3. Activities in C-ITS deployment

The deployment of cooperative ITS needs a multi-stakeholder cooperation. The umbrella organisations represented in the Amsterdam Group have expressed their support for C-ITS as follows. Both achievements of cooperation are referred in Annex 2:

  • The C2C CC with its Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the introduction of Cooperative ITS from 2015 on has made a clear statement in the way forward.
  • On the level of the Amsterdam Group this statement is complemented with the Letter of Intent (LoI) between the umbrella organisations carrying the Amsterdam Group. 

The commitment of road operators / road authorities highly relies on the policy and the effectiveness and costs of ITS implementations in their respective road network. E.g. Front runners are proactive and give direction to the developments and deployment of C-ITS by applying and testing early standards and setting the scene for the future. One of the front runner activities is the trilateral Cooperative ITS corridor between Vienna in Austria, Munich and Frankfurt in Germany and Rotterdam in The Netherlands which is organized and managed by the transport ministries and automotive industry of the three countries.

Figure 2: Cooperative ITS Corridor and planned day one services

The Cooperative ITS corridor has following implementation steps:

  • Due to similar projects in the Netherlands (DITCM) and in Austria (Testfeld Telematik), which are implemented to national circumstances, and the efforts of the automotive industry in Germany within DRIVE C2X and SIM-TD, it is more than obvious to initiate a first step in the implementation of cooperative services together in a European Corridor.
  • Thus a MoU for the establishment of cooperation in a corridor between the BMVBS - Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (Germany), the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Directorate-General Rijkswaterstaat (The Netherlands) and BMVIT (Austrian MoT) was signed on 10 June 2013 alongside the Council of Transport Ministers in Luxemburg.
  • A similar agreement on concrete applications of cooperative systems between the German automotive industry and the German Ministry of Transport is planned and should give the key partners security for a market introduction of cooperative ITS.
  • The goal is to equip a road corridor from Rotterdam via Frankfurt to Vienna, with specific day one services supported by the Amsterdam Group. In Germany, the implementation concept is focusing on road works trailers where cooperative modules will be installed. In Austria and The Netherlands the installations will be most probably focus on the currently available ITS implementations (gantries) of conventional line control systems or toll gantries (in Austria).
  • The corridor approach envisages a phased roll-out like the one proposed by the AG. This should start in the federal state of Hesse and being subsequently extended to the corridor including the corridor-relevant parts of the Netherlands and Austria. The nationwide equipment of all road works safety trailers operating on the high level road network is planned before the end of the decade.

Figure 3: Phased deployment approach in the Cooperative ITS corridor between the Netherlands, Germany and Austria

Figure 3: Phased deployment approach in the Cooperative ITS Corridor between the Netherlands, Germany and Austria

  • In the Netherlands the policy has been adopted for a transition programme (2013-2023) where the collective traffic information and management will be extended with individual traffic information and by that offers possibilities for individual traffic management. This will be achieved by applying innovative in-car and handheld services and technologies resulting in a reduced investment in conventional roadside systems when this approach is proven to be feasible. This will be a  joint public-private cooperation. Objective is to achieve more effective and efficient traffic management and information services.
  • The Dutch Integrated Testsite for Cooperative Mobility (DITCM), The ‘PraktijkProef Amsterdam’ (PPA: pilot Amsterdam on networkmanagement and in-car services) and the Corridor project Netherland-Germany-Austria serve as important deployment tests to demonstrate and prove/test the added value of in-car services on a large scale. Important criteria are scalability, continuity, cross-border, cost efficiency, portability and acceptance/appreciation by road-users.

It is expected that similar to established patterns of competitive dynamics (i.e. front runner – follower) other initiatives will step up and connect to the Austrian-German-Dutch Cooperative ITS corridor. It is also expected that the connections to the urban network will evolve as today’s cooperative ITS test sites also cover parts of the urban network (e.g. Helmond, Frankfurt, Vienna).  The Amsterdam Group has already established (or will do so) connections to the following implementation pilots:

  • The French automotive industry has taken the initiative to establish a pilot linking Paris and Strasbourg as being the potential interface to the Cooperative ITS Corridor. Bordeaux as being the host city of the next ITS World Congress in Europe in 2015 may also play a role here. The initiative is discussed with other French core stakeholders but no commitment has been taken yet.
  • COMPASS 4D (coordinated by ERTICO, funded by the EC CIP ICT Policy Support Programme) started in early 2013 as a pilot C-ITS deployment among seven European cities (Bordeaux, Copenhagen, Helmond, Newcastle, Thessaloniki, Verona, Vigo). The service portfolio comprises Road Hazard Warning, Red Light Violation Warning and Energy Efficient Intersection. The urban services intend to contribute to solving urban transport problems by improving traffic management in cities. As an example, the city of Copenhagen is planning to provide public transport priority traffic within the city center based on C-ITS within the COMPASS 4D project and the same technology as corridor projects and other infrastructure projects in Europe.

The coming years will likely show an increasing uptake of C-ITS in the urban context although this is expected to be a challenging process. Local authorities are key players in cooperative systems deployment because cooperative systems have the potential to support the management of urban transport systems in many ways. Potential benefits include: enhancing the quality and quantity of real-time traffic data gathered from equipped vehicles for improved management and control of the road network; efficient and less polluting urban freight delivery; improved use of infrastructure for moving people and goods efficiently, eg, public transport priority, kerbside management (parking, deliveries), access restrictions; information provision to encourage sustainable and safe travel behaviour; and, finally; an open ITS platform enabling a multi-vendor environment (as opposed to vendor lock-in faced by many local authorities today).

Guiding principles for ITS deployment in cities:  the deployment of ITS is largely objective-led, meaning that ITS investments are directly linked to policy objectives, such as promoting public transport or improving the safety of vulnerable road users.  For local authorities, ITS is a tool to support all transport modes (private car, freight, public transport, cyclists, pedestrians and new mobility services). The priority given to mobility and sustainable modes in urban and regional transport policies in recent years has meant that most investment has likewise been directed towards services such as public transport priority at traffic lights, real-time passenger transport information, multi-modal journey planners and electronic ticketing.

Besides policy, another important principle guiding deployment is cost effectiveness. This is gaining greater importance in the current climate of budget cuts, where any capital investment is subject to even greater scrutiny and actions are being taken to bring down the operational costs of existing systems. Any new technology proven to be more efficient or cheaper than mainstream ITS will have a good business case.

Concerns and barriers for local authorities regarding cooperative systems: while the many R&D and pilot projects have shown that cooperative systems work- at a technical level, the real benefits for local authorities have still to be proven, ie, cooperative systems must show how they can contribute to either policy objectives and/or cost-effectiveness. Most cooperative systems R&D has focused on vehicles and traffic management, whereas most (larger) cities hold the view that network control is a largely completed task and that increasing operational capacity through further ITS is reaching the point of diminishing returns. It is also worth noticing that whilst key players within OEMs, some road authorities and research institutes have passed the phase of demonstrations and are heading towards deployment, European cities in many cases have not yet reached the demonstration stage.

Recommendations for an accelerated deployment of cooperative systems

  • Develop applications of relevance to local authority policy objectives; particularly with regards to public transport, and non-motorised road users.
  • Ensure proper evaluation of benefits, especially at urban level.
  • Develop deployment scenarios for local authorities showing (amongst other things) how to move in a cost-effective way from existing systems to cooperative systems.
  • Strengthen the role of cities 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.
  • Develop robust business models for local authorities.

Action plan on urban issues for Amsterdam Group

  • Ensure proper representation of local authority interests within all infrastructure-related cooperative system standardisation activities. Standardisation of SPaT for instance cannot be left to traffic system suppliers and ITS experts alone.
  • Encourage and facilitate discussion on alternative ‘urban’ applications of the Amsterdam Group Day One services.  Most of the Day One services are more suited to interurban roads. However, the functionality enabled by them may well find a suitable use in an urban and/or regional context. For instance, the ‘slow/stationary vehicle warning’ service could potentially have an urban fleet application, such as managing bus headway or warning of a broken-down fleet vehicle (bus, refuse truck, etc).
  • Regarding the services to be deployed on the Vienna-Frankfurt-Rotterdam corridor, there should be a detailed consideration of the opportunities and requirements of each service for cities and regions:
    • Probe vehicle data (PVD) holds great appeal to road authorities since they are large consumers of real-time traffic data for traffic control purposes.
      Questions for consideration include: What are the infrastructure (hardware/software) requirements? What are the capital and operational costs? Is PVD more cost effective than existing traffic detection systems? Is PVD as, or more, reliable than existing systems? What data is needed to feed the traffic control systems?  How can the irrelevant data be filtered out from the relevant data? Can the traffic control systems cope with the huge amount of data (data overload)? Could PVD be extended to all (non-motorised) road users? When could PVD fully replace existing traffic detection systems (ie, which vehicle penetration rate)?
    • In-vehicle information (IVI) could be useful to urban and regional roads if the information displayed goes beyond traffic information and if route guidance is based on the prevailing traffic control strategies. Other information to be displayed could include traffic regulations, eg, speed limits, one-way street, access restrictions (to specific vehicles, at specific times); temporary diversions; road works, etc.
      Questions for consideration include: What are the benefits of IVI over existing information services (road signs, VMS, traffic broadcast, SatNav)? What infrastructure (road-side, back-office, etc) is needed for in-vehicle information and at what cost? What is a sensible roll-out plan for IVI, ie, which data to start with, how to extend over time and what are the key enablers (eg, a centralised database of (i) traffic regulations, (ii) road works and diversions, etc)? What is the risk of information overload for the driver and how can this be mitigated?  What are the liability implications for a local authority if the data displayed is not up to date and this leads to an accident?
    • Road works warning is considered to hold more relevance on interurban roads due to the high traffic speeds and the consequent safety implications. In urban areas, road works information could be provided through in-vehicle information since the main benefit is of a traffic efficiency nature rather than safety.
    • SPaT is not going to be implemented on the corridor; however, it is addressed here because it is an urban-specific application and furthermore, there is ongoing standardisation activity. The SPaT use case presented by the Amsterdam group should represent the viewpoints of the umbrella organisations and in particular urban stakeholders. This way the SPaT use case from the Amsterdam group can be used and referenced to within the C2C-CC and used as input to standardisation.

 

Go to Previous Chapter  -  Go to Next Chapter