Forum on â€œITS for Urban Mobilityâ€?
15 May 2012, Brussels, Belgium
Introduction Dear friends, First of all I would like to thank all the speakers and participants for their excellent contributions to the success of this Forum “ITS for Urban Mobility”. This Forum is the starting point of an initiative of the ERTICO Partnership to support cities to identify appropriate ITS solutions for their urban mobility challenges and goals. Cities have the biggest challenges in the context of safe, clean and sustainable mobility. ITS might have the biggest potential to meet these challenges in an effective and cost-efficient way. The ERTICO Partnership offers its support to cities. First we want to listen and learn. Second we want to provide our expertise and competence to advise. Third the cities make their decisions to achieve their goals. This initiative facilitates the cooperation between cities and ITS stakeholders to achieve a common goal: safer, cleaner and smarter mobility in cities integrating all modes of transport. This report summarises the Forum’s presentations, all of which may be found on the i-Mobility Network website (www.i-mobilitynetwork.com), where you will also find the recording of the entire day’s events. You are also invited to particpate in the follow-up webinar, to take place on 12 January 2012 - again, you can register on the i-Mobility network website. I hope you will enjoy reading this report. The ERTICO Partnership will continue its work with cities to support them in identifying the right ITS tools for their challenges and goals. Hermann Meyer CEO ERTICO – ITS Europe
Contents Keynote address - Pawel Stelmaszczyk, Head of Unit, DG MOVE..............................................4
What do cities want? ITS solutions for cities Steffen Rasmussen, Head of Traffic Design Department, City of Copenhagen.............................6 Pablo Isusi, Head of Mobility Division, Bilbao Council..........................................................7 Gert Blom, Strategic Advisor Mobility, City of Helmond.........................................................8
What can ITS deliver? ITS solutions for cities Josef Czako, Group Director, International Business Development, Kaspch TrafficCom................9 Siebe Turksma, Product Manager, Research, Peek Traffic.......................................................10 Gino Franco, Innovation Manager, Mizar Automazione â€“ Swarco Group...................................11 Richard Harris, Solution Delivery Director EMEA, Transport Solutions Group, ACS â€“ A Xerox Company.....................................................................................................................12
What can help deployment? Pierre Schmitz, First Engineer, Directorate General, Ministry of the Region Brussels-Capital, Administration of Infrastructure and Transport..................................................................13 Bernhard Engleder, Head of Municipal Department, Vienna City Administration.......................14 Paul Potters, Connekt.....................................................................................................15
What are existing success stories? Where was ITS successfully implemented? Andreas Mehlhorn, Head of Consulting, Mobility Division, Siemens.......................................16 Paul van Koningsbruggen, Programme Manager, Technolution...............................................17
Conclusion Rasmus Lindholm, ERTICO Head of Partnership Services and Communications..........................18
Opening Speech – Pierre Schmitz
Pierre Schmitz, First Engineer, Brussels Capital Region, opened the Forum by welcoming participants and expressing his happiness at being at such an interesting and relevant event. Introducing the theme for the day, he highlighted the importance of the discussions, stating that it is vital that cities are able to identify trends in urban mobility as they need time and investment to implement ITS solutions. As a result, he said that the event would play a crucial role in helping cities identify where they’re heading in terms of transport trends for which they will need to deploy ITS solutions.
Opening Speech – Commission
Gzim Ocakoglu, Team Leader, Unit C3 “Intelligent Transport Systems, DG Move, opened his remarks by thanking the event organisers for providing the opportunity to introduce ‘one of the very important elements of the Commission’s work on ITS’. He explained that he would use his opening remarks to put the work done by the ITS Expert Group, specifically, the guidelines on three topics back in perspective. Introducing the Expert group on Urban Mobility, Ocakoglu stated that it had been established as a result of the ITS Action Plan in order to get the inputs the Commission required on how to best use and how best to deploy ITS in cities across Europe. Indeed, he underlined the importance of the work the group is doing, saying that the Commission has realized the importance of urban ITS is growing and are, therefore, focussing more and more on specific urban mobility work. He continued, stating that urban centres are at the forefront of trends in urban mobility. On the subject of the draft guidelines being discussed at the Forum, he first explained that the ITS Expert Group who worked on them is composed of people from all sectors involved in ITS. Introducing the draft guidelines on urban ITS, he revealed that they are focussed on 3 distinct areas: 1.
Multimodal Information Systems
Traffic Management & Urban Logistics
Opening Speech – Rudolph Schicker
Rudolph Schicker, Vice-Chair of the EUROCITIES Mobility Forum opened by explaining that in addition to his role within EUROCITIES, he was also substantially involved in ITS for the city of Vienna. He continued, stating that he did not only want to see ITS for cars and, called for ITS to be intermodal. He acknowledged that intermodal ITS was very complicated to implement and that that is what people at the forum would be discussing.
Turning to his experience in Vienna, he reinforced the positive impacts of ITS on cities, explaining that the results of Vienna’s ITS deployment were that it has helped citizens and it has helped the city’s transport board.
Explaining the requirements for a successful ITS deployment, he explained that the first priority should be to look out for citizens closely followed by how to organise the deployment itself and finally, he stated that successful ITS deployments in cities needed to examine exactly how the public and private sectors would cooperate. Turning his attention to integrated ticketing, he described it as being a very important as well as an excellent opportunity to offer services connected to transport at the same time such as access to museums and other cultural activities. He continued, saying that the discussion in the working groups has and must focus on the respect of users’ privacy. On the topic of city logistics, he described the field as being exceedingly complicated. Integrating a city’s logistics system into a more regional system is, he said, very difficult and he was interested to hear how people have approached solving this problem. Turning his attention to the European Commission, Schicker reiterated the importance of cities in the urban ITS arena. He explained that city authorities provide data for ITS solutions, represent citizens – and are therefore crucial for social integration and acceptance of ITS - and that they want a sound transport system . Schicker closed his opening remarks by stating that he hoped the results of the day’s Forum would find their way into the commission’s work on urban ITS.
Opening Speech – Hermann
Hermann Meyer, CEO, ERTICO – ITS Europe introduced the day’s events by explaining why the Forum was such an important meeting. Framing the event as a means to bring often disparate stakeholders together he continued by stating that the day would help to answer questions about the draft guidlines being discussed such as ‘why are these important issues for cities and how can ITS help?’ as well as questions about the effective deployment of ITS which he warned must be interoperable, something he said was important for citizens, industry – thanks to economies of scale and cities as it is more cost efficient than building multiple standalone systems. Meyer explained that the Forum should serve for cities to express their challenges regarding such vital issues as congestion and safety as well as allowing ITS stakeholders to explain how they can help cities. Indeed, Meyer stressed the need for cooperation between ITS stakeholders calling on attendees cooperate on improving the guidelines and establishing a toolkit to help cities with their ITS deployments.
The day’s moderator, Marshall Poulton, Head of Transport, Edinburgh City Council, opened the day’s first session on Multimodal Information Systems by declaring that the ITS world is at a turning point. He explained that the austerity measures being taken across Europe at the present moment give a great opportunity to sell ITS to government decision makers as the systems give excellent returns on investment. In addition, he called attention to the elections taking place across the EU as a fresh opportunity to convince new, energetic politicians of the value of ITS citing his experience after the local elections in Edinburgh, 5
he explained that the new city council members were extremely open to new methods of dealing with transport problems and exploring new ITS solutions. On the subject of the Commission’s draft guidelines, Poulton welcomed the document and how it would take the three topics it covered forward. He continued, stating that he likes to think the ability to provide users with good pre and in-trip information was truly there now due to the advent of smart phones. Network management, he explained, was very good around city centres, with a host of CCTV cameras and other information gathering methods covering all aspects of the city centre’s network but that on the outskirts of cities, that information is not readily available due to the distinct lack of efficient means to monitor traffic. Indeed, the further from the city centre you go, he explained, the harder it becomes to monitor and manage traffic.
Jean Coldefy, Traffic and Public Transport Programmes Coordinator, Grand Lyon presented the Urban ITS Expert Group’s draft guidelines on multimodal information systems. He began by emphasising the fact that the guidelines are aimed, primarily, at decision makers. He also underlined the fact that Multimodal Information Systems (MIS) are ready for deployment and that they are no longer the realm of research and development. The guidelines, then, attempt to identify why MIS are an important element of public transport policies and how they support them as well as identify key points to address for fostering MIS deployment in cities across the EU. He then took a step back and gave the audience an overview of what MIS are. He defined them as ‘providing information all modes and services of transport’ and ‘allowing users any combination of modes or services to get from A to B’. Urban Authorities, Coldefy explained, have four main goals. The first of these goals is to ease the movement of people and goods and meet the demand for reliable and easy to use travel information. Secondly, they have to ensure that towns are accessible in order to promote their economic development. Urban authorities also need to reduce the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of transport as well as ‘re-conquer’ public space from private car use in order to use the space for more environmentally friendly modes of transport and urban planning. As background to the expert group’s recommendations, Coldefy warned that MIS have ‘very thin business models’ as users often consider that the information ought to be provided free of charge and that therefore, they are often not viable without financial support from the public sector. In addition, he cautioned that there is a complex technological and business chain behind MIS and that quality of information is of the utmost importance. Emphasising the importance of cooperation between public and private actors, Coldefy turned to the first of the expert group’s recommendations. The recommendation states that ‘the public sector shall carry out (directly or not) multimodal information services when there is no autonomous business model’ and that ‘The private sector shall carry out services when there are viable autonomous / business models.’ The second recommendation on MIS presented concerned the availability of data. As Coldefy 6
explained, it calls for the establishment of a multimodal data set for each European city that should be controlled by the public sector. Rail data, he said, should also be available in an affordable and transparent manner in real time. On the availability of public data, he explained that, as multimodal travel information is, primarily, a tool to support public interest, the ‘availability of public data or services should be made under the condition that the services based on the data/services provided shall be consistent with the modal shift policy’. On modal shift, Coldefy reminded attendees that MIS are about changing travellers habits and behaviour and, as such, the recommendation was for a ‘specific focus shall be made on the marketing of these services and the advertising about the benefits of multimodal information (MMI) and corresponding non exclusive use of private car, to get the full potential of MMI services on modal shift’. Finally, Coldefy identified cooperation as being at the core of the last recommendation on harmonisation and continuity of services. He stated that ‘The use of existing standards for new multimodal information services should be mandatory and standards must be set up for the new mobility services’. In addition, he called for the fostering of closer cooperation between ITS actors in order to ensure that services developed are able to meet the needs of users.
Eurocities – Rainer Haselberger
Responding to the draft guidelines presented by Jean Coldefy on behalf of EUROCITIES was Rainer Haselberger, ITS Expert, City of Vienna. Haselberger welcomed the draft explaining that he was happy with the fact that it is readable and contains clear statements. Indeed, he continued, cities need guidance in the decision process, something he thought the guidelines would certainly help with. The most important factor Haselberger identified in the deployment of MIS was cooperation. Cooperation between stakeholders, both public and private and cooperation between modes in terms of data exchange. The main goal of the guideline, he said, was the support of modal shift. As such, he called for the guideline to make clear that MIS is a public service and that there is no market for commercial services. As a result, he said, public authorities must ensure they get data from private actors. In this vein, he identified the data collected on Europe’s roads by car manufacturers, such as the reports that cars send back to the factory periodically. The car makers, he said, must store this data for future use and therefore, this data collection ought to be regulated in order to enable open access to private data. The guidelines, he warned, must give users a choice. MIS are about allowing users to make more informed decisions in terms of their mobility. However, he highlighted the importance of allowing users the choice and not using MIS to force users into using certain modes of transport. On the subject of the establishment of regional, harmonised data sets that integrate different transport modes, Haselberger agreed that they are of vital importance, going even further, and saying they are important beyond the realm of MIS. They would, he said, allow all services to 7
profit from the data provided. He then identified the need for some best practices for cities to support the guidelines. Using the experience of the city of Vienna, he explained that the setting up of MIS there had cost a lot in terms of both time and money as well as sheer effort from those involved. Building and deploying MIS he said, requires the cooperation of all actors. In closing, he stated that the draft guidelines will help stakeholders introduce and deploy MIS in cities, something he is very thankful for.
ERTICO Panelist – Monica Giannini
Following EUROCITIES, Monica Giannini, Head of International Cooperation, PluService provided ERTICO – ITS Europe’s feedback on the guidelines. Giannini provided more general remarks on the guidelines document before providing more detailed feedback on the specifics of the document. Her general comments covered issues such as the document’s clarity and a lack of focus. She pointed out that it is unclear whether the guidelines refer to the urban or extra-urban context, noting that the document references the EasyWay project guidelines which are not related to urban public transport. In addition, it was felt that there was a missed opportunity in not providing a link from MIS to booking and ticketing solutions which would appear to fit together very well in the context of urban mobility. Indeed, Giannini stated that there should be more exploration of business models surrounding booking and ticketing within MIS. Giannini criticised the guidelines for their overall vagueness, highlighting areas where the document refers to “some studies” instead of providing more detailed references on the benefits MIS have on modal shift. Further, it was argued that the guidelines should share more examples of best practices in order to support cities in their ITS deployments. Overall, there was, she said, a lack of links to ITS research projects that could help to frame the work that needs to be done by urban authorities. On the topic of stakeholders and the organisational model of MIS, Giannini commended the guidelines for their clear description of stakeholders and their roles. However, she called for there to be references to how public authorities should make data available such as incentives for the provision as well as enforcement possibilities. She also commented that additional services and information could be integrated in MIS so as to give context aware information to users. On implementation and technical issues, Giannini recommended that the guidelines provide a reference to information delivery such as the channels, interfaces and standards to be used. She criticised the report for failing to include a mention of the system architectures that can be used for Multimodal Information Systems.
In terms of the guidelines concerning behaviours change, Giannini highlighted the fact that mobility paterns are extremely complex and that behaviour is often changed by external factors. Referring to the heavy rain outside the forum, she quipped that ‘it’s raining outside, maybe this will change my behaviour’. Indeed, she commented that the economic crisis has shown that there is huge potential for behaviour change as driving has become more expensive and
individuals find themselves with less purchasing power than before. As a reaction to these complex mobility needs, especially in suburban areas, she suggested that the guidelines include a provision to collect data on user needs from within the MIS. The guidelines also came under fire for failing to include a precise definition of the different parts of MIS wich can be divided into pre-trip static data, booking, on-trip presonalised information and post-trip feedback and statistics. Park and ride, for example, was not mentioned within the document. Giannini concluded by stating that MIS ‘should not only be the provision of data but also collect the mobility needs of users’
Schmitz, First Engineer, Brussels Capital Region opened the debate session by commenting that he had not heard any mention of walking, stating that the provision of information for the last mile of a traveller’s journey was of vital importance to the success and utility of multimodal information services. John Bowey (sp?) from the European commission expressed his concern at the focus on data provision by the public sector. Although panellists had presented a rather united front stating that there are no viable business models for data provision, Bowey (sp?) explained that he thought the private sector is indeed able to provide MIS data as a commercial service. He continued, stating that data should be available to anyone who wants to use it and that the recommendations should ensure this open access. Rainer Haselberger, ITS Expert, City of Vienna responded by restating his view that if you want to set up MIS content, you have to rely on the public sector as the private sector is, he claimed, unable to provide all the data needed. Further, he cited the lack of rights to data provided by the private sector. Gert Blom, representing the City of Helmond, called for more focus on urban logistics in the guidelines on MIS as, he explained, the document was weak on information provision for goods transport as it only focused on individual travellers. He also emphasised his support for the commercial provision of MIS data. Richard Harris and Theo Quick weighed in on the provision of data and access with Quick suggesting a central repository of data that can be used by application builders to ‘really galvanise the application shift’ citing the runaway success of applications on smartphones. Harris, meanwhile, described social media as being the ‘elephant in the room’ describing it as not only being a source of information for travellers as in during the Icelandic Ash cloud incident, but also as a valuable source of data for assessing the travel situation. An IBM representative called attention to the use of private data from car manufacturers by government asking if private information purchased by public authorities would then be free to share with travellers. Sylvain Haon, POLIS Network called for the establishment of a minimum level of quality for
transport data admitting that there would be real cost implications but that, currently, the information collected is sufficient for traffic management but not for MIS. Hermann Meyer, CEO, ERTICO – ITS Europe closed the debate by thanking all those who took part for their participation. He continued, stating that, in his eyes, the most tricky issue is what the boundaries of the guidelines are. Suggesting that there should perhaps be a deeper probe, warning that if the technical aspects are not addressed, then the progress stakeholders want won’t be made. On the topic of the business case for the provision of data, he said that the guidelines should focus more on the market failures and how to fix them, warning that if it is decided that there is no business case, and private companies are forced to provide their data to public authorities, any possible business case for data provision is irreparably damaged.
Session 2 – Smart Ticketing
Once again, Marshall Poulton, Head of Transport, Edinburgh City Council, acting as the moderator opened the panel on Smart Ticketing. He explained that the concept of smart ticketing can mean many different things to different people. Smart ticketing, he said, is about new technologies and services, modifying relationships between the user and the ticket, changing attitudes to public transport and offering users new services.
Commission - Alexendre Blaquière, Director of Investments, Tisséo-SMTC
Introducing the European Commission Urban ITS Expert Group’s guidelines was Alexendre Blaquière, Director of Investments, Tisséo-SMTC. He began by ensuring that all attendees remembered that hte starting point for smart ticketing remained the collection of public transport fares. Describing smart ticketing as a basket for several tickets and services, explaining that if you cannot manage to deploy an integrated policy fare on one ticket, you will need one basket that can hold several different tickets. The main aim of smart ticketing then, he said, was to propose complimentary services to users in relation to their travel as well as modify the relationship between public transport users, operators and their tickets as well as improve the overall efficiency, accessibility and image of the public transport network. Blaquière then gave a brief overview of the various technologies that can be used to implement smart ticketing such as contactless bank cards, SMS payments, NFC chips in phones and of course, smart cards.
He then listed the relevant stakeholders as regards smart ticketing such as public transport users, providers – responsible for the ‘ticket application’, industrial suppliers, public transport authorities and operators, banks and mobile phone operators who could process the payments as well as the media who could play a large part in educating users regarding new services.
The benefits of smart ticketing, explained Blaquière, concern the integration of services in a single medium as well as the fact that it facilitates interoperability between public transport networks. Smart ticketing would also reduce the cost of distributing tickets and substantially reduce overall dwelling time for public transport vehicles as paying for one’s journey would be significantly faster. The impacts of smart ticketing, Blaquière continued, would be to give public transport a ‘smarter image’, give easier access to fare information and facilitate remote sales as people could, for example, reload their pre-paid tickets over the internet or from their phone. The draft guidlines on smart ticketing contain several recommendations. Among these, Blaquière stated, was that smart ticketing should not be seen as a replacement of traditional ticketing systems. Further, he explained that smart ticketing offers new choice of distribution channel which will increase speed, power and flexibility for final users. In addition, he called for there to be integration between smart ticketing solutions, traveller information and traffic management systems, echoing ERTICO – ITS Europe’s suggestion during the session on multimodal information systems. He also highlighted the existence of organisational and legal issues that need to be overcome as well as geographical barriers to ensure an EU-wide smart ticketing scheme. In closing, he warned that user privacy would be a huge stumbling block if it is not handled sensitively and in a manner that users can accept.
Richard Harris – ERTICO/Xerox
Asked how the guidelines could be improved by the moderator, Richard Harris, Solution Director, Xerox explained that his feedback was based on what the expert group has actually written and not what the expert group might think they’ve written. In addition, he explained that he would be providing criticism of the guidelines on behalf of ERTICO – ITS Europe while Theo Quick would provide the more positive feedback including concrete recommendations on how to improve the paper. Looking at the target audience for the guidelines on smart ticketing, Harris pointed out that while the document says it is aimed at decision makers as well as those responsible for technical deployment, for Harris, that constitutes two very distinct audiences. Descision makers, he explained, are concerned with the ‘bigger picture’ issues and therefore require ‘clear, concise, comprehensive , understandable and digestible information’ as well as information such as what the public response will be to the plans, how the scheme will impact the city’s policy goals and the overall business case for the investment. Engineers, however, require much more detailed information that is not helpful to higher level policy makers. The guidelines, he asserted, concern themselves with issues such as proposing complimentary services to travellers, modifying the relationship between users and their tickets and improving overall efficiency. There is no mention, however, as Harris pointed out, of issues such as fair transactions, less leakage and fare avoidance, more efficient operations, accessibility, serving the community and cash based operations. Things that, for Harris, are of vital importance to any decision maker when thinking about smart ticketing. Therefore, he stated that some aspects, 11
were ‘fundamentally missing from the report’. Commenting on the trends in ticketing found in the guidelines, Harris asked what benefits an ‘EU ticketing portal’ would bring as there is little mention of how it would work, what it would do or how it would be run. Harris disagreed with trends cited in the report such as the claim that ‘a one ticket solution has only happened at hte local level’. He lamented the lack of a definition of ITS for smart ticketing as well as the unclear and unnecessary use of language throughout the document such as using ‘global’ in terms of ITS solutions. Harris said that it was more important to solve European cities’ mobility problems before moving on to larger, global challenges. Harris also took issue with the fact that only one business model for smart ticketing was detailed in the guidelines. Indeed, he pointed out that there are many viable business models for smart ticketing outside of the managed service option cited in the report. Summing up his critique, Harris pointed out that many of the statements within the report had not been justified, clearly presented or had only been partially justified to his satisfaction. For example, he said that the best practices on deployment had not been clearly presented. There had been no mention of integrated systems or strategic planning in relation to the guidance provided on ITS deployment in urban areas.
Theo Quick – Logica/ERTICO
Theo Quick, Global Head of Intelligent Transport Systems Practice, Logica followed Richard Harris in providing feedback on the draft Guidlines on behalf of ERTICO – ITS Europe. Quick served as the more positive voice of ERTICO regarding the draft guidelines on smart ticketing. He suggested that, in order to strengthen the guidelines, they ought to focus solely on decision makers and not include information for engineers. “give them enough information to be useful, don’t overwhelm them.” He also called for the guidelines to provide information on next steps as well as links to resources for further information so that policy makers could better follow up on what they have read in the guidelines. The guidelines, said Quick, must also explain the problem that smart ticketing intends to solve. The benefits of deploying such a system and the proof points, he urged, must be in the document. There are, he said, concrete examples of savings from fraud reduction associated with smart ticketing. He also warned that one size does not fit all when it comes to smart ticketing. Therefore, the document ought to explain the thought process a region might go through when it looks at how to deploy ITS rather than providing rigid checklists of actions that may not work in certain regions. He also recommended the EC Expert Group on Urban Mobility further engage with policy makers that have already implemented smart ticketing solutions and build their experiences of their deployment into the guidelines. Indeed, he highlighted a lack of guidance within the document on how deployment could work and what solutions exist. Questions of how to fund deployment, 12
models on citizen engagement and future proofing were, he said, sorely missed. Interoperability, he continued, is how policy makers will accelerate deployment on an EU level. As a result, he cautioned against limiting the scope of the document to the local level and urged that the guidelines highlight and explain the importance of ‘bigger picture thinking’. Like Harris before him, he highlighted the idea of a ticketing portal as being unclear, stating that the section needs significant bolstering. In terms of business models, Quick said there was a lot more work to do on explaining the possibilities. Indeed, he highlighted the lack of information on best practices as a significant weakness, despite acknowledging that there is a second document intended to accompany the guidelines that will contain more information on that front. In closing, he explained that there are €60 billion worth of ticketing transactions every year. Therefore, the potential benefits are huge and the pressure to get smart ticketing right is immense.
Asked by a member of the audience what his vision of an EU ticketing portal would be, Theo Quick of Logica, replied that, looking at end user needs, its a very small aspect of the issue. One of the main objectives behind such a portal, he said, would be the simplification of ticketing services by using one standard. Richard Harris, stated that it is a common approach to simply ask the commission to do something. However, he argued that the top-down approach doesn’t always work and that, in this case, a centralised portal would be provided by the market if it was needed. The UITP highlighted the need for open standards, pointing out that there are many good smart ticketing solutions that only work in one urban area and that any future development should focus on interoperability and open standards. Steve Kearns of Transport for London, explained that TfL took a lot of criticism for the lack of interoperability for the oyster card when it was first introduced. He explained that now TfL is looking to switch from the oyster to contactless bank cards. Theo Quick pointed out that there is a whole sector of society that live without mobile phones and even bank accounts ant that any smart ticketing initiative should be careful not to exclude some of the most vulnerable members of society from being able to travel on public transport. Kearns expanded on his statement saying that 14% of revenue from oyster cards is lost on the cost of card production, something which has prompted the switch away from it. Richard Harris then warned that credit card payments, while convenient for users can also be very expensive for operators, relating a story of how he was unable to use his credit card in the Netherlands to buy a train ticket as the rail operator was forced to abandon credit card payments due to high commission costs.
Session 3 – Traffic Management
Marshall Poulton, Head of Transport, Edinburgh City Council opened the final session of the day by explaining that the topic of traffic management and logistics was a subject very 13
close to his heart. His objective in his work for the city of Edinburgh is, he stated, keeping the city moving. Referring to Hermann Meyer, CEO, ERTICO – ITS Europe’s comment on the establishment of a toolbox for urban ITS deployment Poulton agreed, saying that it was of vital importance. In Edinburgh, he remarked, it was interesting to learn that road users are more concerned with reliability of journey times rather than simply the time it takes to get from A to B. As a result, traffic management is crucial for him in ensuring that journey times remain reliable for the city’s travellers.
Commission – Steve Kearns, Stakeholder Manager, Transport for London Steve Kearns, Stakeholder Manager, Transport for London opened his overview of the draft guidelines on traffic management and urban logistics by briefly covering the challenges the expert group faced when approaching the question.
Indeed, the subject matter covered by the third guideline document was significantly broader than the previous two areas presented. This, he said, presented the group with a challenge regarding how best to formulate the document. He explained that the group had to be mindful of what the other two groups were doing on their subject areas as well as working to ensure that the document was as relevant as possible. The target group identified for the document was policy and decision makers. Therefore, the document’s authors were mindful of how politicians tend to think – especially around election times – as well as their often limited technical knowledge from an engineering point of view. The document then, was, according to Kearns, formulated around policy goals. There is a danger, he explained, that ITS is presented as a solution looking for a problem. As such, the document must make sure that ITS is applied in the right and measured means. The policy goals the guidelines are built around were kept as general as possible in order that they could apply to the majority of European cities. In terms of application concepts and context, Kearns highlighted the challenge of being selective in the application of knowledge gained from ITS solutions such as CCTV for how traffic is managed. The group looked at existing forms of ITS but also more emergent technologies such as vehicle to vehicle (V2V) and vehicle to infrastructure (V2I). The impacts of ITS on urban traffic management and logistics were examined, he explained, in a pyramid type fashion from high level policy down to the operational level as ITS solutions, he said, has a role at and, crucially, adds value at each level. Kearns then identified some ‘key factors for success’ which he stated formed the basis for the recommendations. The first of these factors for success was ‘cooperation, partnership and interoperability’ something Kearns described as being a challenge in urban areas as journeys span multiple administrative areas within the same city. As a result, Kearns stated that a sustainable approach to ITS in urban areas comes through partnerships. The tasks required for successful delivery then, he explained, were not technical but based on sound and robust project management. The guidelines therefore, give steps towards approaching projects. 14
Targetting individuals and optimising road network usage was also recommended in the guidelines. Kearns highlighted the importance of getting good information to road users in order to optimise the traffic network. Citing a traffic accident for example, Kearns explained that it was vital to use ITS in order to redirect people onto multiple different routes around it in order to actually solve the problem rather than simply move it. Kearns also described how ITS can be successfully deployed in order to minimise human involvement at the operational level. Indeed, he explained how ITS is better suited to performing mundane tasks that have to be performed by humans at the moment. In using ITS in this manner, it would free people up to work on the more complex aspects of traffic management rather than simply, for example, flipping through CCTV cameras looking for accidents. In closing, Kearns summed up stating that there was a significant challenge in making the document useful and relevant. The take-away, however was that partnerships are vital to the deployment of ITS in the field of ITS for traffic management and urban logistics. Finally, he declared that there is a balance that must be struck between standardisation, harmonisation and subsidiarity.
Helge Jensen, Agency For Road and Transport, City of Oslo - EUROCITIES
Helge Jensen, Agency For Road and Transport, City of Oslo presented the EUROCITIES position on the Commission’s draft guidelines. He began by quoting the EUROCITIES statement on sustainable cities, stating that the ‘user should be at the center of ITS, not technology’. He continued by saying that intelligent transport systems ‘should support modal shift’. Turning to his experience of ITS deployment in Oslo, he explained that, on the whole, the city was only truly embarking on smaller scale ITS projects such as fine tuning signalling for traffic management. The city’s main concern, he said, was public transport. He conceded that Oslo could be doing more, which is why, he said, that cities need the guidelines published by the expert group. He explained that there is a conflict between the types of traffic on the street whether it be private cars, commercial vehicles, bikes, public transport or freight. He posed the question of how to use the data that authorities collect as there is a lot collected but it must be used if ITS is implemented. He praised the guidelines for their detail on what ITS can offer cities for traffic and freight management stating that it is vital to sell ITS to decision makers at both the political and purchasing level. Politicians are, he said, eager to grasp the benefits of ITS and that stakeholders must chooses whatever it is possible to sell at the political level. He explained that ITS has worked extremely well for improving public transport and that the guidelines should demonstrate such benefits. He continued by saying that ITS should be used to help people make more considered choices as regards their mobility and that there is a need for more research and development to see what ITS can do for the field of urban logistics. In order to get ITS deployment moving, he suggested the establishment of a rewards scheme 15
that names champion cities in ITS deployment and that offers funding for increased ITS deployment.
Michael Ortgiese, Vice President Mobility Systems, PTV – ERTICO Michael Ortgiese, Vice President Mobility Systems gave the last presentation of the day, presenting ERTICO – ITS Europe’s feedback on the third draft guideline. He began by suggesting structural changes to the documents so that it would be easier to compare them. A common framework he said, with common definitions would make the documents much more user friendly. Ortgiese called for there to be more focus on exactly who the guidelines are aimed at. Why are the new guidelines required? he asked. Because, he said, new ITS technologies exist as a response to new problems faced by urban planners. He called for the guidelines to point out that organisation models are essential and to link the list of stakeholders and roles to the needs of organisational deployment. He also called on the authors to complete the ‘fragmented list of roles’ as he explained, roles are ultimately more important than the stakeholders in ITS deployment. The end users too, he said, were missing from the document, a grave omission as he pointed out that the end users are, in fact, the customers for ITS services. The document, he explained, is very much focussed on the current state of the art and does not give enough information about upcoming technologies such as V2I and V2V as the guidelines, he said, will be used for projects over the next 5 to 10 years. A migration roadmap to introduce innovations, he suggested, would bu useful for decision makers as well as a means of combining national and European standards. Cities, Ortgiese explained, have to solve problems depending on their local situation and as a result, the document ought to make clear that ‘ITS impact is a matter of local orchestration’. High impact ITS solutions, he said, require a great deal of cooperation between stakeholders, something the document could emphasise more. In terms of the key recommendations in the draft guidelines, Ortgiese agreed with the overall choices, saying that the right topics were addressed. However, he called for closer links between related chapters (such as chapters 3 and 5) and suggested that examples on how to implement the recommendations would prove very valuable. The document, he said, needs more work on a common thread, linking all parts together as well as requiring more examples of successful deployments and best practices and more work on explaining to decision makers how standards fit into the overall picture.
Sylvain Haon of POLIS opened the debate by explaining that he welcomed the document’s reference to UTMC but that the lack of promoting open systems as a means of reducing costs for local authorities and avoiding vendor lock-in was a mistake. He also expressed a desire to see more reference to projects in the best practices section. 16
Steve Kearns of TFL stated that he had been mindblown by the breadth of the scope and that the group had tried to refine it down. He explained that he would have liked to have a chance to include more but that they also had to keep the brief in mind. John Bowey of the European Commission lamented the cursory mention of logistics and that it was important to define what shippers wanted in terms of ITS. All the focus, he explained, was on the consumer but it is, he said, important to consider just how good are delivered to them. The moderator, Marshall Poulton, Head of Transport, Edinburgh City Council asked about the role of telematics in preventing cyclists from being killed by left turning lorries, a real problem in the United Kingdom. After a broad discussion of the problem between the panel and the audience, Steve Kearns replied that they are looking at vehicle side sensors but that they might not be in the scope of the document. Poulton then called attention to the policy goals in chapter 3.2 saying that nobody would quibble with them but that he was concerned with whether the priorities set forth are the right ones. Turning to chapter 6.3, he stated that most successful ITS management systems are those that deliver real services to end users. On the topic of chapter 4.4 identifying the role of the press as a partner in ITS deployment, he stated that 95% of the time, press coverage of ITS topics he had encountered was negative. Something Steve Kearns corroborated, saying that the launch of what proved to be a very successful congestion chare in London was met with an 8 page spread in a national paper claiming that it would ‘ruin London’. An audience member from IBM pointed to Stockholm as an example of how press coverage had not backfired. Pierre Schmitz, First Engineer, Brussels Capital Region gave his expectation based on his Brussels experience explaining that mobility management is not just traffic management but that information concerning bikes and public transport is also of great importance. On emerging technologies such as V2V and V2I, Schmitz pointed out that the guidelines gave no information on preparing for their deployment. He also highlighted the missing link between public and private in the guidelines. On the topic of logistics, Schmitz said that his expectations had not been met saying that public authorities have to hand over their own data but that private companies were not compelled to share theirs.
Rasmus Lindholm, Head of Partnership Services & Communications, ERTICO – ITS Europe presented the day’s conclusions. Identifying the topics addressed, he highlighted the issue of cooperation between public and private stakeholders as being of crucial importance. The question of data, he said, had also weighed heavily through all the sessions in terms of availability, ownership and quality. On the subject of smart ticketing, he echoed previous warnings on not leaving users behind due to technological or financial divisions within society. Further, he identified the tension between 17
deployment at a local, national or European level. He also explained that ERTICO Sector Platforms had offered to contribute to the guidelines. Finally, on Traffic Management & Urban Logistics, he suggested that the term was perhaps outdated as it is now something more than traffic management due to the fact that ITS does not deal solely with cars on the road. In closing his remarks, he once again called for increased cooperation between public and private actors and identified the forum as one of many venues where this interaction can take place. ERTICO would, he said, present its thoughts on moving forward at the Vienna ITS World Congress in October 2012.