WIXLIB

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDY Booz Allen Hamilton CalTrans HNTB Michigan Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation National Highway Transportation SafetyAdministration New York Department of Transportation Ohio Department of Transportation Parsons Brinkerhoff Road Commission for Oakland County SAIC Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Texas Department of Transportation6 Transport CanadaThe respondents, or panelists, were giventwo, iterative surveys to complete, with thesecond survey arriving several weeks afterthe first. The questions included in the surveys addressed a broad range of topics, including communication technologies for various applications, possible governmental influence, and roadside infrastructure neededfor a successful deployment. Other, moretechnology-specific topics included appropriate transmission modes at roadside locations, how V2V and V2I systems compare,and which communication pipelines will bestserve various applications.MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYII. PUBLIC SECTOR CONNECTED VEHICLE SURVEY RESULTSThe results of the survey include questionsasked on only one of the two survey roundsand questions asked in both rounds and include a range of technology topics. Forquestions that were repeated, the discussiontends to focus on second-round results,though the first-round often is used to extendthe discussion.TYPE OF TECHNOLOGYOne discussion in the connected vehiclerealm is which types of technology best fitwhich types of applications. Respondentsreaffirmed the consensus that DedicatedShort Range Communication (DSRC) isneeded for cooperative, active safety systems, while third generation (3G) and fourthgeneration (4G) cellular technology tend tobe thought of as appropriate for other applications.DSRC AND COOPERATIVE, ACTIVE SAFETYSYSTEMSpressed the view that DSRC is needed forcooperative, active safety systems, as shownin Figure 1.3G AND 4G FOR ALL OTHER APPLICATIONSAs Figure 2 shows, while the consensus isnot as firm as with DSRC and safety systems, 63 percent of respondents agree orstrongly agree that 3G and 4G cellular technology can handle other connected vehicleapplications, while only 19% disagree.DSRC AND TRAFFIC INCIDENT INFORMATIONResponses from the first round were split regarding whether DSRC-based connectedvehicle systems will support the requiredtwo-way communication systems to delivertraffic incident information and similar publicwarnings to the vehicle. When asked again inthe second round, however, respondentswere more definitive that they think DSRCwill at least be capable of providing traffic incident information. (See Figure 3.)More than 90 percent of respondents ex-Figure 1: DSRC Needed for Cooperative, Active Safety SystemsSource: CAR 2012MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH7

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYCOMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY ANDPRIMARY COMMUNICATION PIPELINEBETWEEN VEHICLES AND INFRASTRUCTURERespondents see 3G and 4G cellular technology as the primary communication pipeline for probe data collection, fleet management, commercial and private applications,and asset management (see Figure 4).DSRC is primarily thought of for in-vehiclewarnings, and radio frequency identification(RFID) technology is thought best for tollsand electronic payments.As Figure 5 shows, in 2022, the major difference that respondents see is that DSRC andcellular technology will have an increasedFigure 2: 3G and 4G for All Other ApplicationsSource: CAR 2012Figure 3: DSRC and Traffic Incident InformationSource: CAR 20128MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYrole in tolls and electronic payments.CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ANDBACKHAUL OPTIONSThe majority of respondents agree or strong-ly agree that connected vehicle technologywill be sufficiently flexible to allow a variety ofcommunication backhaul options (e.g., fiberoptic, cellular, other wireless etc.), as shownin Figure 6.)Figure 4: Communication Technology and Primary Communication Pipeline in 2017Source: CAR 2012Figure 5: Communication Technology and Primary Communication Pipeline in 2022Source: CAR 2012MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH9

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYV2V VS. V2I TECHNOLOGYAnother discussion in the connected vehiclerealm is which is most valuable and realistic:vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication,whereby vehicles communicate directly witheach other, or vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)communication, whereby vehicles communicate with roadside infrastructure. Most respondents indicated that V2V and V2I working cooperatively is the best system to maximize public good.V2V-ONLY SYSTEMRespondents were asked whether a V2Vonly system is possible, and 63 percent replied that yes, it is, but 88 percent indicatedthat such a system is not desirable. (SeeFigures 7 and 8.)V2V-only is undesirable, because it cannotextend the same benefits as a combinedV2V/V2I system. Some respondents statethat if V2I is not taken up by public sector,V2V-only will be deployed by automakers,and V2I will be difficult since no one agencycontrols all the infrastructure and a NHTSAmandate will not require V2I applications onthe vehicle.In addition, with the current funding constraints, unknown infrastructure performance,and operational requirements, deployment ofV2V-only seems to be the simplest approach, even if it is not the most beneficial.Some respondents believe that some infrastructure is needed for the security component of the V2V system, but others suggestthat this could be done using another systemsuch as cell phone networks or secure Wi-Ficonnections.V2V AND V2I AND APPLICATIONSIn the first-round survey, respondents wereasked whether V2V or V2I communicationwill be more important for a variety of applications in 2017 and 2022. Open-ended responses indicated we should address twomore applications; therefore, in the secondround, we asked about those two specifically.The combined responses are shown in Figure 9. The public sector respondents clearlythink V2I is more important for most applications, both in 2017 and 2022. The one exception to this is for safety applications; forthese, for both years, V2V is viewed as moreFigure 6: Connected Vehicle Technology and Backhaul OptionsSource: CAR 201210MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYimportant.V2I TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATIONAs Figure 10 shows, respondents believemore connected vehicle technology featureswill be implemented via V2I technology astime goes on. In 2017, the only features thatabout half of respondents thought would beimplemented with V2I were road conditionwarnings and traveler information. Conversely, by 2022, the majority of respondents indicate that all features will be im plemented viaV2I technology. Thus, they see a gradualevolution toward greater reliance on V2Itechnology over time.Figure 7: V2V-Only System PossibilitySource: CAR 2012Figure 8: V2V-Only System DesirabilitySource: CAR 2012MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH11

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYPUBLIC SECTOR AND CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGYThe public sector faces some unique challenges and goals when it comes to connected vehicle technology, as described below.Not surprisingly, the highest priority use ofconnected vehicle technology for most publicsector respondents was safety-related, specifically crash avoidance.HIGHEST PRIORITY USES OF CONNECTEDVEHICLE TECHNOLOGY FOR THE PUBLICSECTORRespondents indicated that the highest priority use of connected vehicle technology forthe public sector is crash avoidance. Trafficmanagement and then asset managementfollow, as Figure 11 shows.Figure 9: V2V and V2I and ApplicationsSource: CAR 201212MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYSHARING DATA WITH PUBLIC AGENCIESFirst-round responses were mixed as towhether automakers would share vehiclesensor data with public agencies to supportpublic applications and services, such as asset management and road weather information. In the second round, respondentswere asked which approaches might encourage automakers to share these data. Respondents were encouraged to select all thatapply, and as Figure 12 shows, most think apublic/private partnership would best encourage data sharing, followed by a mandate.DOT COST SCHEMES TO OBTAIN PROBEDATAIn general, respondents expressed the viewthat DOTs will have to pay for data. Respondent answers suggest that a data quantity-based fee is the most likely scenario toobtain probe data from aggregators and resellers. But 20 percent of respondents alsosaw the potential for a flat service fee, and20 percent thought there may be no charge.Other written-in responses included the possibility for a flat fee for basic data with incremental increases for additional information,that users will likely buy information ratherthan data, and that the price will be based onquantity and frequency. Figure 13 displaysthese results.ROADSIDE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDSConnected vehicle technology infrastructurealong the roadside is of particular importanceto the public sector as DOTs will likely be responsible for installing it. Respondents primarily think DSRC technology is the mostlikely to be used for urban intersections, andintersection safety is one of the primary benefits to make in-vehicle installation of DSRCworthwhile.TRANSMISSION MODES AT ROADSIDELOCATIONSAs Figure 14 shows, respondents thinkDSRC is most likely for urban intersections,and cellular technology is most likely for urban highways. Responses were less concrete for the transmission mode at toll roads,Figure 10: V2I Technology ImplementationSource: CAR 2012MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH13

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYthough a slight majority indicated that it willbe RFID.BLUETOOTH TECHNOLOGY AND PROBEDATAA slight majority of respondents, 53 percent,believe that Bluetooth technology deployedalong the roadside would be somewhat useful for collecting traffic probe information. Butin general, there is not much certainty thatthe technology would be a benefit. (See Fig-ure 15.)DSRC INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED FOR INVEHICLE INSTALLATIONIn the first round, respondents were asked todescribe the characteristics (e.g., extent, location, etc.) of the DSRC infrastructure thatthey think are necessary to make in-vehicleinstallation of DSRC worthwhile. Severalitems were mentioned, but the most commonresponses dealt with intersection safety,Figure 11: Highest Priority Uses of Connected Vehicle Technology forthe Public SectorSource: CAR 2012Figure 12: Sharing Data with Public AgenciesSource: CAR 201214MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYsafety at select non-intersection areas, suchas curves and road construction, and network security. When asked about these threeitems in the second round, intersection safetywas deemed most important, followed bynetwork security and then safety at selectnon-intersection areas. Figure 16 displaysthese results.TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMSNECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL NATIONALDEPLOYMENTIn the first round, respondents were askedthe extent to which they agree with the following statement: Further development of the following trafficmanagement systems are essential to asuccessful national deployment of connected vehicle technology.o Roadside and/or embedded highway sensorso Roadside video cameraso Traffic management centerso Networked traffic signal systemso Electronic toll collection systemsAs Figure 17 displays, there was generalagreement that Traffic Management Centers(TMCs) and Networked Traffic Signal Systems are essential to national deployment,but roadside sensors and videos are not.In the second round survey, respondentswere asked the extent to which they agreethat, despite V2I, TMCs and Networked Traffic Signal Systems are essential to a successful national deployment of connectedvehicle technology. Respondent answers indicate that both are necessary to achieve thenational deployment goal (see Figure 18).NHTSA REGULATORY DECISIONOne of the most impactful decisions on thehorizon is whether or not the National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration (NHTSA) will announce its intent tomandate V2V communication systems forsafety applications in 2013. It is widely believed that if they do, it will spur deploymentof the technology, though it will take severalyears for the regulatory process to play out.Although NHTSA has announced that it willmake a Notice of Regulatory Intent (NRI)about this in 2013, the direction of the noticeFigure 13: DOT Cost Schemes to Obtain Probe DataSource: CAR 2012MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH15

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYis not known at this time, and the agency also might delay its decision. Never announcing a decision at all would be a de facto no.NHTSA MANDATERespondents overwhelming think thatNHTSA’s likely NRI will be in the affirmative(i.e., that it does intend to mandate V2V safety technology), as shown in Figure 19.YEARS FOR ALL VEHICLES TO HAVETECHNOLOGY AS STANDARD EQUIPMENTThe majority of respondents (88 percent) indicated that, if NHTSA announces that itdoes intend to mandate safety technology, itwill take five or more years for all new vehicles to be required to have the technology asstandard equipment (see Figure 20).MANDATING EXISTING VEHICLES TO BERETROFIT WITH TECHNOLOGYRespondents indicated that it is highly unlikely that, even if NHTSA mandates safetytechnology, it will also require existing vehi-cles to be retrofitted with an aftermarket device. (See Figure 21.)Despite this view, respondents strongly believe that not requiring vehicle retrofits ofconnected vehicle technology will cause degradation of system performance. Seventyone percent expressed the view that thisdegradation would be significant, and theremaining 29 percent responded that it wouldbe moderate. No respondents answered thatit would be slightly or not at all degrading tosystem performance. (See Figure 22.)ENCOURAGING CURRENT OWNERS TORETROFIT VEHICLESBy selecting all that apply respondents wereasked the best ways to encourage customersto voluntarily retrofit their vehicles should aNHTSA notice of regulatory intent be affirmative. Figure 23 shows clearly that respondents view consumer incentives as the bestencouragement to make this happen. Thosewho selected Other specified primarily con-Figure 14: Transmission Modes at Roadside LocationsSource: CAR 201216MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & THE CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH

CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DELPHI STUDYsumer incentives, though they often specifiedfeatures rather than direct monetary compensation (e.g., insurance cost reduction,telematics/geo-location services and applications that users want, HOV access, and freeretrofits). One respondent suggested a regulation requiring basic safety messaging abilities along with license renewal.LIKELIHOOD OF AUTOMAKER PURSUIT OFV2V TECHNOLOGYRespondents were split on issue of whetheror not automakers will continue to pursueV2V technolog y development if NHTSAchoices not to mandate V2V safety technology. As Figure 24 shows, none thinks it is verylikely that the auto industry would continue,but the remaining responses were spreadrelatively evenly over the o

Both vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication promise significant safety improvements. Assuming a Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC)-based safety system, vehicles continuously (ten times per second) broadcast a basic safety message that includes information such as vehicle speed, heading and location. This