Truck automation deployment studies in France

International Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22, 2004

J.M. Blosseville, S. Mammar

Content of the studies (1/2)

Context (INRETS) Layout and costs (Cofiroute) Scenarios (All) Capacity & safety (LIVIC) Reliability and critical functions ( CNRS) Similar systems ( LCPC, INRETS) Entrance control (CNRS)

Content of the studies (2/2)

Dynamic simulation (INRIA) Economy of the project (EMC, ENPC,

INRETS) Comparison with rail (INRETS) Drivers’ point of views (YO consultants) Research in US (RB consultant)

French Context : main elements

Predominance of the road haulage : trucks carry 80% of the goods (95% in economical value)

High dynamics : annual increasing : 3.2%/an High productivity of the road haulage : ~5%/year Concentrated sector : 50% of the sector turnover is

made by « 50 employees and + » companies Big trucks : 90 % of tons.km are carried by tractor +

semitrailors or trucks+trailors Long distances : 3/4 of tons.km regard distances >

150km Importance of the travel on freeways : 50 % of the

trucks’ travel are made on freeways

Existing highways Mixed traffic with dynamic separation

Additional lane Modification of entrances, exits, parking

platforms, bridges Dedicated, independent infrastructure

Studied layouts

Advantages Non mix traffic Layout adapted to RA Easy access control

Difficulties Delay due to contruction Cost Profitability Ground to be found

Chosen option

Network layout & geographic situation

1020 km Calais-Bayonne 1 lane/direction +

emergency lane 8 interchanges

with the existing radial freeways

Studied Scenarios

Improved present situation : Trucks manually driven +specific ADAS

• Truck location tracing through radio+ GPS • Adaptive ACC (speed and interdistance fixed by infra) • Guided entrance operations : metering wrt available gaps + guidance

through adapted IHM (giving optimal speed trajectory )

“static platoon” scenario : Platoons made in a static way on merging platforms + specific

ADAS “dynamic platoon” scenario :

Platoon are made dynamically on the freeway RA : automated trucks

Full automation : entrance, exit, cruise

Studied similar systems Chauffeur 1 and 2 (European FP 5 &6)

Platooning based on electronic tow bar …

Safe-tunnel (European FP 6) Truck on-board failure detection Interdistance and speed control Vehicle continuous checking thanks to two ways communication …

ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) Self-localization of the trains Coordinated emergency braking Capacity & safety management through bi-directionnal

communication…

Capacity/safety considerations

Principles Capacity =f (speed, inter-distances, vehicle length) Safety =g(speed, braking capabilities, braking homogeneity, reaction time, emergency notification

propagation) One lane in a pipe-line, steady state (constant speed) 2 safety levels :

• Level 1 : no collision when hard braking ahead• Level 2 : minimum collision when brick wall ahead

Method : Simulating various technological solutions (speed and distance control, emergency braking (fixed

intensity, triggered by radio signaling…) on the same traffic model

Reference case : dedicated lane / manual driving

Hypotheses Manual driving

corresponds to safety level 1

Speed : 90 km/h Vehicle length :20m Reaction time 1sec Braking capability :

[ –2m/s2, –5m/s2] Speed accuracy

knowledge : 10%

Results : Capacity Niv 1 :

994 Trucks/h

Static and dynamic platoons’ scenarios   • 4 PL par convoi

• 15m intra-convois

• 45m entre convois Hypotheses

Speed : 110 km/h Inter-distance between trucks in a platoon : 15m minimal inter-distance between platoons : 45m Homogeneous emergency braking inside a platoon (–5m/s2 )

Reaction time for emergency braking : 0.4sec 4 PL par platoon

Results Safety level 1 /Capacity compromise :

2600 Trucks/h, accident brick wall type 14 trucks involved

Safety level 2 /Capacity compromise : 1800 trucks/h, accident brick wall type 4 trucks

involved

Automated trucks scenario Hypotheses

Same as platoon scenarios

Results Safety level 1 /Capacity

3100 Trucks/h, accident brick wall type 8 trucks involved

Safety level 2 /Capacity c 1800 trucks/h,

accident brick wall type 4 trucks involved

Economy of the project Project cost ~ 6,3 billions €

Coût per unit

Number Cost

Freeway km 6,10 M€HT 1 020 km 6 222 M€HT

Service and parking area

3,83 M€HT 8 31 M€HT

Interchange 5,11 M€HT 8 41 M€HT

Control at entrance & toll

0,04 M€HT 32 1 M€HT

TOTAL 6 295 M€HT

Economy of the project Good internal rate of profitability : 9 to 10,6% A less profitability (~2 to 3%) to be expected

if Restrictive policy regarding road construction Slow deployment of automatisms

Significant economical advantages for road haulage companies Travel time reduction due to speed increase and

time break spent in vehicles Reduction of the external costs

Moderate benefits, high if fuel cells develop

Comparison with alternative modes

R-Shift-R RAPL Combined transport

Number of trucks/day 16000 64000 8000

Investment costs 4-9 B€ 6-7B€ 7B€

Toll that balances discounted expense costs at 50% capacity for 40 years

0,13-0,27€ 0,04-0,13€

0,42€

R-shift-R : improved railway solutionRAPL : automated truckingCombined transport : road + rail existing solution

Driver’s points of view

Their main social values Freedom, autonomy, responsibility

Their vision of the future : rather negative competition due to arrivals of drivers from

emergent countries An feeling of loss autonomy due to

increasing regulations A negative view from light vehicle drivers Fear that transportation by rail becomes

predominant

Driver’s points of view Reception of the concept

Higher speed than manual mode : allow longer travels but more dangerous Automation : compatible with sleep or rest if safe Recurrent questions

• Is automation safe ?• Is it possible to take over in manual mode at any time ?• Economical model ?

Reception of the scenarios Platoons : highest opposition

• Follower : to depend on s.o. else, Leader : too heavy responsibility, in the middle risks maximum

• Static : loss of waiting time• Dynamic : to be linked with unknown drivers

Autonomous automated trucks • More acceptable if take over always possible

Conclusion Truck automation appears as a rather

good solution. Several characteristics seems attractive : Dedicated freeway Only one automated lane appears as

compatible with a long term demand Technology can be progressively deployed Platoons not an advantage except for fuel

reduction Economically viable, more than rail based

solutions Compatible with driver’s views if take over

possible