European breakthrough Co-operative mobility: opportunities ... · This whitepaper describes why...

siemens.com/cooperatievemobiliteit

Co-operative mobility: opportunities and choices

European breakthrough

Improved traffic flow and road safety, lower emissions and savings on construction and maintenance of roadside equipment – the potential of co-operative mobility is highly promising, for highway authorities, road users and society alike. How near is a large-scale roll-out of this technology? This whitepaper describes why co-operative mobility is a useful and necessary addition to related technologies such as connected services and automatic driving. Then we describe the different components and what is now already possible. Finally we outline different scenarios for large-scale roll-out in the coming five years and which choices have to be made in the Netherlands and Europe in the short term.


2

1. Introduction

Co-operative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) can be defined as systems that support the driving tasks of a driver, making use of communication with other vehicles and/or systems along the side of the road. Such communication does not take place via signs and information panels, but via a display in the vehicle itself. In a future co-operative transport system all vehicles and infrastructure are connected with each other and road users obtain up-to-date information on amongst other things congestion, incidents, hazardous situations and intersection green phases.Using C-ITS highway authorities have a much better and more up to date view of the traffic situation in the whole network. In this way they can perform their role of traffic manager much better and provide road users faster and more directly with valuable recommendations.

Co-operative mobility is higly related to other traffic engineering developments, such as (autonomous) automatic vehicles (the ‘self-driving car’) and connected systems such as navigation-apps and other traffic services over the mobile network. Autonomous, connected and being co-operative are however three separate, complementary concepts, each with their specific characteristics, limitations and fields of application.

2. Co-operative as an addition to automatic driving and connected services

The sensors on board an autonomous-automatic vehicle make it possible to respond ultra-quick (< 1 millisecond) to the immediate surroundings (approximately 10 meters). Automatic systems are thus pre-eminently suitable for the support or even take-over of the operational driving tasks (the operation of the vehicle) and tactical driving tasks, such as the adaptation of direction and speed to the current circumstances. The added value of this technology lies especially in the field of road safety and comfort of and for the individual road-users. It makes no contribution however to optimizing traffic flow in the public traffic system. For this the field of view of autonomous vehicles is too limited and vehicles must be able to communicate among themselves and with the roadside.

Optimization of traffic flow is certainly possible with connected systems, that make use of the existing mobile network (3G/4G/LTE). The advantage of that is that no separate infrastructure needs to be constructed. That keeps the (initial) investments limited. The reverse is that the speed and reliability of these mobile networks are inadequate for time-critical applications: safety situations in which a guaranteed round-trip communication of less than 1 à 2 seconds is required. ‘Round-trip’ in this case describes the complete chain of measurement, data transport, processing and translation in a recommendation for the transmission to relevant drivers who must then act on it.

Connected systems are, within this scope, therefore especially suitable for the informing and non obligatory assistance (without obligation) of road users in the strategic driving task (determination and interim adaptation of an optimal travel route) and less time-critical tactical driving tasks, such as anticipating on changing speed regimes or changes in (the number of) lanes.

Co-operative technology fills the gap between autonomous and connected. It connects vehicles to each other and with infrastructure via a robust, dedicated WiFi-network which uses beacons in the vehicles and along the side of the road. Compared with connected systems co-operative technology is considerably faster and more reliable, and thus suitable for time and safety-critical traffic applications. Road users can respond quickly to (beginning) tailbacks, braking vehicles, (near) incidents, redlight violations and the next green phase of

3

Interaction with infrastructureIn a co-operative system vehicles communicate not only with each other, but also with infrastructure. Also the automotive industry emphasizes the necessity of a combination of in-car technology and supporting, intelligent infrastructure along the road:

“ For maximum benefit we need to invest not only in vehicles, but also in infra. Making the vehicles communicate with each other brings considerable benefits, but the maximum benefits arise where intelligent intersections and intelligent motorways are able to monitor the vehicles’ movements and control traffic flows for a safer traffic landscape.” Paul Mascarenas, CTO and Vice President, Ford Research and Innovation

“ We are now deploying technology for the creation of communication networks between vehicles and between vehicles and the infrastructure. This will make motorized travel safer, more convenient and more efficient.” Dr. Christian Weiss, Project Manager simTD, Daimler AG


Application domain

Safety Traffic Flow Environment Comfort

upcoming intersection traffic controllers. Co-operative systems operate at the tactical level: the adaptation of the speed, follow-time and direction to the surrounding traffic.

In practice connected and co-operative are complementary to each other: the main differences are reliability and the speed factor (distance and time). Co-operative systems are faster and thus also suitable for time-critical applications. Another important advantage is that the infrastructure required for co-operative technology has been tailored to traffic applications. A co-operative system is scalable in terms of numbers of mobile users, reliable, safe, anonymous and has specific and standardized support for ITS-services. In addition, the highway authority has complete control over its own WiFi-channel.

Although the initial capital expenditure for a co-operative system are higher than with existing connected systems, the total cost of ownership (TCO) becomes more favorable as more co-operative vehicles come on the roads. Road users then benefit from subscription-free communication and increasingly more floating car data becomes available for highway authorities and service providers. Because co-operative systems also support time-critical applications, the social benefits (safety, traffic flow, viability) will be exceed those when visioning a connected setup. In the long term highway authorities can save costs, as co-operative systems gradually obviate the use of variable message signs, loop detectors and information panels.

When in place, the co-operative infrastructure can also be used for support of the strategic driving task and more commercially driven services (that now still make use of mobile networks). The backbone of the infrastructure and the ether in a co-operative network offer adequate residual capacity for a service channel, over which for example location-based information can be sent.

4

1.000 m

> 1.000 m

10 m

Co-operative < 1 s, < N x 1.000 m

Connected < 15 s, > 1.000 m

N = # cells

Autonomous < 1 ms, 10 m

Measurement & control cycle

1.000m

> 1.000m

10m

Coöperatief < 1s, < N x 1000m

Connected< 15s, >1000m

N = # cellen

Autonoom< 1ms, 10m

Meet & regelcyclus


Which applications are suitable for connected, autonomous-automated, or co-operative systems depends significantly on the question how critical the time factor is.

5 min

1 min

10 sec

1 sec

25 km

1 km

100 m

10 m

Rel

evan

t d

ista

nce

sca

le

© Siemens Nederland N.V.

© DITCM Innovations

Hazardous Local Works (HLW)

Navigation

TrafficInformationService

Intermodal

RoutePlanner(IRP)Rerouting

In Vehicle Signage (IVS)

Green Wave

Cooperative Advanced Cruise Control (CACC)

Speed and Lane Advice (SLA)

Priority Request

Eco Route Planner

EV Charging Point Planner

Smart Parking Assistant

Probe Vehicle Data

Stopping Behaviour Optimization

Incident Warning

Merging Assistant

Road Works Warning (RWW)

Shockwave Damping

Slow Vehicle Warning

Electronic Emergency Break Light

Red Light Violation Warning

3. The components of a co-operative mobility system

To enable co-operative communication between vehicles and infrastructure three components are necessary:

- Roadside systems for wireless communication: in Europe the WiFi-p-frequency (5.9 GHz) has been reserved for traffic engineering applications. Practical tests carried out by Siemens in various European countries and in the Netherlands, show that this technology is fast and robust and therefore serves time-critical co-operative applications very well.

- The underlying IT infrastructure: the WiFi-beacons can be connected wired or wirelessly with the backoffice of service providers. There the raw vehicle data is validated (in milliseconds) and aggregated into usable traffic engineering data. In addition to the subscription-free safety-critical information, service providers can subscribe to particular information profiles. Consider for example combinations of speed, position, acceleration, delay, destination, brake activity, windscreen wiper activity, etc.Specific recommendations and information services are then distributed, where the system implements the translation stage from geo information (the demarcation of the area in which a recommendation applies) to the correct radiocell(s) in which the relevant vehicles are travelling.

- In-car technology: for co-operative systems the data sent from vehicles becomes essential: the so-called probe vehicle data. In the most fundamental form this is simply the current position, in combination with a time stamp, which connected systems have already been using for years. Co-operative modules can register in the meantime however much more relevant information. For example whether windscreen wipers are on or when brake pedals are touched. Car manufacturers such as GM, Volkswagen, Volvo, Scania and Nissan will integrate this technology in new models, older cars can be equipped with commercially available on-board units (OBU’s) (retrofit).

4. What is now already possible in terms of applications?

With the available technology currently available in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe various (large-scale) pilot projects are carried out. The starting point for this is generally the use cases, such as specified by the Amsterdam group and the European C2C-consortium. This consortium which includes major car manufacturers has specified a package of applications that can be rolled out in a phased manner:

- Probe vehicle data: using roaming vehicles as ananonymous sensors, highway authorities can monitor and optimize traffic management in real time.

- In-vehicle information & signage: a collection of applications that brings information of static and dynamic highway variable message signs inside the vehicle.

- Intersection safety: communication between vehicles and traffic controllers, amongst other things to co-ordinate the speed with the upcoming green phase and to warn traffic participants about a road user that jumps a red light.

Some of these use cases will be applied in the coming years in the Co-operative ITS Corridor-project, a co- operation of the Dutch, German and Austrian governments. The focus lies on warning road users about road works and sending data from vehicles to the roadside. According to planning both applications will be operational in 2016 on the corridor Rotterdam-Frankfurt-Vienna. In the Netherlands in addition via the project A58 Shockwave damping, the prevention and damping of traffic jams is elaborated as a use case.

5

From outside inA classical dilemma for traffic managers occurs in the event of an accident during peak times. To prevent traffic queue formation after an accident as much as possible, controller traffic operator should be able to work as a rule from outside-in: first inform, delay and/or divert the following traffic as quickly as possible. From the viewpoint of safety the exact opposite must be done: the attention first goes to the accident hot spot, and only afterwards to the approaching upstream traffic.

Co-operative technology solves this dilemma. The traffic operator can reduce the inflow from the outside sending warnings over the connected network, but thanks to co-operative infrastructure also warn the near-by upstream traffic (< 500 meters) within 1 second and so damp the beginning of the shock wave that leads to tailbacks. The service can be performed by service providers that take care of the development and technical facilities.


This takes place in a horizontal market model: an infrastructure and data platform is installed for wireless connected and co-operative communication, which is then used by several service providers and for different services.

5. Different scenarios for large-scale roll-out in the coming five years

The business case for co-operative technology is significantly determined by the degree of penetration of co-operative vehicles. The question is how to years reach the amount of co-operatively equipped vehicles, neededfor a breakthrough. Depending on which stakeholders take the initiative, there are four possible scenarios for large-scale roll-out:

Scenario 1: Gran Tradizione - OEM’s in the leadIn this scenario the automotive industry is the driving force, by equipping models ex-Works with co-operative on-board units (OBU’s). The incentive is here the comfort and safety of the driver. In the wake of this develop-ment vehicles from the existing fleet will also increasingly be equipped with OBU’s more often. So it becomes economically interesting for highway authorities to roll out co-operative applications. Commercial service providers can operate the service channel, but can also provide the public traffic services obeying directions of highway authorities.

Probability: in the US this scenario seems the most probable, helped by legislation that obliges the car industry to integrate co-operative technology in their vehicles. In Europe authorities seem more cautious about changing legislation.

Scenario 2: Service Mania - service providers are in the leadHere the emphasis lies on service providers developing applications. The starting point is that once service providers offer attractive services and apps, consumers are motivated to have OBU’s installed in their vehicles. It is likely that such innovation, driven by consumers and app-developers will focus on informative applications that only require a suitable connected infrastructure.. In this scenario the long-term perspective on co-operative technology (for traffic management, road safety, binding speed recommendations and other time-critical and/or crucial aspects for enforcement) is put at risk.

Probability: this seems the preferred scenario of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment that sees it most preferable that the market itself sets up and finances the required infrastructure for co-operative services. It however is still the question whether this creates adequate support and impetus for the construction of a shared co-operative backbone.

Scenario 3: Fleet Frenzy - fleet owners and insurers take the initiativeEspecially fleet owners, beginning with the logistical sector take the initiative in this scenario. It can be interesting to equip trucks with OBU’s. They can so co-ordinate the speed of the vehicle with the following green phase or have several long-haul freighters traveltogether in a co-operative platoon. Savings on fuel costs and maintenance of tires and brakes will soon ensure a positive business case. For government and emergency services co-operative technology can be deployed to create blue lanes, where emergency vehicles can communi-cate with intersection traffic controllersto extend the green phase. The same roadside infrastructure can subsequently be used by public transport operators. Co-operative applications in the field of traffic flow and road safety are also an attractive option for lease companies and for insurers, that can especially value safety functions with lower premiums. So it is possible to work step by step towards a critical mass, which can be accelerated by making the infrastructure available to service providers.

6


The benefits of co-operative mobilityFor road users- Greater safety- Greater riding comfort, because the

vehicle takes over some driving tasks- Reliable journey times- Location-related information

For highway authorities- A fine-grained, up-to-date and reliable

picture of the network- More effective traffic management:

public safety and better traffic flow- The possibility to give specific location-

based signals and recommendations (and to explain them)

For service providers- A platform for new (commercial)

services in the field of travel advisories and comfort

Probability: this scenario is realistic and can be stimulated by the government, for example by rewarding leased vehicleswith on-board co-operative technology in lower additional tax count percentage and/or taxing trucks less. The business case can be that the government can achieve large savings via the roll-out of co-operative mobility, because of less incidents and less legacy roadside infrastructure. The emphasis in this scenario lies on public (safety) use cases. This in contrast with the first two scenarios where the emphasis lies on individual benefits.

Scenario 4: Public Power - highway authorities in the leadFor many years the public highway authorities have been responsible for public safety and traffic flow on the roads. The road infrastructure also includes the equipment above and along the road, such as highway information panels, traffic controllers, variable message signs, ramp metering installations etc. The costs for construction and maintenance are financed from the Treasury Department, projects and maintenance are awarded following European tendering procedures. This could be extended to roadside C-ITS. Beacons and the underlying IT infrastructure for interfacing with traffic management systems are awarded by highway authorities. Applications are defined by the highway authority and based on national and/or international standards. Vehicles are equipped with onboard units that are periodically inspected by the RDW.

Probability: this scenario seems the most probable for the Netherlands. The highway authorities are now the parties which are responsible for the infrastructure guaranteeing road safety. Integrating new co-operative technology now already is a challenge per se. This innovation lends itself well to the evolution from of the procurement of products and maintenance to procurement of services. But because of the public task of highway authorities to guarantee the (public) road safety (and the knowledge present for this), they will remain (certainly in the first instance) in the lead. Siemens expects that also components of the other scenarios become more probable.

6. The most important choices that must be made in the Netherlands and Europe in the short term.

The choices to be made on the way to a co-operative infrastructure, depend partly on which of the above outlined scenarios becomes a reality in the coming years. As stated the bottlenecks and choices are not on technology: they are mainly of an organizational nature.

Security and enforcement: how can safety and privacy be guaranteed?For a large-scale roll-out of co-operative mobility it is important that vehicles can autheniticate messages coming from the highway authority or authorized service providers - and vice versa. This is especially important in the event that public traffic services are rolled out via co-operative systems, such as speed limits. This is and remains the mandate of the highway authority. Therefore the administration, the maintenance and the logistics of certificates will ultimately have to be carried out under the auspices of RDW (vehicles) and RWS (roadside), possibly by certified service providers. Also enforcement is necessary, to know for certain that OBU’s have not been unmounted from vehicles or that certificates have not been manipulated. The issuing, administration and checking of OBU’s and certificates will require similar logistical processes as are in place for license plates.

The greatest uncertainties on this area are not of a technical, but of organizational nature. It is especially important how the chain of trust is arranged. In other words: who becomes responsible for issuing certificates? Who oversees this (these) certifying party(parties)? Ultimately there will have to be a chain of trust, ideally in which the government is at the root guaranteeing autheniticity of all lower-lying certificatess. In the Netherlands there is a well defined basis for such a chain of trust. The government has defined and implemented a chain (the so-called Governmental Public Key Infrastructure), and as long as certified authorities arrange their certificates according to this structure, the government acts as guarantor. It is important however that this setup is fully implemented at European level, to prevent a situation where the functionality and serviceability of a co-operative module stop at the border. Here there is a thorny point that not every country in Europe has the same philosophy about the desired privacy protection.

The vision of Siemens NederlandEncryption of WiFi-p messages itself is not desirable becauset of the openness required forpublic traffic services that must reach as many possible road users. But the security of the messages by signature (at ITS-G5 level) is important, so that the origin (authenticity) is guaranteed. This can be done with existing technology for public key infrastructure. For privacy it is necessary that at least the vehicle is ID-anonymized. Both guaranteeing authenticity and privacy would have to be required and documented at European level.

7


Standardization: more extensive European co-ordination necessaryAlthough at European level agreement exists on the set-up of the ‘container’ in which data is sent, a profile must be determined that documents which information case must be included per service/use and how this is structured. A template in short that ensures that each OBU and each beacon along the road interprets the data unambiguously. This is pre-eminently a field in which European agreements are essential. This is because ifa Dutch car crossing the border at Venlo must also be able to receive and send messages without any problems.

At national level work is being done in the Netherlands, but also in England, Germany, Austria and Belgium on a profile, but a platform for European co-ordination is missing. This is a crucial point: if European co-ordination is lacking for too long, there is a high probability that separate countries determine their own profile to be able to roll out co-operative mobility.

The vision of Siemens NederlandStandardization must take place as much as possible at European level and where (European) standards already exist these certainly must be used. In the development of still missing standards the short time focus will have to be on standards for the messages per use case and interfaces between the different co-operative components such as Traffic Control Installation, traffic control centre, RSU and applications.

What will be the payback models (business cases)?There is still no clear view of on how the future total co-operative system will look in organizational terms, and who is responsible for which component (services, data, infrastructure). The definition of these components, or the reference architecture, determines to a significant degree what the payback models can look like. In Europe different choices can be made per country, which is no problem in this specific case.In Germany for example it is expected that the federal government determines the complete specifications of the infrastructure and finances the realization. The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment acts on the basis of a model in which the market not only further develops the specifications of the infrastructure, but also finances this itself based on new payback models. The reasoning is that service providers themselves have an interest in the creation of a platform that later enables them to launch innovative Apps. Payback models for these service providers are the collection and use of probe vehicle data for services in the field of comfort, information, entertainment and location-related advertisements, but perhaps also the provisioning of public traffic services (inform, guide, direct) ordered by the highway authority.

The vision of Siemens NederlandIt is important to make a distinction between the co-operative basic infrastructure plus the information provision based on that, and the commercial services and applications. The infrastructure and services in the field of safety and traffic have a longer life cycle (15 to 20 years) and require a substantial investment. The safety and traffic- related services is an extension of of the current products and package of services, where Siemens often acts as guarantor via SLA’s for long-term availability. Commercial services have a much shorter cyclic character (5 years or less). Still Siemens sees a combination of critical safety functions and commercial services as very feasible.To increase the probability of a successful implementation and acceptance, Siemens proposes to build-in no mutual dependancies. In other words: don’t make the co-operative safety functions dependent on the commercial success (and vice versa).

7. Conclusion

It is clear that the future of co-operative mobility is determined by a complex force field with a large group of stakeholders. The car industry is fully committed to developing (autonomous) automatic vehicles. Service providers extend connected services for (car) mobile users ever further. In addition co-ordination and optimiza-tion at system level is and remains necessary to guarantee traffic flow and improve safety. Certainly if we are dealing with time-critical traffic incidents (traffic flow) and anticipating hazardous situations (safe intersections) communication between vehicles and roadside/traffic control centre is a prerequisite. This calls for an effective and futureproof co-operative mobility infrastructure, where in the area’s of security, standardization and payback the right choices have to be made in joint effort.

More information?Send an e-mail: to [email protected]

8


European breakthrough Co-operative mobility: opportunities ... · This whitepaper describes why...

Documents

Transcript of European breakthrough Co-operative mobility: opportunities ... · This whitepaper describes why...