistics systems providing optimised planning of goods delivery in urban areas. Both cases are based on real time traffic information of high quality, accessible when and where needed. Advanced traffic management measures help to avoid traffic disruptions and can alleviate their effects. A reliable prognosis for trip planning can help to reduce frequent disruptions, both supporting a better exploitation of the available road capacity. The use of multimodal services for people and goods traffic will add to the goal of smoother traffic flows as all available capacities in all transport networks are used best. At the same time rewarding mechanisms will be analysed via the novel concept of driver training on the move. Decarbonisation of transport is key to environmental sustainability of the European transport system. Despite good progress in the efficiency of traffic and better energy efficiency of the vehicles themselves, the growth rates of people and goods traffic more than outweighed these improvements making traffic still a large contributor to CO2 and other emissions, such as particulate matter and noise. The high impact of traffic on biodiversity is another aspect to be considered in this frame. Better accessibility, due to multimodal services and infrastructure, to alternative transport networks can support a greater use of more environmentally-sound modes of transport, more efficient transport routes would positively impact the environmental balance and, overall, the required land for transport networks. Also, less demand for travelling in motorized vehicles without impairing economy (e.g. by e-solutions like e-meetings etc.) can significantly contribute to less energy consumption by avoiding trips at all. All three aspects play together to realise the goals set forth by the demand side. For instance, improved safety will, apart of the obvious reduction in fatalities and injury severity, also result in fewer disruptions and thereby reduced congestion, increasing the efficiency of the traffic system, while the resulting better planning reliability improves the uptake of intermodal services For that reason, the three aspects must be tackled in coordination. Two specific issues were recognised: - The maturity of solutions is a key prerequisite of authorities for the developed technologies to be accepted and thus for those effects to be witnessed. An ELSA has

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

to improve the maturity of solutions in technical and organisational aspects making them truly deployable. A common European strategy and plan for deployment of ITS infrastructure and services, containing specifications for an open platform and for the communication from vehicles to all other nodes and devices, as well as specifications for an interoperable and scalable service platform facilitating easy service deployment and capable of collecting, processing, exchanging and using information, is necessary.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

2.3 Current offer from industry and state of development Industry representatives were asked what the current offer is responding to the needs of authorities and users, and how a Transport-ICT ELSA could bring these to the market. The industrial sector has developed advanced technologies over the recent years within the framework of national and international research initiatives. First cooperative applications were developed and demonstrated within research projects such as CVIS, SAFESPOT and COOPERS and some will be assessed within Field Operational Tests in the near future. Several applications are focussing on traffic safety featuring timely warnings based on the communication between vehicles among each other and with the infrastructure. Also, advanced traffic management functionalities are demonstrated based on the cooperative systems technologies. Assisted driving and numerous other technologies are available for safety improvement in different stages of development. As examples, the eCall system is set for implementation, head up displays for less distraction of drivers from traffic and adaptive headlights are available for high class vehicles. Systems like radar based assisted cruise control, breaking assistants and lane keeping systems (or lane-change warning), infrared vision for improved safety when driving at night and under adverse weather conditions and environmentally friendly driving assistance (e.g. gear change etc.) are other examples. In time it can be anticipated that those systems will also be implemented in lower class cars. Emerging nomadic solutions enable advanced services to all travellers, including pedestrians, bicyclists and the users of public transport. Solutions for improved traffic efficiency comprise networks of traffic management centres established across geographical and institutional borders which use an increased variety of data sources (vehicles, sensors etc.) to produce more reliable services for the TERN and beyond. Other applications include intelligent and efficient maintenance planning for road and winter services and the prediction of the impact of traffic management measures for decision support. Related to logistics efficiency, services and applications related to providing timely information to drivers on national/regional traffic regulations, eco-routing and dispatching are currently available as research results. Also, multimodal services for goods traffic are important aspects for efficient goods traffic in Europe. Concerning the reduction of the environmental impact and improving the environmental sustainability of traffic, several approaches like eco routing and eco driving were developed. Other solutions include ecologically oriented traffic management and control systems, eco-demand and access management systems and eco-navigation. First field tests involving fully electric vehicles and supply systems are currently executed. Together with sophisticated multimodal information services based on realtime information from all concerned transport modes already in place. These technologies have the capability to support decarbonisation of the European transport system. One specific issue was recognised: - Most solutions are still in the stage of research and development and neither the technical nor the organisational prerequisites are met for a full scale implementation on the European road network.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

3 PROPOSAL FOR A TRANSPORT-ICT ELSA 3.1 Challenges to be addressed in a Transport-ICT ELSA The challenges in ELSA-T are both technological and organisational. Within the technology sector, most of the technologies mentioned are still in research stage with their impact and benefits not yet clearly visible to stakeholders who did not participate in the very R&D projects. As the transition from R&D results to mature solutions requires positive business cases, currently no (or limited) market opportunities are perceived. ELSA is set to overcome this issue. On the organisational side, sophisticated organisational cooperation models, including business models, are required as numerous actors from different public and private fields (communications, traffic technology, automotive, service providers, operators of road and rail infrastructure...) have to work together within Transport-ICT. Clear and well defined models for the cooperation between the required actors have not yet been defined and risk and liability questions not yet fully clarified, a co-operational model is seen as a challenge to be solved by ELSA. ELSAs should develop new performance oriented procurement processes promoting innovation and thereby also full utilisation of ICT in the transport sector including transport infrastructure management and operation, possibly leading to a major paradigm shift in transport infrastructure service industries. ELSA’s also support a shorter return-on-investment by the creation of prerequisites for larger markets for similar applications making them more useful due to larger proliferation and higher coverage of the European area, by making them interoperable due to higher demand for interoperability by operators and users and affordable due to a larger rollout level and thus a lower price for a single copy. These efforts can be expected to attract more competition due to better business opportunities enlarging the choice for operators during procurement. As ELSA’s also focus on joint procurement, sharing knowledge on experiences in joint public procurement and new pre-commercial public procurement is a key issue for ELSA’s.

3.2 Transport-ICT Test-beds A large scale bridging action, cutting across the innovation cycle should develop modern pan-European service infrastructures in order to address the unsustainable trends in transport on emissions and safety. An all-inclusive Field Operational Test (FOT) of a significant scale should entail addressing societal challenges by modernising public services, defragmenting European markets for ICT innovation, speeding-up time-tomarket/return-on-investment for innovative ICT-based solutions, increasing private and public investments in research and innovation and finally, accelerating the uptake of ICT innovations in public services. Such large scale FOTs should include comprehensive socioeconomic evaluations (including social cost-benefit analyses, viability and effect evaluations and impact assessments of system components) of the transport system. This context is given precisely by cooperative mobility defined as the interconnection of vehicles and infrastructure, to create and share information, leading to a better

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

cooperation amongst transport system users including drivers, vehicles and roadside systems, encompassing all areas of socio-economic activity. The ELSA Test-beds operate over the full duration of an ELSA framework and are available to all activities within an ELSA. The Test-beds are equipped with state of the art technologies, e.g. cooperative components, and allows the feed back based refinement of new services and technologies originating from current R&D activities or, at a later ELSA stage, from innovations generated in the ELSA. The Test-beds provide the opportunity to operate the applications in a live environment and under participation of all stakeholder groups (e.g. road operators, end user groups) with appropriate evaluation and assessment processes to guarantee that the adoption by stakeholders is very likely. Testbeds are open to accept new applications during the framework's duration in its role as innovation kernel of an ELSA. As the ELSA Test-beds will be of large scale and equipped with a sound technological backbone, only a limited number shall be implemented in Europe to focus and safeguard the efficiency of the investments. Thus, the Test-Beds must comprise different European traffic environments such as urban, rural and interurban (TEN-T motorways) road networks.

3.3 Subject matter for a Transport-ICT ELSA The ELSA-T is an umbrella for specific activities with clear implementation oriented focal points. Test-beds will be targeted towards well defined technological areas, which are: o o o o o o o o

Connected cars and connected travellers Cooperative vehicle infrastructure systems in combination with smart and ecological traffic management Proactive network operation and mobility management Co-modal information services for travellers and goods European wide service platform for advanced traffic information services Internet of the future Green freight and intelligent freight transport on corridors and in urban areas Electric vehicles

As key part, the ELSA will not focus solely on the traffic world but will explicitly embrace useful developments from other areas such as internet technology to provide modern, accepted and low cost solutions. The ELSA is strongly linked and compatible to the directives laid out by the ITS action plan. Those are currently: o o o o

Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services ITS road safety and security applications Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure

The ELSA Test-bed can support the implementation of new directives over time when the ITS action plan will be amended in the future. New priority actions can be tested within the ELSA Test-bed and their results estimated. On this basis, the decision on the

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

inclusion of new priority actions in directives within the ITS action plan can be supported by ELSA.

3.4 Estimated impact on societal goals The impact on societal goals laid out in chapters 1.1 and 1.3, to which all applications are committed, are roughly defined by every test-bed and translated to specific goals within every activity. The assessment of the societal impact will be executed in parallel to the different activities under the Transport-ICT ELSA itself. It should be noted, that the ELSA Test-bed will be utilized by different activities at the same time thus enabling the ELSA to assess specific applications in interaction with other activities. The impact of improved procurement principles and procedures will have a major positive impact on the European service industries in the transport sector. The ELSA will also provide major socio-economic benefits to Europe via accelerating the deployment of advanced ICT based services and applications by lowering or even removing various barriers of European deployment.

3.5 Models of funding A Transport-ICT ELSA activities will run for a number of years and would draw on support from R&D programmes for technology and platform development, systems integration and validation, from innovation programmes for field-testing, demonstration and spreading of best practice, and from deployment actions to roll-out final solutions. Work on the majority of the building blocks of a Transport-ICT ELSA is already under way through many initiatives and programmes at the National and European level, while the Commission points (in several documents) to the necessity in building upon these existing initiatives and integrate them where relevant.

3.5.1

EU funding resources

In the Communication "Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" the EC flagship initiative "Innovation Union" stresses the need to strengthen and further develop the role of EU instruments to support innovation (e.g. structural funds, rural development funds, R&D framework programme, CIP, SET plan), including through closer work with the EIB and streamline administrative procedures to facilitate access to funding. The flagship initiative "A digital agenda for Europe" stresses the need to facilitate the use of the EU's structural funds in pursuit of this agenda. In the flagship initiative "Resource efficient Europe" the Commission pledges to work towards three important areas: a. mobilising EU financial instruments (e.g. rural development, structural funds, R&D framework programme, TENs, EIB) as part of a consistent funding strategy, that pulls together EU and national public and private funding; b. to enhance a framework for the use of market-based instruments (e.g. emissions trading, revision of energy taxation, state-aid framework, encouraging wider use of green public procurement); and c. to present proposals to modernise and decarbonise the transport sector thereby contributing to increased competitiveness.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

3.5.2 Bringing together national funding In the above context it is of fundamental importance to recognise that significant public (MS) funds have been and continue to be allocated to safe, secure and sustainable transport systems (i.e. the core objective of a Transport-ICT ELSA) as part of state budgets. Consequently, the above targets set in Europe 2020, aiming at integrating and streamlining various sources of funding towards achieving significant societal goals through e.g. an ELSA, are consistent with MS funding goals. National/regional-level programmes and instruments could include: research and innovation programmes, structural funds, public procurements, infrastructure budgets etc. The coupling of instruments is also possible, e.g., R&D through PPP based on demand-driven roadmap, including use of new features such as support to precommercial procurement, joint programming actions, nominated beneficiaries and reserved budgets. Such efforts would be reinforced by the European Investment Bank and its venture capital wing, the European Investment Fund with a more enhanced role for the private sector that will also help the European Union reach the 3 per cent target of GDP funding for R&D, a target within the Europe 2020 strategy. Utilisation of such funding models under the principle of subsidiarity will necessitate the risk assessments and strategies that will form part of the impact assessment for potential subsequent legislative acts.

3.6 The instrument of a PPP Furthermore, a Transport-ICT ELSA could be implemented through a carefully engineered Public Private Partnership (PPP), with various activities linked through evaluations and go/nogo decisions which will facilitate an appropriate balance between technology push and application pull. Such PPP’s will build on effort and results from other programmes having similar objectives to the various ELSA-T building blocks. In its 2009 Communication – "Mobilising private and public investment for recovery and long term structural change: developing Public Private Partnerships", the Commission stresses that: a. PPPs can provide effective ways to deliver infrastructure projects, to provide public services and to innovate more widely in the context of these recovery efforts. At the same time, PPPs are interesting vehicles for the long term structural development of infrastructure and services, bringing together distinct advantages of the private sector and the public sector, b. At the EU level, PPPs can offer extra leverage to key projects to deliver shared policy objectives such as combating climate change; promoting alternative energy sources as well as energy and resource efficiency; supporting sustainable transport; ensuring high level, affordable health care; and delivering major research projects such as the Joint Technology Initiatives, which are designed to establish European leadership in strategic technologies. They can also boost Europe’s innovation capacity and drive the competitiveness of European industry in sectors with significant growth and employment potential. As such, pilot PPP projects serving as models of best practices, good governance and solutions should be developed and replicated on a wider scale with the use of technical assistance elements of relevant funding programmes.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

The future Transport-ICT PPP will build on existing initiatives like the Green Car PPP and the Future Internet PPP. Both programmes' objectives are forming an integral part of Transport-ICT targets. In particular, the newly launched DG Infso FI-PPP shall attempt to effectively address the ELSA research challenges on the connected car through tackling the elements of cooperative mobility. This PPP also programmes to launch Test-beds entitled Use Case Trials. It is of particular interest to note that these Trials shall run to 2015 and will pave the way for an FP8 extension. Such an extension may well be along the programming lines of a Transport-ICT ELSA.

3.7 Involvement of stakeholders An ELSA follows the political and organisational duties and interests of the public bodies as public involvement is mandatory for an ELSA since public authorities represent the stakeholder group pursuing the societal goals and are usually responsible for infrastructure. As stated above, the ELSA is built upon a PPP model which binds both public and private partners to the common goals and safeguards their commitment. Users are involved on two different levels: on the one hand, individual users are involved in assessment, on the other hand user organisations such as automobile clubs are to be involved as partners to safeguard the interests of the user groups they represent. The user group feedback is required for the sound elaboration of mature solutions since the uptake of solutions by end users is essential to build realistic business cases and for their positive impact on safety, efficiency and environment Industrial partners share a strong interest in demonstrating their solutions in coordination with the other relevant stakeholders to understand their feedback and develop strong products pushing the competitiveness of the European ITS industry. As an ELSA will develop a cooperation scheme, it is essential for the successful deployment that all stakeholders will be able to participate to overcome the organisational heterogeneous (and thus inaccessible) market environment for complex innovative applications covered by an ELSA. The initiative would involve all pertinent stakeholders: a. From the Public Sector European Commission, Member States (Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Public Works, Telecommunications, Economy, Environment), European Investment Bank, Road authorities and administrations, Road operators and Emergency Authorities, Cities, Regions (political leaders, planning authorities, public transport, operational departments), Associations of cities and regions and User Associations of private and commercial transport. b. From the Private Sector Automotive industry, Telecommunications industry and Operators, Automotive suppliers, Digital Map producers and developers, Nomadic devices industry, Internet Service providers and associations, Infrastructure providers of road networks, telecommunications and energy; c. Research and development industry All of these sectors have already shown their interest and have been involved in drafting the present proposal.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

3.8 Governance As a key structure, the ELSA provides an eight year framework composed of two-year activities linked with evaluations and go/no-go decision points. With the ELSA framework set up upon a PPP model to ensure strong commitment of public and private actors, clearly defined political, organisational and technical goals brought forward by the public partners will govern the focus of the framework. The activities covering two years will allow clearly defined and well assessed (socio-economic impacts, technical performance) applications to be rolled out in test beds. Assisted by an independent accompanying assessment scheme executed directly by the ELSA, not the activity, and enriched by the feedback of the stakeholders the sub projects are clearly implementation oriented and shall transfer applications from R&D stage to implementation roll out. The Board of Governance should be based on the present Transport-ICT ELSA Task Force, linked to the eSafety Steering Group, chaired by the Commission, where a variety of stakeholders contributing to the deployment of ICT for safer, cleaner and smarter transport are represented. The actual structure and responsibilities should be allocated dependent on the stage of development of the Transport-ICT ELSA PPP. It will focus on the identification and formulation of priorities for further research, development and testing and coordinating the efforts and funding of different partners and projects. Work on deployment and market penetration of mature technologies will evolve in line with the ITS Action Plan of the European Commission.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Annexe 1 Matrix showing the societal goals and prioritized systems presented by the demand side and with response from the supply side

Summary from workshops with ELSA Task Force.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Demand side goals and prioritized systems

Road safety and securi ty

Systems for Clean & Efficient travel and transport

Systems for Safety and security

Passenger Transport Urban Mobility

Societal goals Environm Efficien ent and cy & energy mobilit efficiency y ◊

◊

Supply side priority system/actions with solutions provided by the market or in cooperation with road operators/public authorities. Systems that have impact on the environment • Eco-Routing, Platooning (HGV), Road charging (emission toll), Eco-driving strategies on guidance level (e.g. adapted acceleration / deceleration) Clean and efficient mobility • Eco-driving and eco-navigation • Eco-HMI for driver behavioural change • Eco-travel information systems • Eco-traffic management and control systems • Eco-demand and access management systems • Interoperable systems requested Systems having impact on Traffic Safety. •ACC, LDW , Curve speed warning, Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), Traffic Risk Monitoring, Near miss Detection, Alcolock, Virtual lanes separation (dedicated lanes), Cooperative systems (Recommended speed profiles, Recommended lane use), eCall, Systems having impact on mobility. •Real-time traffic condition information, Dynamic route guidance, •Dedicated lanes/dedicated infrastructure, •Multimodal traffic information, •Cooperative systems (recommended speed profiles, recommended lane use

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Demand side goals and prioritized systems

Road safety and securi ty

Urban Mobility

Freight Transport Green freight corridors

Societal goals Environme Efficien nt and cy & energy mobility efficiency ◊

◊

Supply side priority systems with solutions provided by the market or in co-operation with road operators/public authorities. Fully electric vehicles Electric mobility – research, development and innovation; • Architectures, (power) electronics and smart systems for energy storage including energy management, drive train • On-board systems, safety aspects of new vehicle concepts: passive, preventive safety and crash mitigation, safety of highvoltage systems • Vehicle-infrastructure aspects: information systems, energy measuring systems • Vehicle-charging system: interoperability and integration of the electric vehicles in the transport system • Extensive trials: from public transport to fleets Freight transport • Safe and secure parking areas • ICT equipped freight vehicles, containers etc • Increased penetration of Cooperative Systems – costs of technology, multiple suppliers, open for new solutions – yet stable • Open secure and robust environment for Services development and operation • Need for standardisation and harmonisation of regulations globally • Customers needs for cost-efficient integrated solutions • Harmonised city zone regulation • Harmonised access control for Environmental city zones and congestion charging • Parking zones for distribution vehicles • Competitor neutral procurement • Open ITS architecture for common ITS services

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Demand side goals and prioritized systems

Road safety and sequri ty

Green freight corridors

Societal goals Environme Efficien nt and cy & energy mobility efficiency ◊

◊

Co-operating systems

◊

Systems for Safe, Clean & Efficient travel and transport

◊

Supply side priority systems with solutions provided by the market or in co-operation with road operators/public authorities. Borders and Transurban • ICT equipped infrastructure. • Trans-European and international transport information management (the is lack of standards). • Open platform for ITS services. • Cost for connectivity (roaming issues) and availability of alternative connectivity. • Availability of low-cost high-quality real-time data. • Harmonized regulation and global standards. Co-operating systems • Integration of all ICT-equipped elements into the transport infrastructure for efficient and clean freight transportation. • Towards automated driving – the research and development and a harmonized view on the Vienna Convention. Connected car and future internet • Eco services, customer services (calendar & contact management, communities & blogging, contents & media, traffic & driving preferences). • Safety services (eCall, pedestrian, road departure, accident & collision warning, parking & merge assistance, pre-crash sensing). • Vehicle services, remote & maintenance diagnosis. • Theft immobilizer, service & repair invitations. • Commercial services (weather & road condition, news & popular media, secure payment, etc). • European wide service platforms – pilots, implementation and pan-European harmonization. • The connected car – maximum efficiency with low penetration.

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Annexe 2 Contributors to the report of the ELSA Task Force

ELSA in Transport Task Force Report V8 Author: ELSA Core Group 08 October 2010

Co-chairs: Wil Botman Bengt Hallstrom

FIA European Bureau STA

Members of the Task Force: Allessandro Coda Frans op de Beek Hermann Meyer Jean Pierre Medevielle Michael Ortgiese Risto Kulmala

EUCAR TNO ERTICO INRETS PTV VTT

Support in report writing: Axel Burkert Kerry Malone

PTV TNO

European Commission Helen Koepman Stefanos Gouvras

DG INFSO DG INFSO

Contributors from the Task Force: Demand side: Mari-Louise Lundgren Robbert Verweij Christard Gelau Alejandro Tossina Seppo Oorni Sylvain Haon Roberto Arditi Olivier Lenz Marc Billiet

Sweden Netherlands Germany Spain Finland Regions and cities (POLIS) Motorway operators (ASECAP) Private transport users (FIA) Commercial transport users (IRU)

Supply side: Luisa Andreone Mats Rosenquist Horst Kornemann Volker Vierroth Michael Ortgiese Michael Schuerdt Peter Urban Carolien Buter Hannu Hakala

FIAT VOLVO CONTINENTAL Satellic PTV MEDION IKA/EARPA BOSCH HERMIA

Notes taking of workshops and meetings: Oana Matei FIA Administrative support: Mihaela Ostafe:

iCars Support

Draft Minutes

eSafety Observers Meeting Venue: Recas Winery Yard (25 Km from Timisoara) 04th October 2010 – 10h00 – 13h15

Draft Minutes Annexed to this document: Annex 1: Final Agenda Annex 2: Participants list Annex 3: eSafety Observers Network Contact list Annex 4: Terms of Reference for the eSafety Observers Network Annex 5: New list of eSafety Recommendations The presentations given at the meeting are available at: http://www.icarsupport.eu/esafety-forum/esafety-observers/observers-meetings/1st-esafety-observersnetwork-meeting/ Opening

Attila Gonczi (University of Timisoara) and Lina Konstantinopoulou (iCar Support), opened the meeting and welcomed the participants. A tour de table followed. 1. eSafety Observers official kick-off - Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support Lina Konstantinopoulou presented the iCar Support (iCS) project and its objectives. The history of the eSafety Observers started under the eSafety Support project (2006 - 2009), however the results were rather poor: not a lot of relevant input from the Member States could be gathered. The objectives of the present eSafety Observers Network were highlighted: •

To ensure better synchronization between the Intelligent Car and eSafety Forum priorities at European and national levels,

•

To support the work of the national eSafety initiatives within Member States, and

•

To support EU eSafety initiatives.

The eSafety Observers Network is formed of representatives of the EU Member States and ITS National Associations which are actively involved in the national industry, policy or Research and Development activities. Under the eSafety Observers Network they will report about their national eSafety activities to iCS and the European Commission and will also communicate, exchange information and best practices with other national stakeholders about the EU Safety initiatives. Page 1 of 20

Draft Minutes

1.1 ToR – Presentation and agreement Lina Konstantinopoulou presented the eSafety Observers Terms of Reference (ToR).

The scope of agreeing on the ToR is to make the new eSafety Observers Network more committed towards the eSafety cooperation’s goals, as well as to maintain and strengthen the Network by liaison and coordination with the National ITS Associations. The ToR has been appointed to formalize this commitment.

A first draft of the ToR has been sent to all the interested parties in joining the Observers Network before the meeting.

Crister Karlsson (ITS Sweden) asked about the procedures to be followed to propose a new contact, as well as about the responsible in taking this decision.

Francisco Ferreira (EC) responded that the proposals shall be addressed to the iCS Secretariat; iCS will discuss the proposal with the EC Project Officer and inform about the decision taken. Crister Karlsson questioned whether the existence of local/national forums will be possible in the context of Observers Network.

Lina Konstantinopoulou reminded the participants that creating WGs at the local/national level was already foreseen in the ToR. The ToR has been updated (section 2, 2.1.a/b) (see updated ToR in Annex 4). Roman Srp (Czech Republic Ministry of Transport) asked about how the recommendations coming from the eSafety Network will be used. Francisco Ferreira explained the way the decision is taken: the Recommendations coming from the Observers Network are presented to the eSafety Forum Steering Group for approval and then they are presented at the eSafety Forum Plenary meetings (the results are this way made available to the eSafety Forum members). The major role of the Observers is to act as a link between the EC and Member States (on one hand dissemination from the EC to the Member States is envisaged, on the other hand providing up-to-date info from the Member States to the EC). For the section 2.3 a, it was discussed about how the appointing procedure will work and who at the level of the State will be responsible for the appointment of the Observers. It was clarified that the members of the Network must work in the national Governments and be fully informed about the eSafety activities and actions at the national level. Heinz Sodeikat (ITS Network Germany) addressed the issue of some countries having more representatives of others in the Observers Network. Lina Konstantinopoulou explained that just two contacts will be the official ones for the Network activities: one principal contact and a delegate. Involvement of more than two contacts is welcomed, however, in that case the representatives will be asked to coordinate and agree for the input they will send for their country. Only the official two members will be invited at the meetings. For changing the official contacts, the representatives must agrees between themselves and propose the change to the iCS Secretariat. Page 2 of 20

Draft Minutes

Lina Konstantinopoulou explained that the list of contacts has not yet been finalised, as not all the countries

send the official contact names before the present meeting. The latest update of the eSafety Observers Network contacts list can be consulted in Annex 3.

Francisco Ferreira proposed that not just two, but four contacts per country shall be considered as official representatives in the Observers Network: one representative of the Member State and a delegate and one representative of the ITS national association and a delegate. Decision: The proposal was accepted. Action:

iCar Support will inform the present Observers contacts of this decision and will ask for proposals for national contacts and support for achieving commitment according to the decision above. Before the next meeting the Observers Network list shall gather four contacts per country: one representative of the Member State and a delegate and one representative of the ITS national association and a delegate. An updated version of the ToR, highlighting the discussions and changes agreed at the meeting can be consulted in Annex 4. 1.2 Commitment on Network future activities Lina Konstantinopoulou presented the list of deliverables based on the Observers output under the iCS project (below) and explained that a report about the national activities, as well as a list of recommendation based on these are expected to be the output of the Observers Network work at the end of each year of the project. Deliverables D_ToR_National Activity D_ToR_Recommendations

Date M12, M24, M36 M12, M24, M36

Decision: The participants agreed to commit to the ToR and to actively participating in the creation of the above deliverables. The updated ToR after the discussions at the meeting can be consulted in Annex 4 of the present document.

1.3 Presentation and approval of new Observers website Lina Konstantinopoulou presented the new iCS website and how the Implementation toolbox will be of use to the eSafety Observers.

Page 3 of 20

Draft Minutes The page is at the moment under preparation and will be soon accessible at: http://www.icarsupport.eu/national-implementation/ Francisco Ferreira informed the audience that the data available in the toolbox will be publically available and disseminated as much as possible; the data available on the old eSS website shall be used as example and food for thought for the updating of the new website. Action: The Observers will send to the iCar Support updated information for the new website. The updates will be sent to info@icarsupport.eu . In order to facilitate the exchange of information between the members of the eSafety Observers Network, it was agreed that the contact details of the members will be public. Action: For avoiding spam issues and for protecting the privacy of the Observers outside the Network, iCS will investigate how forwarding e-mail addresses could be created for each country. The common pattern intended is: Country-Observer@icarsupport.eu (i.e. Greece-Observer@icarsupport.eu).

2. European Commission priorities on eSafety: Ferreira Francisco, EC representative Francisco Ferreira gave a presentation highlighting the EC priorities on ICT for Transport. The presentation focused on transport challenges in Europe and the improvements which are urgently needed in the next period, on Europe 2020 strategy and the Digital Agenda for Europe, on ITS Action Plan & ITS Directive, priorities on cooperative mobility, research activities and CIP programme (see presentation). A presentation of the recently closed eCall public consultation results (453 replies received) followed (see presentation).

Page 4 of 20

Draft Minutes

3. eSafety Forum - new focus and new recommendations: Hermann Meyer, ERTICO ITS Europe

Hermann Meyer presented to the eSafety Observers the new focus of the eSafety Forum and the updated new list of recommendations

The Forum’s Vision, Mission, Objectives, Strategy, Issues and Actions were highlighted, as well as the updated Forum’s structure, activities and logo. The latest eSafety Forum diagram is shown below:

For clarifying the Forum objectives (below), iCar Support and EC will shortly prepare a consultation to which all the eSafety Forum members will be invited to participate. The members of the eSafety Observers Network will also receive this invitation. eSafety Forum Objectives The new Forum objectives cover the period from 2010 to 2020. To implement the overall vision the following objectives will guide the work of the Forum: – Another …% reduction in the number of fatalities across Europe starting from current level (2010) – Another …% reduction in the number of seriously injured persons across Europe starting from current level (2010) – …% reduction of road traffic related congestion – …% improvements in energy-efficiency – …availability of real time traffic and travel information through ICT applications in road traffic.

Page 5 of 20

recommendations. Discussion:

Draft Minutes

Hermann Meyer asked the eSafety Observers for their approval on the new eSafety Forum and list of

With regards to clarifying the objectives above and the consultation, it was discussed the importance of

defining for everyone what ITS/ICT is, and a range of applications the Forum shall consider when participating in the consultation. Heinz Sodeikat questioned what will be the role of this consultation’s results in the future policy drafting.

Hermann Meyer replied that the results will be then considered in drafting of the next policy steps (White Paper etc).

With regards to the eSafety Recommendations list, Hermann Meyer highlighted that the list presented is, at

the moment, a living document and invited the audience to send their feedback/comments on the Recommendations to the iCar Support Secretariat. The list has been approved at the last eSafety Forum Steering group meeting and will be now presented for approval to to the eSafety Forum members, at the next eSafety Forum Plenary meeting on 12-13 October 2010. Attila Gonczi (University of Timisoara) commented that it is important to make sure that the results of the projects already conducted at the national level are taken into account (the comment mainy regarded the accident causation data issues). The results of such a project are already available for Romania. Rumen Mihaylov (ITS Bulgaria), referring to the electric car, highlighted the need of tax reform; the tax petrol is not enough – with regards to the electricity comnsumption it will be important to know the amount of the electricity needed for the house and the one needed for the car. Hermann Meyer commented that the consequences of the future implementation of the electric vehicle must be seriously considered, as well as the need for incentives. It was expressed that with regards to eSafety Recommendations there is a need for input/feedback from the eSafety Observers on two levels: 1. The new eSafety Recommendations list, as presented by Hermann Meyer; 2. More generally, feedback on eSafety Recommendations at the national level. Decision: The eSafety Observers expressed their overal approval on the new eSafety Forum and the new list of recommendations. Actions: 1. The Observers to send to the iCar Support their feedback on the new eSafety Recommendations. 2. The eSafety Observers to send their feedback on national level-oriented eSafety Recommendations.

Page 6 of 20

Draft Minutes

4. Wrap-up and conclusions: Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support

Lina Konstantinopoulou thanked to the eSafety Observers for their participation in the meeting, commitment to the network and good input, and invited them to bring in any further recommendations or topics they are interested to be discussed in the context of the Observers Network.

Roman Srp observed that one of the most important needs of the Member States at this stage is for actions and

recommendations which would push the governments to act in the area of eSafety, and that the Observers

Network shall function in two directions: suport from the EC to the Member States as well as support of the Member States to EC, in terms of disseminating the EC priorities at the national level.

Lina Konstantinopoulou observed that common tools and templates shall help to achieve a uniform distribution of the information.

The iCS website area designed for the use of the Observers will provide a good tool to exchange information and to share good deployment practices at the national level. The creation of a members area on the iCS website only for the use of the eSafety Observers was suggested(for sharing confidential materials or drafts/ongoing documents). Action: iCS to investigate the development of a members area on the iCS website, for the use of the eSafety Observers Network. Lina Konstantinopoulou invited the Observers to explore further the iCar Support website and to send their comments to the iCar Support Secretariat. Action: The eSafety Observers to send their suggestions on the development of the iCS website Observers area. The meeting adjourned at 13:30.

Page 7 of 20

eSafety Observers Meeting Venue: Recas Winery Yard (25 Km from Timisoara) 04th October 2010 – 10h00 – 13h15

Final Agenda 10.00 – 10.15

Opening: Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support

10.15 – 11.15

eSafety Observers official kick-off: Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support ToR – Presentation and agreement Commitment on Network future activities Presentation and approval of new Observers website

11.15 – 12.00

European Commission priorities on eSafety: Ferreira Francisco, EC representative ITS Directive Digital agenda eCall consultation results

12.00 – 12.15

Coffee Break

12.15 – 13.00

eSafety Forum - new focus and new recommendations: Hermann Meyer, ERTICO ITS Europe Focus & recommendations presentation Observers’ feedback

13.00 – 13.15

Wrap-up and conclusions: Lina Konstantinopoulou, iCar Support

Page 8 of 20

Draft Minutes

Annex 1: Final Agenda

First name

Last name

Organisation

Roman Francisco Anna Hermann Claudiu Mihaela Lina Katia Reinhard Rumen Pierre Norbert Heinz Marek Dorin Florin Robert Jure Alonso Christer Maria Attila

Srp Ferreira Limbrey Meyer Suma Ostafe Konstantinopoulou Pagle Pfliegl Mihaylov Lereboullet Handke Sodeikat Litwin Dumitrescu Nemtanu Rijavec Pirc Martin-Moreno Redondo Karlsson Simmins Gonczi

Czech Republic Ministry of Transport European Commission iCar Support/ ERTICO - ITS Europe ERTICO - ITS Europe ETA Automatizari Industriale iCar Support/ ERTICO - ITS Europe iCar Support/ ERTICO - ITS Europe ICCS Greece ITS Austria ITS Bulgaria ITS France ITS Network Germany ITS Network Germany ITS Polska ITS Romania ITS Romania ITS Slovenia ITS Slovenia ITS Spain ITS Sweden ITS Sweden University of Timisoara

Draft Minutes

Annex 2: Participants list

Page 9 of 20

Country

Representative

E-mail

Austria Austria Belgium Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Czech Republic Czech Republic Estonia Estonia Estonia Finland Finland France Germany Germany Greece Greece Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Luxembourg Netherlands Netherlands Poland Poland Romania Romania Slovenia Slovenia Spain Spain Spain Sweden UK

Reinhard Pfliegl Alexander Froetscher Peter Van der Perre An Volckaert Rumen Mihaylov Alex Avgoustis Pavel Pribyl Roman Srp Alica Kalasova Kriistina Abel Dago Antov Margus Nigol Eini Hirvenoja Kimmo Ylisiurunen Pierre Lereboullet Heinz Sodeikat Norbert Handke Angelos Amditis Nikolaos Eliou Vasilis Mizaras Agnes Lindenbach Paul Bennett Francesco Mazzone Aldis Lama Georges Simon Maura Houtenbos Paul Potters Marek Litwin Krzysztof Modelewski Dorin Dumitrescu Florin Nemtanu Jure Pirc Robert Rijavec Ramón Cirilo Gimeno Anna Ferrer Alonso Martin Moreno Christer Karlsson Neal Skelton

reinhard.pfliegl@austriatech.org alexander.froetscher@austriatech.org pv@its.be a.volckaert@brrc.be rumenmihaylov@gmail.com aavgoustis@pwd.mcw.gov.cy PribylP@eltodo.cz r.srp@sdt.cz kalasova@fpedas.uniza.sk kristiina@stratum.ee dax@stratum.ee margus@stratum.ee eini.hirvenoja@ely-keskus.fi kimmo.ylisiurunen@infotripla.fi pierre.lereboullet@wanadoo.fr heinz.sodeikat@t-online.de norbert.handke@its-network-germany.de a.amditis@iccs.gr neliou@uth.gr, neliou@ath.forthnet.gr vmizaras@infotrip.gr interut21@tvnetwork.hu paul.bennett@ibigroup.com f.mazzone@aci.it aldis.lama@csdd.gov.lv georges.simon@pch.etat.lu Maura.Houtenbos@SWOV.nl potters@connekt.nl mlitwin@itspolska.pl kmodelewski@itspolska.pl dorin.dumitrescu@its-romania.ro florin.nemtanu@its-romania.ro j.pirc@traffic-design.si rrijavec@fgg.uni-lj.si Ramon.V.Cirilo@uv.es anna.ferrer@dgt.es alonsommr@itsspain.com christer.karlsson@its-sweden.se nealskelton@btinternet.com mailbox@its-uk.org.uk

Page 10 of 20

Draft Minutes

Annex 3: eSafety Observers Network Contact list at 11.10.2010

Draft Minutes

Annex 4: Terms of Reference for the eSafety Observers Network

Please note that this document was changed during the meeting. The changed are highlihted in yellow.

Table of Contents 1.

Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

1.1.

Definition ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

1.2.

Objectives of the Group ............................................................................................................................... 12

Organizational Aspects..................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.

Structure ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.

Operation ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.

National Observers ...................................................................................................................................... 13

2.4.

Roles and responsibilities of eSafety Observers Network ........................................................................... 14

2.5

Roles and Responsibilities of the European Commission ............................................................................ 14

2.6

Deliverables list ............................................................................................................................................ 14

2.7

Meetings ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

2.7.1

Meeting Expenses .................................................................................................................................... 15

eSafety Implementation Toolbox..................................................................................................................... 15

Confidentiality .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Page 11 of 20

Draft Minutes

1. Background

iCar Support is a 36 month Specific Support Action with the objective to support the implementation of actions and recommendations resulting from the work of the eSafety Forum and the Intelligent Car Initiative. This includes support to the eSafety Forum and its constituencies, including its Working Groups and Task Forces, strengthening the eSafety cooperation among stakeholders, support the development of the Implementation Road Map for all eSafety systems, contribute to the implementation process of the European eCall system by promoting the eCall toolbox and by supporting the European eCall Implementation Platform, support the i2010 initiative in particular the activities dealing with user outreach and deployment of smarter, safer and cleaner vehicles in the future, launch minor studies on topics identified and endorsed by the eSafety Forum. In order to strengthen the eSafety cooperation and support the dialogue between all eSafety stakeholders and in particular the national Member States related activities, the eSafety Observers Network was created under the eSafety Forum. The focus of this Network is to: • • •

Understand the real needs of the different European countries Discuss how the European Union can better fulfill these needs; Consolidate specific recommendations based on the actual situation in the different Member States.

This network has worked from 2006 - 2009 under the guidance of the EC funded eSafety Support. After these three years of activities and based on the obtained results, there is a need to reshape the network and make this group more committed towards the eSafety cooperation’s goals and thus this Terms of Reference has been appointed to formalize this commitment. iCar Support may revise these Terms of reference on the basis of proposals made by eSafety Steering Group and adopted by consensus.

1.1.

Definition

The eSafety Observers Network is a panel of representatives selected from the EU Member States and ITS National Associations which are invited to report on their national eSafety activities and also to communicate with national stakeholders about EU Safety initiatives. The Observers are actively involved in national industry, policy, or R&D activities and are acknowledged experts in their domain or sector.

1.2.

Objectives of the Group

In order to maintain and strengthen the eSafety Observers community built by eSafety Support, liaison and coordination between the eSafety Observers community and National ITS Associations and other stakeholders needs to be consolidated. This enhanced cooperation should: • • •

Ensure better synchronization between the Intelligent Car and eSafety Forum priorities at European and national levels Support the work of the national eSafety initiatives within Member States. Support EU eSafety initiatives

2. Organizational Aspects 2.1.

Structure Page 12 of 20

•

Draft Minutes

The proposed structure for the eSafety Observers Network consists of a chairperson, which will be within the European Commission, vice chair person nominated by the safety Observers’ Network, and the secretariat (iCar Support coordinator).

a) Role of the chairman (European Commission) I.

II. III.

The chairman's role includes monitoring the Observer's Network working activities and acting as its facilitator and guide. He monitors the working activities of the group in order to obtain overview of the progress of National eSafety activities. The chairman presides over meetings of the Observers group. This role includes setting the agenda for the performance of the Observers’ group responsibilities, taking steps to ensure group meetings take place with sufficient frequency, for a sufficient length of time and with adequate information.

b) Role of the vice chair I.

The person holding the vice chairman position is elected or appointed by the members of the Observers group.

II.

A vice-chairman is chosen to assist the chairman and to serve as chairman in his / her absence.

III.

The vice chairman position duties include acting as the Observers group’s head, its representative to the outside world and its spokesperson.

IV.

Another responsibility of the vice-chair would be to organise the preparation of the annual reporting of the outputs of the group.

•

The Network may establish, as mutually agreed and on an ad hoc basis, working groups to investigate specific areas of interest, cooperation and coordination and to report at subsequent plenary sessions.

•

This Network encourages Member States to establish national eSafety Forum mirror groups.

•

Any change to the chairperson and/or points of contact should be communicated to the secretariat.

2.2.

Operation

The Observers Group shall be chaired by the European Commission. iCar support will provide secretarial services for the group and possible sub-groups, which, in agreement with the European Commission, the group may establish. These sub-groups shall be set up to examine specific questions on the basis of a clearly defined mandate.

2.3.

eSafety Observers Network

The eSafety National Observers consist of: a) one eSafety expert from each Member State. The eSafety expert can appoint an alternative representative as a secondary observer. and/or b) one member appointed by each National ITS Association. Each National ITS Association representative can appoint an alternative representative as a secondary observer.

Page 13 of 20

Roles and responsibilities of eSafety Observers Network

Draft Minutes

2.4. •

Observers from each Member State (national expert and/or ITS national) will act as contact body for liaison, coordination and dissemination with the local eSafety activities (national eSafety Fora) including links to road authorities and industry.

•

Observers are expected to participate directly in all meetings as well as to contribute to the preparatory work for the meetings. Active participation in the group’s discussions and the drafting work is vital.

•

Members who are no longer able to contribute effectively to the group’s deliberations or who resign may be replaced for the remaining period.

•

The observer must appoint an alternative representative as a secondary observer and inform the secretariat. If an observer cannot attend a meeting, then the secondary observer must represent them at the meeting.

•

Observers should provide information on national R&D programs and collect national information on eSafety activities (eSafety situation, progress, needs, and knowledge on national good practice) and report those on an annual basis. (D_ToR_National Activity)

•

Observers should formulate recommendations and report those on an annual basis to the eSafety Steering Group and to the European Commission, giving advice and help steering the eSafety initiative towards the achievement of eSafety goals. (D_ToR_Reccomendations)

•

Observers should disseminate information and report those on an annual basis (Newsletter, press release, eSafety Implementation toolbox) broadly to the iCar Support through communication channels

•

The eSafety Observers Network Group will, at the end of its duration, provide input to a publishable report on its findings. The report will be published on the European Commission and iCar Support internet site.

•

Observers could be consulted on specific contributions to Framework programs, action plans etc or other documentation deemed important by the European Commission or / the eSafety Steering Committee.

2.5 Roles and Responsibilities of the European Commission •

Monitors the Observer's Network working activities and acts as its facilitator and guide. The EC monitors the working activities of the group in order to obtain overview of the progress of National eSafety activities.

•

The output of the Observers (Deliverables List) will be made available as additional information to ITS Directive, Article 17, ‘’Reporting’’.

•

Disseminates the output of the eSafety Observers group as widely as possible and informs the eSafety Forum of its findings.

2.6 Deliverables list Deliverables D.ToR_National Activity D_ToR_Recommendations

Date M12, M24, M36 M12, M24, M36

Page 14 of 20

•

Draft Minutes

2.7 Meetings •

Meetings will take place on a regular basis once or twice per year or as required by the European Commission.

•

The Secretariat will do its best to organize the meetings in conjunction with the meetings of the ITS National Network. This collaboration will reinforce the regular contact between the eSafety Observers and the ITS Associations Network.

•

Meetings will be conducted on a formal basis and will produce minutes. Observers are expected to participate directly in all meetings as well as to contribute to the preparatory work for the meetings. If an observer cannot attend a meeting, then the secondary observer must represent them at the meeting.

•

The Secretariat will be responsible for the preparation and circulation of the meeting agenda (and supporting papers) and minute meetings. The Secretariat will ensure that electronic copies of all relevant documents (including agendas, position papers and minutes) are also published in the iCar’s support website.

If deemed important, regional meetings could also take place around Europe and give the opportunity to two or more countries to meet and report on the latest eSafety developments in their countries.

2.7.1Meeting Expenses •

The European Commission through iCar Support will reimburse travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the two eSafety Observers from each Member State (or their representative).

•

The cost per meeting has been estimated at an average of EUR 400 per person and allows 6 meetings (twice a year) during the iCar project term. Members of the group will receive no remuneration for their duties.

3. eSafety Implementation Toolbox The eSafety Implementation toolbox is a specific tool to be used by the observers to support the take up of eSafety technologies and to facilitate the realization of the eSafety objectives. This tool is available through the iCar Support website. An “Exchange Best Practices” knowledge based platform will be included in the toolbox, where every country will report on their best practices for the implementation of the different eSafety and Intelligent Car applications. Member States who are leading in terms of ITS Infrastructure and available eSafety applications will also contribute to the formulation of implementation guidelines to be available, through the toolbox, to help other member states to deploy ITS technologies faster.

4. Confidentiality Information obtained by participating in the group's or sub-group's deliberations may not be divulged if the Commission says that this relates to confidential matters. Names of the Observers Group will be published on the iCar Support internet site. The final report of the observers Group will be published on the European Commission internet site.

Page 15 of 20

In line with the new eSafety Forum focus, the new recommendations address not only safety but also smart and clean mobility in Europe

Topic

Recommendation

1 Consolidate analyses from the existing EU, Member State and industry road accident data which give information on the cause and circumstances of the accidents, for allowing the determination of the most effective countermeasures, starting from the most frequent accident types. Accident Causation Data

Define a common format and structure for recording accident data in the EU countries. Develop jointly a European Accident Causation Database covering all EU and enlargement countries, and provide open access to industry and public agencies. Harmonisation of VIN number enabling the identification of vehicle safety systems installed and inclusion of VIN number or other safety system existence information in accident registration processes

Impact Assessment

Human-Machine Interaction

Page 16 of 20

Draft Minutes

Annex 5: New list of eSafety Recommendations

Implementation Road Maps

7 Identify requirement for specifications, and where necessary develop new specifications for pan-European, standardised interoperable interfaces and communications protocols for vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-infrastructure communications which will support interactive, co-operative mobility systems and services. 8 Pursue intercontinental co-operation in the development and deployment of cooperative mobility systems and services. The Recommendations serve as basis for the topics to be discussed at intercontinental level.

Cooperative Mobility systems and services 9

Page 17 of 20

Draft Minutes

Digital Map Database

Create suitable partnerships and mechanisms to produce, maintain, certify and distribute this digital road map data. They should be made available for all users at affordable prices (where possible free of charge). National, local and regional authorities and operators should provide the above data on road configurations within their networks, with target dates for implementation. 13

In vehicle 112 emergency calls (eCall) 14

Real-Time Traffic and Travel Information

Develop, test and deploy RTTI services using cooperative mobility systems

16 a) Assess the need of adapting the relevant legal frameworks (e.g. Vienna convention) to deal with the road mobility improvements obtainable with safe, smart and clean systems in vehicles.

Legal issues for testing and deployment

Standardisation and certification

Page 18 of 20

Draft Minutes

ICT Deployment

19 Spectrum allocation

Work towards ICT deployment in transport through partnerships on European large scale actions by organizing large scale test-beds in cooperation with demand and supply stakeholders and in line with the ITS Directive, in which solutions to existing societal challenges are taken through the innovation chain in a continuous programmatic approach of a sufficient scale and duration a) Identify spectrum allocation needs and take necessary actions for a sufficient spectrum allocation for safe, smart and clean systems and services b) Support the worldwide harmonisation of spectrum allocation

20 a) Design and execute awareness campaigns which explain the benefits, functioning and use of safe, smart and clean mobility systems and services to the stakeholders. b) Investigate the possibility to use marketing as well as fiscal/financial incentives to stimulate and support consumers’ demand of intelligent road applications and use of safe, smart and clean mobility services.

Stimulate demand and use

This support should target especially the buyers who choose to equip their vehicles with co-operative systems, thus helping to create an initial market demand for safe, smart and clean mobility services advanced co-operative systems in particular. 21

Business Model

Investigate, facilitate and support the usage of after market/nomadic devices for large scale deployment of safe, smart and clean mobility applications and services

After market devices Preparation and updating of the Strategic Research Agenda on ICT for Safe, Smart and Clean Mobility

Page 19 of 20

Draft Minutes

Initiate and follow-up of deployment of ICT measures for energy efficiency and ICT for electric vehicles (EV)

Investigate the most suitable safe, smart and clean mobility services and applications for the VRU

ICT for EE in transport

Vulnerable Road Users

Page 20 of 20

Draft Minutes

Terms of Reference eSafety Observers Network

Table of Contents 1.

Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

1.1.

Definition ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.

Objectives of the Group ................................................................................................................................. 2

Organizational Aspects....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.

Structure ........................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.2.

Operation ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3.

National Observers ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.4.

Roles and responsibilities of eSafety Observers Network ............................................................................. 3

2.4.1

Deliverables list .......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.5.

Meetings ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.4.2

Meeting Expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2.6.

eSafety Implementation Toolbox................................................................................................................... 5

2.7.

Confidentiality ................................................................................................................................................ 6

iCar Support office - Avenue Louise 326, 1050, Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 00 - www.icarsupport.eu

Terms of Reference eSafety Observers Network 1. Background iCar Support is a 36 month Specific Support Action with the objective to support the implementation of actions and recommendations resulting from the work of the eSafety Forum and the Intelligent Car Initiative. This includes support to the eSafety Forum and its constituencies, including its Working Groups and Task Forces, strengthening the eSafety cooperation among stakeholders, support the development of the Implementation Road Map for all eSafety systems, contribute to the implementation process of the European eCall system by promoting the eCall toolbox and by supporting the European eCall Implementation Platform, support the i2010 initiative in particular the activities dealing with user outreach and deployment of smarter, safer and cleaner vehicles in the future, launch minor studies on topics identified and endorsed by the eSafety Forum. In order to strengthen the eSafety cooperation and support the dialogue between all eSafety stakeholders and in particular the national Member States related activities, the eSafety Observers Network was created under the eSafety forum. The focus of this Network is to: • • •

1.1.

Definition

1.2.

Objectives of the Group

• • •

2. Organizational Aspects 2.1.

Structure

•

The proposed structure for the eSafety Observers Network consists of a chairperson, which will be within the European Commission, the national Observers, as specified in section 2.3, and the secretariat (iCar Support coordinator).

•

Any change to the chairperson and/or points of contact should be communicated to the secretariat.

2.2.

Operation

2.3.

National Observers

The eSafety National Observers consist of: a) one eSafety expert appointed by each Member State. The eSafety expert can appoint an alternative representative as a secondary observer. and/or b) one member appointed by each National ITS Association. Each National ITS Association representative can appoint an alternative representative as a secondary observer.

2.4. •

Roles and responsibilities of eSafety Observers Network

Observers from each Member State (national expert and/or ITS national) will act as contact body for liaison, coordination and dissemination with the local eSafety activities including links to road authorities and industry.

iCar Support office - Avenue Louise 326, 1050, Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 00 - www.icarsupport.eu

•

Members who are no longer able to contribute effectively to the group’s deliberations or who resign may be replaced for the remaining period.

•

Observers should disseminate information and report those on an annual basis (Newsletter, press release, eSafety Implementation toolbox) broadly to the iCar Support through communication channels

•

Observers could be consulted on specific contributions to Framework programs, action plans etc or other documentation deemed important by the European Commission or / the eSafety Steering Committee.

2.4.1 Deliverables list Deliverables D.ToR_National Activity D_ToR_Recommendations

iCar Support office - Avenue Louise 326, 1050, Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 00 - www.icarsupport.eu

Date M12, M24, M36 M12, M24, M36

2.5.

Meetings

•

Meetings will take place on a regular basis once or twice per year or as required by the European Commission.

•

If deemed important, regional meetings could also take place around Europe and give the opportunity to two or more countries to meet and report on the latest eSafety developments in their countries.

2.4.2 Meeting Expenses •

The European Commission through iCar Support will reimburse travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the eSafety Observers representing the EU Member States.

•

2.6.

eSafety Implementation Toolbox

The eSafety Implementation toolbox is a specific tool to be used by the observers to support the take up of eSafety technologies and to facilitate the realization of the eSafety objectives. This tool is available through the iCar Support website. An “Exchange Best Practices” knowledge based platform will be included in the toolbox, where every country will report on their best practices for the implementation of the different eSafety and Intelligent Car applications. Member States who are leading in terms of ITS Infrastructure and available eSafety applications will also contribute to the formulation of implementation guidelines to be available, through the toolbox, to help other member states to deploy ITS technologies faster. iCar Support office - Avenue Louise 326, 1050, Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 00 - www.icarsupport.eu

2.7.

Confidentiality

Information obtained by participating in the group's or sub-group's deliberations may not be divulged if the Commission says that this relates to confidential matters. Names of the Observers Group will be published on the iCar Support internet site. The final report of the observers Group will be published on the European Commission internet site.

iCar Support office - Avenue Louise 326, 1050, Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 400 07 00 - www.icarsupport.eu

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

European eCall Implementation Platform 3rd Meeting Brussels, 01/10/2009

Draft Minutes 1.

Welcome and Opening Remarks

The chair, H. Meyer welcomed the participants and founding encouraging that the meeting attracts so many people. The chair reminded that the two previous meeting were very successful, and highlighted the three main reasons, why this meeting was important: 1.

It will show the progress of the task forces.

The Commission just published a Communication clarifying the status of the initiative

The Core Standards have been agreed.

The chair reminded that the Platform's objective is to progress, give the last push, on the implementation of a pan-European eCall in Europe following the agreements achieved previously in the different fora. He stated that the platform is not organised to discuss again the principles, that the stakeholders cannot go back and should not re-discuss the architecture. In that sense, new members willing to work towards the harmonized introduction of an interoperable eCall service working in all Europe are welcome. Anu Laurell, (Finland), co-chair of the Platform also welcomed the meeting participants, and stated that Finland welcomes the communication from the EC and is ready to go ahead. She underlined that it is important to overcome the delays. 1.1 Approval of the agenda and the minutes of previous meeting Two changes in the agenda were proposed and accepted: • Reducing the time for the eCall Summit discussion and allocate more to the task forces and the standardisation. • The eCall situation in Germany will be given at the end of the meeting by Mirjam Heider on behalf of the German Ministry of Transport. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

Page 1 of 8

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

The chair welcomed in particular new representatives of national platforms that participate for the first time, like Ireland. Mr. James, Irish DoT, thanked the Platform for the invitation to join the meeting. He explained that Ireland has not signed the MoU, and that Ireland is reviewing the situation. In particular Ireland is interested in the Impact Assessment studies. The chair also welcomed representatives of AMICE, the Association of Mutual Insurers and Insurance Cooperative in Europe, and Eurosmart, the association representing the Smart Security Industry and the SIM card and silicon providers. Mrs. Coline Lavorel (Eurosmart) thanked for the invitation and expressed the interest of the association to consider the signature of the MoU and to draft a position paper, including recommendation on the level of security regarding the SIM card. 2. EC Communication "eCall: Time for Deployment" Emilio Davila (EC – DG INFSO) presented the Communication (see slides) highlighting that it is now time for deployment. ED concluded by saying that the eCall is a major measure that could lead in short term to improvements in road safety, the technology is ready and mature, and so it is time to implement the system. He repeated that if the voluntary approach would not work, the EC would be ready to take regulatory measures. He explained that the Communication has been presented to the Council, and only the Netherlands (concerning the short time to decide on the regulatory measures) and France (due to concerns on non availability of the eCall flag and possibility for Member States to support private services instead of the pan-European eCall) made questions about it. Regarding the short delay, it is due to the fact that the eCall initiative has been active since several years now. Regarding the French concerns, ED explained that GSM Association has signed the MoU, committing to support eCall. On the issue of Member States supporting only proprietary solutions, this would go against the continuity of the service throughout the whole EU, as a car equipped with the pan-European 112 based eCall would not be supported in those MS only supporting private service. ED gave the example of 112, which is supported by all MS, while some of them also support national numbers (i.e., 15, 17, 18, 100, 101, etc.) to show that member states can support the private solutions if they wish so, but have to support the pan-European eCall. JAMA asked about the meaning of "significant progress". ED answered that the Commission wants to see clear commitment from the industry and the Member States on the implementation of the eCall service in all the vehicles, which is not the case at the moment. Mr. Urbanek (CZ) expressed that he cannot agree to the message of the Communication in the sense that the EC is assuming that it has done its share of the work, whereas the Member Sates have not. Czech Republic has been and is still working on the eCall, but considers that there is still work to be done to achieve deployment of a solution. ED answered that the Commission considers that now the standardisation organisations have successfully provided the necessary standards, and supports the start of the pre-deployment pilots phase. He stated that the Commission does not consider that all Member States have not done their job, agreeing that Czech Republic is well in advance on the eCall, having made the necessary pilot and planning its deployment. But some other Member States are lagging behind and should work with their PSAPs on the introduction of the eCall. The Chair supported the view of the Commission.

Page 2 of 8

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

Wolfgang Reinhardt from ACEA, commented that the deadline of 2009 does not mean that the service will be ready by the end of the year, as the industry needs 3 years lead time to implement it. This will allow the Member States the time to work on the upgrade of the PSAPs as well. Therefore he underlined that all the stakeholders should follow the same dead-line and further delays might make eCall not feasible. UK asked what would be the criteria used by EC to asses the significant progress. UK raised as well the issue of the cost and benefits analysis. ED answered that Commission will look into the commitment all stakeholders to deploy eCall in all the vehicles. On the other hand the Commission could not wait for the formal approval of the last standard to launch the predeployment pilots, parallel activities are needed. The Commission is expecting the MS to show clear commitment, e.g., through participation in pre-deployment pilots, avoiding further delays. ED mentioned that the cost analysis would be discussed later.

3. Study on the impact of eCall introduction ED presented the outline of the study: main objective (to assess impact of the eCall introduction), methodology (in-depth analysis in four countries and extrapolation using clusters), and data to be based (thorough analysis of accidents following AINO approach). The study also addresses liability and legal issues. The first version of the final report was delivered in August 2009, but there are still issues to revise. The report provides new data for the cost-benefit analysis, but unfortunately the main conclusions are based on estimations, and the study recommends analysing sufficient sample of accidents in the different countries in order to extract positive conclusions. ED mentioned that based on this and other existing studies, the Commission will elaborate its own impact assessment. Jan Malenstein (NL) reacted about the results of the study. They stated that a cost-benefits analysis has been done in The Netherlands, and that an approximate cost of 200,000 € was estimated for PSAPs' upgrade to handle eCalls. Egil Bovim (NO) congratulated the EC for the study. EB stated that in their opinion the reduction of severity of injuries would give the best benefits. The cost of treating people that survived the crash needs to be considered, and asked if it had been the case. ED answered that the study tried to include it, but it is very difficult to find a common approach in the statistics and definition in all the MS. ED mentioned also the point of introducing the eCall in the Powered Two Wheel vehicles (PTW) would also provide significant benefits, not quantified yet in most of the studies. He stated that in the end, the cost benefit ratio is positive. UK thanked the EC for the report, and mentioned that UK waits for the report before reconsidering its position regarding to the signature of the MoU. The Chair recommended National Platforms to have a close look at the report and send the feedbacks to the EC. Robindhra Mangtani (GSMA) asked where the liability of the system stands. He stated that if the liability should stand on mobile operators' side, then a regulation about the coverage of the network would have to be made. ED answered that it will be the same scheme as with the 112 calls. One conclusion of the study was that the coverage should be increased in the regions where many road accidents are reported.

Page 3 of 8

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

ACEA asked for clarification on the case of no deployment of the airbag (side collision, fall into water, airbag switched off by the customer). WR stated that it is important that the responsibility of car manufacturers should not be engaged in these cases. ED answered that the user has to be well informed, and the stakeholders adopt reasonable efforts. At the end, the liability will be clarified by the national judges. Ireland thanked the EC for the impact assessment, and asked if the study took into account previous studies. ED answered that it did, and confirmed that all available data were provided to the consortium. The Commission will appreciate receive further data from any other studies. 4.

Tasks Forces Activities

4.1- PILO Monica Schettino (eSafetySupport) and Eva Boethius (EC) presented information on CIP funding mechanism for Pilots A (see slides). Pilots A are not research projects or proof of concepts, but pre-deployment pilots, the first stage toward deployment of the eCall service. The Chair asked participants to express interest. Vladimir Kruchkov from ITS Russia declared that eCall would be their first priority in the next years, and that ITS Russia would be interested in participating in pilots. The participants asked for more information, including final deadline for presentation of pilot's elements. MS answered that there is no real dead-line for the presentation, as the call for proposals will be open beginning of 2010, but the sooner the better to understand how the pilots should look like (i.e., by the end of the year). Chair agreed that one challenge of the pilots would be their complexity, and therefore they should start being prepared as early as possible. The level of 6 MS participating has to be reached; otherwise the pilots cannot go ahead. The 3 new interests were stated from Russia, Spain and the Netherlands. Co-chair confirmed that Finland is still interested, that actions are on-going there, and that Finnish companies are interested in the retrofitting business model. Actions:

M. Schettino will send a fiche to all national platforms and call for a meeting in December

National Platform to express their interest to M. Schettino

4.2- GUIDE ED presented the proposed Table of contents (see slide), asking for comments. Chair called for volunteers. Norway thanked for the work and asked to speed up the process. Guidelines should be completed as soon as possible. GSMA asked if the document would be the right one to insert privacy and liability issues. ED answered that horizontal issues could be included, although it will be difficult to provide a final answer. Chair asked the audience if other issues were to be dealt in the document. Finland would like to see a roadmap. EC agreed on UK's request to include the road authorities in the guidelines. Austria volunteered to write this part of the document. Germany asked to include the ITS Action Plan. The document will be discussed in the next meeting. ED made clear that the EC was expecting some contributions from the different stakeholders to the different chapters. Contributions will have to be sent to MS or ED.

Page 4 of 8

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

Actions:

1.- ED and MS to progress with the drafting of the document and circulate a draft to the EeIP members asap. 2.- All to contribute/comment the draft document

4.3 - PSAP-RO Marco Jandrisits (Asfinag) presented the work of the task force (see slides). RM (GSMA) asked where lies the responsibility in terms of road safety. MJ said that Police has the overall responsibility, but road operators are also involved. Jan Van Hatten (NL-RWS) stated that the dangerous goods monitoring is missing in the document. ACEA stated that the market share of airbags for trucks is lower than for personal cars. He also mentioned that it may be difficult to send the information on goods via the data connection. 4.4 – VIN Jean-François Gaillet presented the status of the task force (see slides). ACEA supported the scenario 4, cooperation with EUCARIS network, as a cheaper and exixting solution and stating that there was no need for new databases. Asked by the chair, the delegates agreed to support the scenario 4. Action:

JFG to liaise with EUCARIS network to assess the possibility of using it to provide VIN information to the eCall service.

4.5- CROSS – Cross-Border issues Egil Bovim gave a quick update on the side effects of eCall at borders (see slide). According to EB, the issue of emergency calls crossing borders is solved via bilateral agreements, and not through European measures. EB reminded that 15 October is the deadline to send him contributions to this issue. Even if in his opinion the solutions have to be found in bilateral approach, good practices could be useful to be shared. GSMA could be included. Finland apologized for not having given answers and explained that they were working on the issue. Action:

All to provide input to Egil Bovim on cross-border issues.

4.6- CAMP Awareness Campaign Jacob Bangsgaard (FIA) presented the status of the task force (see slides). The Chair thanked the team of eSafety Aware. ACEA expressed the opinion that considering the delay of 3 years that the industry would need from the development point of view, raising awareness is not needed so early. 4.7- INC – Incentives Wolfgang Reinhardt presented the draft document. WR concludes that the responsibility is shared among the stakeholders, but the Member States play a key role. WR mentioned that the fiscal incentives might be around 200-250 € net and could concern both private and

Page 5 of 8

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

public solutions. WR highlighted that the issue of data protection and privacy should also be carefully taken into account. RM (GSMA) commented on the presentation, and argued that the implementation of the eCall should not be dependant on the subsidies. WR answered that the automotive OEMs will not get money for this, and that citizens should be helped to pay for their safety. The chair refocused the debate saying that the objective of this working group was to see how and where incentives could be useful, and which incentives were possible. UK asked to see the figures summed up somewhere. The business model is still not clear. HM summed up and stated that this group needs more work, and also needs to involve other stakeholders. 4.8 - OPEN – Use of eCall Open Platform to provide added value services Charles Cappelleman (ARC Europe) presented the status of the task force (see slides). Chair asked for volunteers to join the task force. 4.9 - DISC – eCall Flag RM (GSMA) described briefly what the eCall flag is. He mentioned that the discriminator would be implemented differently by every mobile network operator according to their networks. The chair thanked GSMA for the signature of the MoU. ED asked more details on how the eCall flag would be implemented. The voice call will arrive anyway, but the question is how to send the data to the right PSAPs. RM answered that to implement the eCall, an operator can use the release 8 of the software, standardized in December 2008. Other solutions are possible but complicated. GSMA cannot explain how the different operators will implement it, it is depending on every operator. John Watson gave also some details on the eCall flag and its role to distinguish usual 112 calls from mobile phones from eCalls. ED asked whether mobile network operators are ready to participate in the predeployment pilots. RM said that they would need to know where and when the pilot will take place to make sure that the eCall flag will be implemented. RM insisted on the fact that it would be really dependant on when the operator can switch to release 8, which is unlikely to happen very soon since the standard was made available in December 08, although some patches could be implemented. But if the PSAPs are to be ready in a time scale of 3 years, the operators can be ready on time. UK asked if the interoperability between the different versions of network, for instance if a 3G connected car will be operable with a 4G network. RM mentioned that mobile networks operators have always ensured backward compatibility. G. Machado (EENA) inquired whether mobile network operators would ask provision to the PSAPs as they did in some cases for E112. 4.10 - EXCH – Exchange of best practices

Page 6 of 8

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

M. Schettino presented the task force, and stated that they got contribution from Czech Rep, Finland and the Netherlands. The Chair encouraged the members of the platform to forward best practices.

5. Status of Standardisation Activities Marc Werner (Qualcomm) presented the status of the standardization activities in ETS and 3GPP on behalf of the ETSI-MSG chair, Esa Barack, who apologized for not being able to participate (see slides). Most of the activities have been completed. J. Watson (Airbiquity) reported on the CEN activities on behalf of the convenor of CEN TC 278 WG15, Bob Williams, who apologized for not being able to participate (see slides). A lot of progress has been done, and standards are to be agreed and sent to ballot in next meeting. ED mentioned that it is necessary that PSAPs comment on the Third Party Supported eCall (TPS-eCall) as PSAPs have not been consulted yet on it, but the group has not produced a stable version, and asked the convenor, Mr. B. Flury-Herard (France) when the document will be ready. France stated that BW as chair had to be asked, as he is only the editor. ED asked for a price scale regarding the server at PSAP side. John Watson said that giving an indication of costs to the PSAPs would be difficult as it depends on the number of calls, but Airbiquity would be glad to provide further information on individual basis. Marc Werner said that the computing costs are low, and that it should not be a problem from the capacity and memory side. ACEA asked if the described standards are the last ones and if they will be approved. JW answered that the standards are stable. MW mentioned the regarding ETSI they are part of last frozen Release 8.

6. Use of VIN to provide emergency specific vehicle information – ADAC Johann Grill (ADAC) presented the issue of extracting people from crashed cars, which is even more difficult in the new models. He highlighted that knowing the exact type of car and the information related to it concerning the cutting and extracting procedures would allow the firemen to save a lot of time and thus reduce the fatality and the severity of injuries. JG mentioned that according to an ADAC study the time could be reduced by a factor 6. If the exact type of the car, through the VIN number, could be sent with the eCall, then it will save time not only in the alarm sending phase, but also in the freeing phase. The Netherlands mentioned that a solution to this problem exists in the Netherlands and in Madrid. JG answered that this solution is known, but would not be legal in Germany because the government would not allow giving the relevant data from a commercial application. 7. Contribution of the EeIP to the eCall Summit Invitations to participate in the eCall Summit of 29th October will be sent to members of EeIP. 8. eCall situation in Germany Mirjam Heider presented the situation of the eCall for Germany on behalf of the German Ministry of Transport. She described the current status of PSAPs, initiatives and implementation platforms (see slides). Different configuration of eCall PSAPs (e.g., direct Page 7 of 8

Minutes of the3rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 1 October 2009 ________________________________________________________________________________________

reception of eCalls, intermediate filtering PSAP for eCall) are being considered by the Federal Ministry and the lander. Germany is planning to make pilots to assess the best option. The chair thanks the useful exchange of information and underlined the benefiting role of running a pilot. 9. Closing of the meeting Mr. Bernard Flury-Herard (France) asked the floor to present the French position. He stated that France was supporting very much the eCall service, and is implementing the private version, which equips already 600 000 vehicles. However, he mentioned two main difficulties in the implementation of the public version based on 112 in France: • First, the French PSAPs are equipped with automatic answering machines, which are incompatible with the eCall in-band modem solution. • Moreover, if the PSAPs were to be equipped with a modem, it could delay the usual 112 calls up to 5 seconds, which would not be acceptable. Therefore, BFH stated that France would back the pan-European solution of eCall when the eCall discriminator will be working on the networks. The Chair thanked the delegates and especially the task force leaders, reminding that all have common goals. Juhani Jääskeläinen (EC – Head of Unit DG INFSO G4) thanked H. Mayer for chairing the meeting. He mentioned that there some remaining issues that have to be solved, and the EeIP is the right place for such discussions. He highlighted the importance of the pilot. He said that the Commission in the next eCall Summit wants to pass the message to decision makers and citizens that the pan-European eCall service will be soon a reality. It was agreed by the delegates that the next meeting will be held in February. In the meantime the Task Forces and the Steering Committee will continue their activities. The meeting closed at 17h10.

Page 8 of 8

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

European eCall Implementation Platform Fourth Meeting European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Brussels 25 February 2010 • 10h30 – 17h00

Draft Minutes Chair:

H. Meyer, ERTICO

Vice-chair: A. Laurell, Ministry of Transport & Communication, Finland Morning Session 1. Welcome speech from the EESC The chairman, H. Meyer (ERTICO), thanked EESC for hosting the meeting reminding the importance of the EESC among the EU institutions. Mr Ranocchiari, representing the EESC, welcomed the participants and provided a brief overview of the EESC, where 340 representatives from all EU Member States (MSs) are representing civil society. The EESC provided an Opinion to the Directive on ITS, fully supporting the deployment of eCall. Main points were: -

Rolling out eCall requires close cooperation between all stakeholders, namely vehicle manufactures, Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and MSs The voluntary approach has not been sufficient. Car manufacturers are in favour of eCall implementation, provided that the MSs are supporting the initiative properly. The mandatory introduction of eCall is the next step, but the regulatory measures should concern all the parties involved, not only car manufacturers. MSs should also be obliged to upgrade their infrastructure.

Mr Ranocchiari concluded stating that there is no reason to delay the saving of 2500 lives per year and the EeIP is the right forum to build up the necessary consensus. The main strength of EESC is bringing together all the parties and building consensus. The EESC is glad to assist EeIP in this task. 2. Opening remarks The chairman presented the objectives of the meeting and the agenda items.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

A. Laurell (FI), vice-chair of the EeIP, highlighted the importance of the involvement of the MSs in the eCall implementation. She presented the latest progress on eCall in Finland. eCall is considered one of the main priorities of Finland strategy for Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). All the pending administrative decisions on eCall will probably be finalised by 2011. She also underlined the fundamental importance of the eCall Roadmap. J. Jääskeläinen (EC), Head of INFSO ICT for Transport Unit, thanked the EESC on behalf of the European Commission (EC) for hosting the meeting and for the support to the eCall initiative. With the support of the new Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, DG INFSO will work in close cooperation with the other relevant services of the EC, namely DG ENTR and DG MOVE. Siim Kallas is the new Commissioner for the DG for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), which is now independent from DG Energy. Antonio Tajani, the new Commissioner for DG ENTR, knows very well the eCall initiative, as he was the former Commissioner for Transport. J. Jääskeläinen explained that as significant progress has not been achieved since the last Communication on eCall, the Commission will propose three regulatory initiatives, one concerning the In-Vehicle System (IVS), one regarding the PSAPs and one addressing the MNOs. Concerning the "Third Party Supported eCall" (TPS), J. Jääskeläinen said that the EC is certainly not against it, as it represents a commercial solution. However TPS shall not be considered an alternative to the pan-European eCall based on 112. He also underlined that there is no special link between Added Value Services (AVS) and TPS. Both eCall and TPS provide a valid platform for the deployment of AVS. The agenda and the minutes of the 3rd EeIP were approved with no changes. 3. Status of eCall deployment in Europe 3.1. Conclusions of the eCall Summit of 29/10/2009 E. Dávila (EC – DG INFSO) reported about the eCall Summit. The meeting was structured around 3 Round Tables, which reached the following conclusions: - Implementation of the In-Vehicle part: the technology is ready and the stakeholders are ready to start with pilots. After-market solutions are also foreseen to appear in the market. - Implementation of the Telecom part: MNOs are ready to take part in the pilots; the eCall related standards are stable and will be ready for the pilots. The eCall flag can be implemented in 1-2 years time. - Implementation of the PSAPs part: eCall has a high potential also for incident management, which represent a significant added value for Public Saety Answering Points (PSAPs). Many MSs are ready for pre-deployment pilots. Main conclusions:

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

Cooperation among different DGs (ENTR, INFSO, MOVE) is in place, and the cooperation among stakeholders is also needed in parallel. eCall technology and standards are ready, and the pre-deployment pilots are rising general interest among stakeholders. eCall offers a triple win solution: saving lives, enhancing telematics kick off and upgrading PSAPs. 3.2. Legislative proposals

E. Dávila explained that the mandatory introduction of eCall will be implemented through three legislative initiatives: - A Recommendation to the MSs targeting MNOs for the implementation of the eCall flag, led by DG INFSO, planned to be adopted by the end of 2010. - A proposal for a Regulation under the vehicle type-approval legislation for the mandatory introduction of the IVS, foreseen for the beginning of 2011 under the lead of DG ENTR. - The upgrading of the PSAPs infrastructure will be addressed in the framework of the proposed Directive on the deployment of ITS in Europe, under the lead of DG MOVE. Common specifications are planned to be adopted by the Commission for the beginning of 2011. The eCall impact assessment is currently being conducted, as required by the EC policy for all the legislative initiatives. 3.3. eCall MoU status E. Davila informed about the number of signatories of the eCall Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). More countries have declared their will to sign the MoU. A signature event will take place in Brussels on the 4th May 2010, during the eCall awareness day in the Berlaymont esplanade. 3.4. CIP call open for funding Pre-deployment Pilots E. Davila (EC) described the details of the CIP funding for the eCall pre-deployment pilots based on 112. The pilots aim to prepare the deployment of the necessary infrastructure in view of the full eCall implementation, including the upgrade of the PSAPs infrastructure. The pilot is foreseen to be followed by the full implementation of eCall. (See presentation – EEIP10-04-01 for more details) Questions/comments from participants: S. Sopp (UK) asked if a vehicle equipped with TPS-eCall will be anyway required to have eCall.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

E. Davila replied that the TPS eCall should provide a service equivalent to the panEuropean eCall, including the availability of the service across all MSs. If this is not the case, the IVS should automatically switch to the eCall in those MSs, where the TPS service is not available. The EC foresees a migration of the TPS to the panEuropean eCall, as currently the TPS is not provided as standalone service, but as a bundle of services and there is no profit from the TPS eCall. R. Mangtani (GSMA) asked clarification on the Impact Assessment (IA) timing and its scope. E. Davila replied that activities for the IA have already started and it is planned to be finalised by October 2010. The scope if the IA is to consider the cost-benefit analysis and the socio-economic costs in view of the eCall introduction. Stakeholders' contributions to the IA are welcome and would be appreciated. J. Ullrich (DE) asked information on the mandatory introduction of the eCall flag. E. Davila replied that the eCall indicator was created to minimise the impact on the PSAPs. The organisation of the PSAPs is left to the MSs. The Recommendation is aiming at the mandatory introduction of the eCall flag in the mobile operators' networks. K. Kousoulides (CY) asked what the eCall requirements for the PSAPs are. E. Davila replied that the operational requirements for the PSAPs are specified in the CEN standards. J. Caffrey (IE) asked clarification on handling the cost of eCall. E. Davila replied that the EC does not enter into cost details, but it is foresees that there will be no cost for the users and limited costs for the PSAPs (upgrading cost, i.e.: in-band modem server) J. Malenstein (NL) commented that the foreseen cost for PSAPs implementing eCall is marginal, as the cost for the technical equipment is around 10% of the total PSAPs costs in general. 3.5. Adoption of ITS Directive G. Carabin (EC – DG MOVE) presented the current status and the planned developments of the ITS Action Plan and the ITS Directive proposal (see EEIP10-0403). He described the general objectives of the initiative and the priority areas of the action plan, which include the introduction of eCall. Also the ITS Directive proposal includes the "harmonised provision for an interoperable EU-wide eCall" among the priority actions. Given the pending issues of the adaptation to the Lisbon Treaty provisions and the outstanding horizontal issues, the Directive is expected to be adopted in spring 2010. Questions/comments from participants: J. Urbanek (CZ) asked which legislation initiatives will make eCall implementation mandatory.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

J. Jääskeläinen explained that there are three legislative initiatives on eCall. The ITS directive is covering mainly the PSAPs part. MSs will not be obliged to implement eCall at a first stage, but if they decide to implement it, they have to comply with the relevant legislation. R. Mangtani (GSMA) asked clarification on the spectrum requirements and allocation for ITS. E. Davila replied that 30 MHz in the 5.9 GHz band have already been allocated for V2V and V2I safety related applications. D. Dumitrescu (RO) asked more details on the ITS Directive adoption procedure and the length of the delegating power to the EC G. Carabin replied that the EC will receive the delegating power for the adoption of the specifications. However a plan for the mandatory deployment of eCall will be done through the co-decision procedure at a second stage. J. Jääskeläinen added that, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the comitology procedure does not exist anymore and the delegation of power to the EC is being used for the first time. Therefore there is not yet a sharp estimate of the length of the delegating power. J-F.Gaillet (Ygomi Europe) asked clarification on the task allocation between DG MOVE and DG ENTR. E. León (EC) replied that the IVS part is under the responsibility of DG ENTR. Initiatives and proposals will be presented to the motor vehicle working group. Then if the impact assessment is fully positive, regulatory measures will follow.

3.6. Standardisation Activities ETSI N. Sampson (FranceTelecom-Orange, vice-chair of the ETSI-MSG) provided an update on the standardization activities on eCall carried out within ETSI and 3GPP. (see EeIP10-04-04) CEN E. Davila explained the presentation of B. Williams (convenor of CEN TC 278 WG15), who apologised for not attending the meeting. (See EeIP10-04-05-1) The eCall standards open for ballot on the 18th February 2010 by the CEN278 WG15 were briefly presented. The end of ballot period is foreseen for summer 2010. E. Davila invited all participants to take a copy of the standards and relevant MSs to participate to the ballot through their national standardisation committees. There are some controversial issues on the TPS standard, probably due to the lack of involvement by PSAPs and MNOs. The TPS standard is voluntary and shall not be considered as an alternative to the pan-European eCall. CEN is now starting to discuss the eCall for vehicles other than light vehicles (HGV, Powered 2 wheeled, etc.) and additional possible working items (Full Set of Data, Use of Satellite communications, etc.)

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

These items will be discussed to an open meeting of CEN TC278 WG15 that will take place in Trieste on 12/13 April 2010. All participants are invited to attend the meeting. Questions/comments from participants: Mr Urbanek (CZ) asked clarification on the eCall flag approval by 3GPP. N. Sampson (ETSI-MSG) replied that the eCall flag set-up by the IVS and sent to the MNO was approved by 3GPP and ETSI, but there was additional investigation on the possibility of using bearer carrier as alternative end-to-end indicator, but it was decided that the eCall flag was enough. E. Dávila clarified that this issue was re-opened following a request of the French government representatives, because French PSAPs are not well equipped and may have problems with the costs of upgrading all the PSAPs posts. The eCall flag combined with a separate phone line can solve this problem. M. Werner (Qualcomm) added that the solution of the "IVS initiating signalling", which is sent to the PSAPs by the IVS as soon as the call is established, can be used as temporary solutions until the eCall flag is fully implemented. 3.7. Progress with Member States Denmark and Latvia, participating for the first time to the EeIP, were welcomed by the Chair. D. Caune (LV) announced that LV considers the high value of eCall in the framework of single emergency number. The eCall MoU ha already been sent to the Cabinet of Ministers and the signature is foreseen within 3 months. M. Hellung-Larsen (DK) stated that, according to the Minister last declaration, DK is ready to sign the eCall MoU. Stakeholders' consultation is on-going. J. Caffrey (IE) stated that IE supports the legislative approach on eCall and its mandatory introduction, following the stakeholder consultation. 4. Report on the progress of the different task forces 4.1. GUID (Guidelines) M. Schettino (iCar Support) presented the first draft of the Guidelines (EeIP10-04-TF02, distributed), and invited the participants to provide comments to the document by the end of March 2010 (comments to be sent by email to M. Schettino). E. Davila (EC) explained that the purpose of the Guidelines is to foster building consensus and put together all useful contributions by the stakeholders. This first draft of the Guidelines does not include any EC decision or official position. Action(s): - M. Schettino to send electronic version of the draft Guidelines to all participants - All participants to send comments to M. Schettino by the 31st March 2010

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

4.2. PILO (Design of European Pilots) M. Schettino presented the results of the PILO meetings which were held in January 2010 (see EeIP10-04-TF-04), the objectives and organisation proposed. The pilots will be led by MSs. Participating partners and stakeholders at national level will be selected by each MS. The pilots' results will be shared with other MSs and stakeholders. According to the project draft planning, the pilots A will last 36 months, with execution and operations starting in less than one year. 8 MSs have already confirmed their commitments to the project. Decision from NL and GR is still pending. Questions/comments from participants: J. Wibaut (ACEA-GM Europe) asked when the 36 months period is foreseen to start. M. Schettino (ERTICO) replied that the 36 months will start after the evaluation, negotiation and contractual procedures will be completed (end of 2010 or beginning 2011). K. Kousoulides (CY) asked the criteria to participate to the pilot. E. Davila (EC) explained that the EC encourages a single pilot involving as many MSs as possible. M. Schettino (ERTICO) added that other MSs who intend to participate to the pilot, should express their interest by the end of March 2010. Action(s): - MSs intending to participate to the pilot, to send their expression of interest to M. Schettino by the 31st March 2010

4.3. PSAP-RO (Communication PSAPs – Road Operators) M. Jandrisits (ASECAP) described the scope; stakeholders and time-plan of the task force (see EeIP10-04-TF-05). The task force set up a questionnaire addressing the national eCall platforms and will appreciate to receive answers from the EeIP members. 20 road operators have already replied to the questionnaire. The outcome of the questionnaire will be finalised by the end of February 2010. Questions/comments from participants: Mr Urbanek (CZ) asked clarification on the timing of the questionnaire. M. Jandrisits (ASECAP) said that the deadline for the questionnaire will be extended to accommodate comments from EeIP members. D. Dumitrescu (RO) declared that RO would be ready to support the initiative, but they are not member of ASECAP and therefore did not receive the questionnaire. M. Jandrisits (ASECAP) explained that the decision to contact first the ASECAP members was considered the easiest, but this does not limit the participation of other organisations. Action(s): - EeIP national platforms members to reply to the questionnaire

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

- M. Jandrisits to present the results of the questionnaire in the 5th EeIP.

4.4. CROSS (Procedures for PSAP boundaries areas) E. Bovim (NO) explained (see EeIP10-04-TF-06) that cross-border PSAP cooperation is not an eCall issue only, but a 112 issue in general. The task force was created to find possible procedures and protocols to solve this solution. However, very few MSs provided feedback and showed interest in cross-country formal agreements. Given the results of the initiative, E. Bovim proposed to make this task force dormant. The proposal was unanimously approved. Action(s): - CROSS task force to be considered dormant. 4.5. VIN (Procedures for VIN decoder) J-F.Gaillet (Ygomi Europe) presented the outcome of the last VIN meeting, including the 4 possible scenarios evaluated (see EeIP10-04-TF-07). The TF has developed a questionnaire for MSs (National Platform leaders). The analysis of the responses and the feedback from the MSs will produce a final recommendation which will be delivered in the 2nd quarter of 2010. Questions/comments from participants: T. Terpstra (EENA) asked why the other 3 scenarios were excluded. J-F.Gaillet (Ygomi Europe) replied that the other scenarios involving OEMs were not supported by the industry and the scenario with commercial companies is still under discussion, not yet excluded. J. Malenstein (NE) commented that a scarce number of MSs have joined EUCARIS and this may create problems to the PSAPs. The retrieval of the data will not be done by the PSAPs, but by the emergency services to which the VIN is forwarded by the PSAPs. What will be the roll-out scenarios in this case? What is the guarantee that all PSAPs will be able to retrieve the data from EUCARIS? Solera solution might work well, but full coverage is not guaranteed. Moreover this solution comes from the insurance companies, not from the automotive industry and it is proprietary solution. J-F.Gaillet (Ygomi Europe) replied that the questionnaire includes questions asking for the opinion of the MSs and other possible solutions. Action(s): - MSs to provide feedback via the questionnaire - No further actions before the results of the questionnaires become available. No scenario will be excluded until then. 4.6. CAMP (Awareness campaigns) J. Bangsgaard (FIA) presented a list of planned National and European eSafety Awareness events aiming to raise awareness (see EeIP10-04-TF-08). Regarding eCall the campaign does not target for the moment end users (as eCall is not yet implemented) but it to raise political awareness, targeting decision makers.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

A study to define the potential eCall campaigns will be conducted in the period JuneDecember 2010. Questions/comments from participants: A. Laurell (FI) underlined the importance of timing. If during the awareness campaign the decision makers ask when the first car will be equipped with eCall, we need to provide the appropriate answer. Also for this I reason it is very important to have a Roadmap. E. Bovim (NO) commented that people are interested in eCall and we need to be ready to provide answers. Last week in Norway many national mass media asked more information on eCall. E. Davila (EC) suggested preparing an eCall "media package" that could be used by all concerned parties for dissemination. J. Malenstein (NE) asked information on the status of the SCVP video that was filmed in 2009 and included a part on eCall. E. Davila (EC) replied that the video is ready and should be broadcasted on television soon. Action(s): - eCall "Communication packages" to be prepared for future use. - EC to confirm when the SCVP video will be available.

4.7. INC (Possibility of using incentives) W. Reinhardt (ACEA) apologised for not being able to participate to the meeting. The presentation of the task force work was postponed. J. Wibaut (GM Europe) underlined the importance of the stakeholders' involvement in the task force which is fundamental for the conduction of the work.

4.8. OPEN (Using eCall Platform for other services) T. Strobl (ADAC) presented the work of the OPEN task force. (see EeIP10-04-TF-09) A questionnaire was distributed to private and public stakeholders (total 35) and 23 answers were received. The answers show a high interest in the possible use of the eCall platform and will drive the future work of the task force. Questions/comments from participants: A. Grososiu (RO) asked if private stakeholders have shown any will to participate financially to the eCall implementation. For instance insurance companies might be interested in the data.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

T. Strobl (ADAC) replied that the idea behind the questionnaire was simply to understand which stakeholders were interested in using the eCall platform and to which extent. H. Meyer (Chairman - ERTICO) suggested to start with the first steps and then evaluate the business cases in a later stage.

4.9. DISC (Implementation of eCall Discriminator) E. Davila (EC) reminded the idea behind this task force. The eCall discriminator is part of the Release 8 of the GSM standard, and MNOs have declared that it is feasible to be implemented, as well as suppliers. It was proposed to close the task force. The proposal was approved. Action(s): - DISC task force to be considered closed.

4.10.

PTI (Periodical Technical Inspection for eCall)

H. Evers (DE) presented a first proposal elaborated by German partners (TUEV, DEKRA) to define the possible scope of the PTI Task Force (see EeIP10-04-TF-10) Periodical inspections of eCall may be needed to ensure the operation of eCall. Next step will be to find the appropriate members to participate to the work. Volunteers are welcome. Questions/comments from participants: J. Wibaut (GM Europe) on the need and the frequency of PTI. H. Evers (DE) replied that the issue has been considered and the Task Force is looking forward to find the right solution. Action(s): - Volunteers for the PTI TF to contact the Secretariat/H. Evers. J. Urbanek (CZ) asked additional information on the status of all Task Forces. M. Schettino (ERTICO) presented a slide (see EeIP10-04-TF-03) explaining the current status of the all Task Forces. A table is maintained describing respective actions, responsibilities, members and status (on-going, dormant, closed, started or not-started). M. Schettino proposed to circulate this table to Platform Members for their follow-up. The Chairman thanked all the Task Forces teams for the valuable work and contribution to the EeIP. Action(s): - Secretariat to send all the presentations on the Task Forces to the participants.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Presentation of National eCall activities The Chairman explained that it was agreed to offer the National Platform the possibility to present their activities. In this occasion the Russian Federation proposed to present their activities. The Chair invited those who would like to present their activities in the next meeting to inform the Secretary. 5.1. Presentation by the Russian Federation V. Kryuchkov (RU) gave a brief overview of the project background. In Russia there were more than 250k injured and more than 36k deaths in the roads in 2008. These are much higher figures compared with the EU statistics. The ERA GLONASS project can be considered the eCall initiative in Russia. The initiative is supported by the Russian government and by concerned stakeholders (vehicle manufacturers, insurance companies, etc.). Russia is a very fast growing market and the potential of eCall is very high. Russians are aiming at liaising with the relevant European Standardisation Organisation to reach full interoperability between Russia and EU. A. Asafyev (JSC Navigation Information System) described the similarities and differences between ERA GLONASS and eCall. The major difference is that the ERA GLONASS platform will be used to offer added value services, and that is dedicated and not based on the 112 service. E. Meylikhov (JSC Navigation Information System) added additional information and details on the project. He mentioned that there is no 112 service currently available in Russia, but a unique emergency number should be available by the end of 2012. Testing activities are planned to start in 2011 and the system should be ready for full deployment by the end of 2012. (see EeIP10-04-06 for more details) Questions/comments from participants: H. Meyer (Chariman – ERTICO) mentioned that synchronisation and harmonisation are the key words. H. Evers (DE) asked further information on the accuracy of the ERA GLONASS positioning system. E. Meylikhov (JSC Navigation Information System) replied that the Russian proposal of using GLONASS and GPS will be integrated later with GALILEO when available. J. Malenstein (NE) asked if, given the size of the Russian territory, ERA GLONASS plans to use satellite communication. E. Meylikhov (JSC Navigation Information System) replied that satellite communications will be available only for special cases, such as dangerous heavy vehicle. For private cars, only GSM will be available. J. Wibaut (GM Europe) asked if there are opportunities for TPS in the Russian Federation.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

V. Kryuchkov (RU) replied that there is no regulation covering such service. The partnership with car manufacturers will create business cases for stakeholders (ex.: insurances companies lowering the prices) and benefits for the consumers. V. Kryuchkov (RU) asked if the Russian Federation can participate to the eCall pilot. E. Davila (EC) replied that, in the mutual interest, it is possible to participate to the pilot. However Russia will have to provide its part of financial contribution, as no EU funds will be available.

6. Presentation of Industry activities related to eCall The Chairman explained that it was agreed to offer also the industrial stakeholders the possibility to present their activities. In this occasion the activities of an in-band modem supplier (Qualcomm) were presented. The Chairman invited those who would like to present their activities in the next meeting to inform the Secretary. 6.1. Presentation by Qualcomm M. Werner (Qualcomm) underlined the active role of industry in the implementation of eCall. He then presented the recent activities of Qualcomm around eCall, including: - finalisation of 3GPP, CEN and ETSI standards - eCall modem currently integrated in two chipsets - selected services that can be offered using the eCall IVS module - in-band modem implementation in PSAPs equipments - the eCall demonstrator (see EeIP10-04-07-01 for more details) 6.2. Presentation by Ericsson E. Davila (EC) introduced the presentation sent by Ericsson representatives, who apologised for not being able to attend the meeting. Ericsson supplies products for PSAPs and MNOs (see EeIP10-04-07-01 for more details) E. Davila (EC) concluded inviting other industrial stakeholders to present their work/remarks in the context of eCall as Qualcomm and Ericsson did. 7. Roadmap for eCall implementation E. Davila (EC) presented the chart with a draft eCall implementation Roadmap, collecting all dates discussed.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

Questions/comments from participants: H. Meyer (Chairman – ERTICO) highlighted the need for Public Authorities, MNOs and vehicle manufactures to develop an eCall implementation roadmap within the context of the work of the eCall Implementation Platform. This was supported by the members of the Platform. J. Wibaut (GM Europe) asked clarification on the implication at MS level and on the eCall implementation plans for the 27 MSs, emphasizing that these are important information for the automotive industry. R. Mangtani (GSMA) suggested having a SG activity that coordinates the initiatives. E. Davila (EC) clarified that the last year of the pilot will be operational. Also, given that some MSs are late in the implementation, the eCall will anyway work as a normal 112 call. J. Ullrich (DE) recommended focusing on the mandatory actions in a given time, as it would not make much sense to ask for a mandatory eCall flag implementation to the MNOs in 2011 if the first calls of such type will happen in 2013. Yamakawa (JAMA) asked if the mandatory introduction of eCall is foreseen for the first or the second half of 2013 and what would be the lead time for the implementation. E. Davila (EC) and E. Leon (EC) replied that the date on the roadmap is still a simple indication. The impact assessment, which will involve the relevant stakeholders (including the vehicle industry), is still pending. There will be plenty of lead time because of the legislative procedure.

Minutes of the 4rd European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 25 February 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

B. Flury-Herard (FR) commented that in 2013 the mobile network will be probably very different from the current one (LTE). With this timetable the eCall will be operable in cars using obsolete technology. R. Mangtani (GSMA) answered that in 2014 LTE will be provided only on some islands. He clarified that GSMA members are committed to support any type of 112 calls, whatever type of call it will be in the future. The decisions on the licences are anyway in the hands of the MSs.

7.2 eCall event E. Davila (EC) announced that the eCall signatory event and awareness day will be held in Brussels on the 4th May 2010. There will also be an exhibition in the Berlyamont esplanade showing how eCall works. Target audience are decision makers and the mass media. J. Wibaut (GM Europe) asked which MSs will sign the eCall MoU. E. Davila (EC) replied that the EC is expecting final confirmations by the MSs, but it is expected that several MSs could participate in the signatory event, as well as some private organisations.

8. Any other business 8.1 Election of the new Vice-Chair The Chairman reminded that the EeIP has two-year chairmanship and one-year vicechairmanship. The vice-chairmanship is always given to a MS. A. Laurell (FI) has been the first vice-chair and the Chair and the EeIP members expressed their gratitude for her contribution. A. Laurell (FI) underlined the importance of having a MS representative as vice-chairman and expressed the great value of the EeIP forum. The Chairman asked if there was any member volunteering to be candidate for the vice-chairmanship. Since no member volunteered, E. Davila (EC) suggested the Czech Republic in taking the vice-chairmanship in line with the work conducted from the beginning in supporting eCall. J. Urbanek (CZ) thanked the EC for the proposal and said to be honoured to accept such proposal. However the acceptance is pending the approval of the hierarchy of the CZ Ministry of Interior. The participants voted in favour of the proposal. No votes against, 1 abstention (B. Flury-Herard (FR)).

9. Conclusion and end of the meeting Considering the general agreement to meet twice a year, next meeting is planned for October 2010. The meeting was adjourned at 17h20.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

European eCall Implementation Platform Fourth Meeting Conference Centre Albert Borschette (CCAB) Rue Froissart 36, room AB 4A B – 1040 Brussels 19 October 2010 • 10h30 – 17h00

Draft Minutes Chair:

H. Meyer, ERTICO

Vice-chair: J. Urbanek, Ministry of Interior, Czech Rep. Morning Session 1. Welcome from the Chairs and introduction into the meeting The chairman, H. Meyer (Chair), welcomed the participants and noted the large and growing participation of stakeholders to the EeIP. The EeIP is important for the deployment of eCall, as it represents the forum to coordinate and prepare the necessary steps. The Chairman announced that H3P Media intended to shoot some interviews for an eCall video during the meeting and asked whether any participant will have any privacy concern. None of the participants opposed. J. Urbanek (CZ), vice-chair of the EeIP, highlighted the importance of the involvement of the Member States (MS) in the eCall implementation. He welcomed the participants and explained how he is looking forward to know the progress from the TFs and the feedback from MS. H. Meyer (Chair) welcomed FEMA (association of motorcycles users) as new observer to the platform, even though the FEMA representative was not present. 2. Opening remarks The chairman presented the objectives of the meeting and the agenda items. The agenda for the meeting was approved. The minutes were presented and commented as follows: -

K. Kousoulides (CY) asked to receive the list of participants from the 4th meeting, which were not included in the draft minutes. James Caffrey (IE) commented the minutes on page 4 ("cost-handling" instead of "handling the cost of eCall") and on page 6 (add "in principle" before "supports the legislative approach"). 1

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

Emilio Davila (EC) stated that regarding section 3.2, where the legislative proposals were presented, it should be clear that first the impact assessment mentioned in the last paragraph needs to be finalized, and only after that a formal decision on the option chosen can be taken. Also dates were first guess; now they have been refined.

Comments were accepted and the final version of the minutes approved. 3. Debriefing of the eCall Workshop organised by ERTICO The chairman presented the agenda, objectives and the main conclusions of the workshop organised by ERTICO, held in Brussels on the 8th October 2010. The meeting confirmed, among other things, that public 112 eCall and private TPS-eCall can coexist. Clarifications are expected from the EC (on the timetable for possible regulatory measures) and Qualcomm (on the licence use of their in-band modem for services other than eCall). These issues will be discussed during the EeIP meeting. The scope of the workshop was to try to clarify open issues, but decisions are to be taken by EeIP. See further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-02 A discussion started on the use of eSMS vs. the in-band modem for the transmission of the eCall MSD. J. Ullrich (DE) suggested to focus on deployment issues for eCall and leave discussion on technical issues to the experts in standardisation. E. Davila (EC) mentioned that the access to the emergency services using next generation networks in a full IP environment are currently under discussion within the Communication Committee and EGEA Group. This may be a better forum for these discussions. K. Hellwig (ERICSSON) stated that Ericsson fully supports eCall but there are concerns on the effectiveness of the in-band modem solution proposed by Qualcomm. M. Werner (Qualcomm) said that the in-band modem solution is mature and it has been approved by ETSI. T. Tespstra (EENA) intervened by saying that the EeIP should not focus on technical matters, but more on operational issues. H. Meyer (Chair) said that the pre-deployment pilot (HeERO) will provide the right opportunity to test the solution standardised by ETSI in real network conditions.. 4. Status of eCall standardisation 4.1. ETSI N. Sampson (vice-chair of the ETSI MSG) presented the current status of the standardisation on eCall by ETSI (3GPP specifications).

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

3GPP is also looking into long-term solutions for eCall regarding the use of next generation networks. ETSI has now a special task force for eCall testing, STF 399. SMS solutions have been proposed in the past but not retained by ETSI. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-03-01 4.2. CEN B. Williams (convenor of the CEN TC 278 Working Group 15 – eSafety) presented the work conducted by the STF399 on the NAD –Network Access Device- test specifications, on behalf of David Williams (STF399 leader). At the end of the presentation, B. Williams invited the participants to take part in the process (i.e. provide comments) or receive information about the progress of the Task Force by signing the appropriate form (distributed). Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-03-02 Part1. Then he presented the status of the eCall standards by CEN (Pan-European eCall Operating Requirements –PEOR-, High Level Application Requirements – HLAP-, Minimum Set of Data –MSD- and Third Party Supported eCall -TPS– eCall-). PEOR, HLAP and MSD had been positively balloted, and comments have been resolved in September. The affirmation vote is the only thing missing. The TPS-eCall has also been successfully balloted, and the comments resolution session will take place in November, 18 and 19th. He also mentioned the existence of task forces on the implementation of eCall i.a. on Heavy Duty Vehicles and Powered Two-Wheelers. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-03-02 Part2. H. Meyer (Chair) suggested disseminating information on the progress of the CEN TC278 WG15 task forces and of the standards to the EeIP. B. Williams (CEN) welcomed the suggestion, invited EeIP to attend the WG15 meetings, and confirmed that the Pan-European eCall standards by CEN should be approved by March 2011. 4.3. Qualcomm M. Werner (Qualcomm) presented the in-band modem features and recent optimizations by 3GPP (Qualcomm proposed in-band modem solution was standardised by ETSI in 2009). He also presented two different options on how to indicate to the PSAPs the income of an eCall: eCall flags implemented by MNOs and IVS-initiated signalling ("push" mode). The second one, requested by CEN to cope with the transition period when eCall flag would not be implemented, would however add an overhead in terms of transmission time. The presentation also tackled the use of dual GSM and UMTS devices in the IVS. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-03-03 J. Urbanek (CZ) asked clarifications on the handling of eCall by non-equipped PSAPs.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

M. Werner (Qualcomm) clarified that in such cases alternative solutions could be identified on a case by case basis. J. Watson (Airbiquity) added that in the specific case presented by Mr Urbanek, the IVS will reattempt to call the PSAP and will not give the audio eCall signal (noise similar to fax machine) for more than 2 seconds. Without the reattempt the non-equipped PSAPs would hear the bips and then get the voice call. The discussion concluded that the ideal solution is the implementation of the eCall discriminator. H. Meyer (Chair) reminded that the EeIP is aiming, among other things, to find the best solution for the quick and harmonised upgrade of the PSAPs. They should be eCall-equipped in order to handle properly the eCall. K. Hellwig (Ericsson) repeated the importance of setting up a task force to find the best solution for the eCall communication (in-band modem, eSMS, etc.). H. Meyer (Chair) suggested gathering volunteers to participate in such task force. B. Williams (CEN) said that this task force would mean ignoring the 4-5 years work conducted by CEN and ETSI. These discussions have already taken place and there is no point in re-opening them. J. Watson (Airbiquity) added that the "push" method was found to avoid the risk that the PSAP operator could believe that the connection is by mistake to a fax machine. Training could solve this issue. E. Davila (EC) said that the HeERO pilot represents a good opportunity to test these systems. HeERO will include the tests of "application layers". It will provide grounds to test the standards in real conditions instead of reopening discussions to find new solutions. T. Tespstra (EENA) mentioned that the testing should take into account the potential different levels of implementations across the EU (different equipments in PSAPs, different OEMs, etc.). H. Meyer (Chair) suggested continuing the discussion outside the EeIP meeting, as the topic is very technical and needs further work. J. Watson (Airbiquity) proposed the establishment of a dedicated task force inside 3GPP. N. Sampson (ETSI) agreed that the discussion on long-term solution should be discussed inside 3GPP. R. Mangtani (GSMA) and B. Williams (CEN) supported the proposal, as the topic relates to the communication part of eCall.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

5. eCall Impact Assessment. Results of the Public Consultation P. Tona (EC) presented the results of the public consultation conducted by the EC in the framework of the Impact Assessment on eCall. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-04 E. Bovim (NO) asked more details on the time needed for the finalisation of the IA. P. Tona (EC) explained that the IA should be finalised by the end of 2010 and published beginning 2011. 6. Report on the progress of the different task forces 6.1. GUID (Guidelines) In the absence of M. Schettino (ERTICO), E. Davila (EC) reported on this task force. There have been contributions received by several stakeholders (MNOs, Qualcomm, some MS, EeIP TF leaders). Other contributions were received two days ago, without time to implement it. So a table has been produced with the resolution on the different comments. A new version will be circulated, with 1 month allocated for final comments, so that before the next meeting of the platform the document will be finalised. Action 1: GUID TF leader to circulate the latest draft of the document Action 2: All to comment the GUID draft document within one month from the distribution 6.2. PILO (Design of European Pilots) In the absence of M. Schettino (ERTICO), H. Evers (DE) presented the results of this task force, the pre-deployment pilot with participation of nine European countries under the CIP programme. Being the project still under negotiations, not all the information could be disclosed. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-05-02 6.3. MN-OEMs (Cooperation MNO – Automotive OEMs) E. Davila (EC) reported on this. Commission will call for a dedicated meeting and proposed a draft agenda (EeIP10-05-05-03). No comments received from the participants. 6.4. PSAP-RO (Communication PSAPs – Road Operators) J. Van Hattem (Rijkswaterstaat), on behalf of Marko Jandrisits (ASECAP), presented the draft final report of TF, open for comments. The presentation included figures on the type of information available to ROs, the source of information (police departments, camera surveillance systems, etc.) and the reason causing delay in the provision of information. He also said that many accidents are reported long time later than the time they happened. There is a need to inform more about eCall, functions and benefits, which are not yet very well known. The presentation included proposal on the possible interface between ROs and PSAPs. Recommendations will be delivered to the EeIP.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

6 MS have expressed interest in using eCall for Traffic Management purposes too. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-05-04 6.5. VIN (Procedures for VIN decoder) J-F.Gaillet (Ygomi Europe) presented the work of the VIN task force and explained 4 possible scenarios foreseen. The TF made use of a questionnaire sent to MSs and received inputs from 12 Countries. 9 confirmed that EUCARIS is a valuable option to provide data. Response times vary from 1 to 7 seconds, therefore affecting the overall performance of the system. The legal basis for the cooperation needs to be investigated by the EC. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-05-05 E. Davila (EC) informed the participants that he personally attended the last meeting with EUCARIS and that the EC is supporting the cooperation with EUCARIS, e.g., within the HeERO pilot. Action 3: EC to investigate on the possible legal basis to use EUCARIS 6.6. CAMP (Awareness campaigns) J. Bangsgaard (FIA) presented the list of planned National and European eSafety Awareness events aiming to raise awareness. Regarding eCall the campaign does not target for the moment end users (as eCall is not yet implemented). The eCall awareness campaign is intended to raise political awareness, targeting decision makers. The eCall promotion is conducted also in cooperation with iCar support. The current status of the eCall deployment in Europe will be the subject of the video currently being produced (interviews conducted during the meeting with members of the EeIP will be part of the video). Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-05-06 A. Laurell (FI) explained that in many of the mentioned events, the press is present and always asking about timing on the eCall implementation. H. Meyer (Chair) explained that details on the timing will be given later in the meeting. E. Bovim (NO) asked if there is any second though by FIA on the priority of eCall as road safety system. J. Bangsgaard (FIA) replied that there are other ITS technologies currently available in the market, and public eCall is not yet. This is the reason why eCall is not part of the campaign targeting the general public. 6.7. INC (Possibility of using incentives) W. Reinhardt (ACEA) presented the final report of the TF on the possible use of incentives. The scenario of the mandatory introduction of eCall would exclude the need for incentives.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

In other cases, the TF identified the purposes of the incentives. Legal framework for incentives was also explained. The TF looked into previous cases (for ABS, cruise control, and other safety features) as sample. The result of this research was that a parallel action by the 27 MSs is not feasible. However National incentives could be applied. Also reduction of insurance premiums could represent an incentive to the implementation/use of eCall. It should also be noted that the deployment of eCall will contribute significantly to the reduction of social costs (fatalities, injuries, medical expenses, etc.). Cross-fertilisation and other direct incentives are not easy to find and/or implement. The automotive industry is not against the use of incentives, given that they do not distort the market. The nomadic device industry would appreciate the use of incentives. Insurance companies are awaiting further evidence on the evidence of eCall before showing their position on the use of incentives. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-05-07 E. Davila (EC) thanked for the good work. However the focus of the TF was in his opinion only focusing on the IVS part, ignoring the MNOs and PSAPs part. He also announced that the EC is looking into the possibility to have regional funds available for the upgrade of PSAPs. R. Mangtani (GSMA) said that the GSMA is in favour of the embedded system in the vehicle, and does not trust the use of nomadic device for eCall (for instance via Bluetooth connection) due to reliability issues. H. Meyer (Chair) indicated that the final report will not be changed following the above comments, but these comments will be noted in the minutes. 6.8. OPEN (Using eCall Platform for other services) T. Strobl (ADAC) presented the work of the OPEN task force. Two dedicated questionnaires were distributed to private and public stakeholders (total 40) and 65% of them replied. The answers show a high interest in the possible use of the eCall platform and will drive the future work of the task force. The results of the surveys were presented. Private stakeholders did not show much interest in the "eCall only" device (no business case) but they proposed to pair it with breakdown call (bCall), traffic information and other AVSs. The final recommendations include the proposal to enable a positive business model that stimulates the economy (win-win-win situation for industry/customers/EU-eCall). Feedback to the draft final report, which was distributed to the members of the EeIP, is welcome. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-05-08a Action 4: All to comment the OPEN draft final report (EeIP10-05-05-08b)

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

T. Tespstra (EENA) asked what is the link between the task forces OPEN and INC. T. Strobl (ADAC) answered that the points of view of the two TFs are different, but the conclusions reached are very similar. J. Watson (Airbiquity) asked if there is any OEMs currently offering an open platform. W. Reinhardt (ACEA) replied that this solution would be risky as concerns liability issues. H. Evers (DE) added that Road tolling system present the same limitation. It is important that the core eCall system should be "closed" to the eCall application only. A. Laurell (FI) mentioned that the standards do not specify the triggering mechanism, which is left to the OEMs. T. Tespstra (EENA) commented that the use of the IVS for other services will be a constant prove that the eCall device is working. E. Davila (EC) said that the open platform topic is part of EU-funded projects like OVERSEE and EVITA which are conducting research on security for cooperative systems; the eCall functionality could be secured while the platform remaining open. It is also one of the actions of the ITS Action Plan. H. Meyer (Chair) added that the eCall IVS could incorporate some AVS, but additional technology might be needed for other type of AVS. It would be beneficial to distinguish the two classes of AVS. B. Williams (CEN) clarified that, according to the standards, eCall is bringing into the vehicle a positioning systems, with no mention to a specific device/method. In fact the standards mention the performance required, but not the way they should be accomplished. J. Watson (Airbiquity) introduced the issue of SIM cards and the link to the providers. Clarifications are needed on this issue. H. Evers (DE) added that the positioning system should not be necessary GPS, but it could be Galileo or EGNOS or network based.He then proposed to discuss the issue in light of what was done for the IVS for tolling systems. Action 5: H. Evers to provide to T. Strobl (ADAC) information on the relevant experience on the IVS for tolling systems.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

6.9.

PTI (Periodical Technical Inspection for eCall)

H. Evers (DE) presented the work from the TF on behalf of M. Grzebellus (NavCert). Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-05-09 J. Van Hattem (Rijkswaterstaat) welcomed the work from the TF. W. Reinhard (ACEA) said that test bids are available in the factory. Moreover an indicator could show if eCall is not working. So there is no real need for PTIs. H-J Maurer (DEKRA) said that this "quick solution" could not be sufficient, especially if we consider the IVS is a "closed system". H. Evers (DE) concluded that additional work is required to asses and find the best solution. J. Watson (Airbiquity) added that it is still not defined the server which will be used as test server. A. Asafyev (JSC Navigations Information Systems) announced that work on PTIs is currently conducted in Russia for ERA-GLONASS. The report on this will be available by the end of 2010 and made available to the EeIP. Action 6: A. Asafyev (JSC Navigations Information Systems) to provide Russian report on PTIs to the EeIP when available.

Possible future Task Forces In the absence of Egil Bovim (NO) ED (EC) said that during the last CEN meeting, it was identified the need to monitor the performance of eCall service when working in real conditions and then provide feedback to refine the standards, in particular regarding some operational requirements. Action 7: E. Bovim (NO) to draft the terms of reference for a task force on performance monitoring to be discussed in the next EeIP meeting. W. Reinhardt (ACEA) said that it would be interesting to look into solutions provided by nomadic devices, given that they do not represent any safety risk. The nomadic device forum has discussed the integration of these nomadic systems into the vehicle. Nomadic Device Fix solutions are currently investigated by the industry. This would be a cheaper solution compared to the embedded solution (around 100-200 € difference) for a faster and more economic solution of eCall. H. Evers (DE) commented that safety applications like eCall should be separated by other information/communication applications.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

J. Patel (GSMA) repeated that GSMA is against the use of nomadic device for eCall. Action 8: W. Reinhardt (ACEA) to draft the terms of reference for a possible task force on nomadic device to be discussed in the next EeIP meeting. The focus should be anyway eCall, not other services provided by nomadic devices. H. Meyer (Chair) thanked the TF members for the extensive work conducted. 7. eCall Video 1-hour video on road safety systems has been produced by H3B Media within the SCVP project. A 4-minutes extract, related to eCall, was shown. H3B Media is shooting a new video focused on the eCall deployment. 8. Presentation of Industry activities related to eCall 8.1.

Presentation by Industrial stakeholders (NXP)

P. Pype (NXP) presented the mission of NXP and their involvement on eCall. NXP plays an active role in promoting eCall through field trials and supports the deployment of eCall in all European vehicles regardless of the solution chosen by the EC. P. Pype (NXP) showed the board and the module integrating the eCall functionalities (with the exception of connection to the CAN bus) used by NXP, which were circulated around the EeIP members.

Picture 1: NXP Platform

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

The field trial includes driving three vehicles respectively from Helsinki, Lisbon and Athens to Brussels. NXP is in favour of the mandatory implementation of eCall, which will not restrict but push towards the use of other telematic services. The same platform can integrate without relevant additional cost the solution proposed by ETSI with other communication technologies to send data. Further details in the presentation EeIP10-05-06 J. Watson (Airbiquity) asked clarification on the use of the SIM card. P. Pype (NXP) answered that there is not a particular SIM card included in the platform at the moment, but this could be easily added. W. Reinhardt (ACEA) asked about the price of the device. P. Pype (NXP) replied with the usual reservation that the device costs could be in the range of few tens of euros, definitively less than 100€. H. Meyer (Chair) reminded that any private company is welcome to provide presentations on eCall at the next meetings of the EeIP. 9. eCall implementation: Next steps Following the requests coming from several stakeholders, especially automotive industry, E. Davila (EC) presented the charts with the three draft eCall implementation Roadmaps (one per policy option) - EeIP10-05-07-. He underlined that all dates are indicative and cannot be considered as final. In fact all decisions on eCall are still pending the outcome of the eCall impact assessment. W. Reinhardt (ACEA) explained that the automotive manufacturers consider time in "model-year". He therefore asked if implementation of eCall in 2015 would mean model-year 2015 or 2016. E. Davila (EC) replied that these details will be known in the future. A. Laurell (FI) would appreciate to have these final timetables as soon as possible, as Finland is looking forward the concrete deployment of eCall. M. Hellung-Larsen (DK) asked if the EC could consider the case of mandating the PSAPs and MNOs parts, and leave the OEMs as voluntary. E. Davila (EC) clarified that this option has been already considered and excluded, as all stakeholders accept and support eCall only under the condition that there is a parallel commitments from all the concerned parties. 10. Any other business -

E. Davila (EC) informed about the CLEPA days (Brussels, 27 October 2010) where the eCall demo will be shown

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

Following the suggestion of the Chairman, B. Flury-Herard (FR) informed the participants about the workshop on eCall interoperability organised by the French MEEDDM and ATEC/ITS France (Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea). It will be held on 8th December 2010 in Paris (invitation has already been distributed to the EeIP members).

Next meeting of the EeIP will be in February-March 2011. Exact date will be identified via doodle.

Action 9: European Commission to launch the doodle and identify the date for the next EeIP meeting. 11. Conclusion and end of the meeting The meeting was adjourned at 16h55.

Minutes of the 5th European eCall Implementation Platform Meeting, 19 October 2010 ________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex: List of Actions

Action 1: GUID TF leader to circulate the latest draft of the document Action 2: All to comment the GUID draft document within one month from the distribution Action 3: EC to investigate on the possible legal basis to use EUCARIS Action 4: All to comment the OPEN draft final report (EeIP10-05-05-08b) Action 5: H. Evers to provide to T. Strobl information on the relevant experience on the IVS for tolling systems Action 6: A. Asafyev to provide Russian report on PTIs to the EeIP Action 7: E. Bovim to draft the terms of reference for a task force on performance monitoring Action 8: W. Reinhardt to draft the terms of reference for a possible task force on nomadic device Action 9: EC to launch the doodle and identify the date for the next EeIP meeting.

Online References CHAPTER II - EUROPEAN COMMISSION ESAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND MATERIAL http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/ecall/index_en.htm CHAPTER III - ESAFETY FORUM PLENARY MEETINGS MINUTES AND CONCLUSIONS 1. 12th eSafety Forum Plenary meeting (29 October 2009) http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_forum/plenary_meetings/12th_ esafety_forum_plenary_meeting_registration_form.htm 2. 13th eSafety Forum Plenary meeting (12-13 October 2010) http://www.icarsupport.eu/esafety-forum/esafety-forum-plenary-meetings/13th-esafetyforum-plenary-meeting-12-13-october-2010/

CHAPTER IV - ESAFETY WORKING GROUPS HISTORY AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS http://www.icarsupport.eu/esafety-forum/esafety-working-groups/?menu=4 http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/esafety_working_groups/index.html http://www.icarsupport.eu/esafety-forum/esafety-recommendations/?menu=2 http://www.esafetysupport.org/en/esafety_activities/28_recommendations/index.html CHAPTER V - OTHER ESAFETY EVENTS 1. eSafety Observers Network Group (minutes of the first meeting, ToR, list of members) http://www.icarsupport.eu/esafety-forum/esafety-observers/observers-meetings/ 2. European eCall Implementation Platform activities http://www.icarsupport.eu/ecall/european-ecall-implementation-platform-eeip/?menu=2 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/ecall/index_en.htm