Towards Road Transport Automation: Opportunities in Public-Private Collaboration (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

77 APPENDIX C Use Case Scenarios use Case sCenario 1 freeWay Platooning: moDerately automateD freeWay oPeration Robert Denaro, ITS Consultant, Long Grove, Illinois, USA Roberto Arditi, SINA Group, Milan, Italy Use Case Scenario 1 considers the operation of privately owned or commercial Level 2 and 3 automated vehicles on freeways1 or express highways (controlled access) in interactions with other traffic. Vehicles (automobiles, trucks, buses) operate individually or in platoons. Indi- vidual operations are dependent on motor vehicle stan- dards. Operation in platoons on particular highways is subject to approval by the road operator and may involve dedicated lanes, temporal restrictions, and mini- mum vehicle performance requirements. The examples are the Drive Me project (Sweden)2 and Peloton (United States).3 Overall Scenario The next level of cruise control is common on private and commercial vehicles. Authorities have ruled that this fea- ture be available only on limited-access highways, such as expressways or freeways, and vehicle manufacturers favor this policy as well because it limits their liability exposure. Platoons of commercial vehicles operate steadily on European and American freeways. Although limited to designated roads, these platoons are impressive sights as they sweep by at up to 130 kilometers per hour (approxi- 1 Note: Around the world, freeways are known by various terms, for example, Autobahn (Germany), autopista (Spain), autostrada (Italy), and snelweg (the Netherlands). 2 See https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressre leases/136182/volvo-car-group-initiates-world-unique-swedish-pilot -project-with-self-driving-cars-on-public-roads. 3 See http://www.peloton-tech.com/. mately 80 miles per hour) with gaps of 6 meters. Coun- tries and regions restrict speeds in nondedicated lanes, however. The capacity for freight traffic on the designated roads has increased by 15%. The energy efficiency of participat- ing vehicles has been enhanced by as much as 16% for trail- ing vehicles and 8% for the lead vehicle, which saves fuel for petrol-powered vehicles and reduces the environmental impact of engine emissions. In the case of electric vehicles, operational energy efficiency also reduces the environmen- tal impact at power generation sites and extends the range of battery- and fuel cell–powered vehicles. Private passenger vehicles are able to join the commer- cial vehicle platoons. With the use of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications, business models have emerged in which consumers can join platoons for a fee. These private vehicles are able to proceed in automatic mode individually on specified freeways. Safety has been improved from the days before the deployment of platooning. There are dramatically fewer accidents involving heavy vehicles, although an occa- sional adverse interaction between manually controlled vehicles—especially passenger vehicles—on the same freeway results in a very dramatic and severe accident. The economic and societal impacts of moderately automated freeway operation are significant. Heavy vehicles are now more competitive than ever, without having become larger, and reduced transportation costs have invigorated Internet commerce by reducing ship- ping costs. Road transport has a new competitive edge on certain types of delivery as compared with rail. Com- mercial fleets have followed interoperable standards, and vehicles from different companies collaborate fully on the highways. Consumers can now make the time of their longer commutes and travels productive, and the use of private vehicles for commuting and shorter busi- ness trips is increasing because the flexibility and com- fort of operating a private vehicle is now more attractive than public transportation for medium-length trips. This change has also affected the design of vehicle interiors and the use of wireless connectivity in the vehicle.

78 T O W A R D S R O A D T R A N S P O R T A U T O M A T I O N City–Authority (What’s in It for the Public Side?) From the public point of view, the operation of auto- mated vehicles on highways enhances the quality of life, even if the automation is only partial or condi- tional (Level 2 or 3). In addition to being an assistance tool, autonomous driving cuts fuel consumption and consequently lowers emissions and improves air qual- ity, because the system automatically adapts speed in response to oncoming events. Impaired mobility and congestion is influenced by the use of these new technologies. The vehicle adapts its speed and time gap at a freeway entrance ramp if another vehicle wants to filter in. Traffic flow in relation to capacity is therefore managed much more efficiently. From the public standpoint, platooning is being promoted because it improves traffic safety. Some public authorities believe, on the basis of positive experiences, that automated vehicles should be strongly encouraged: in the immediate future no one should be killed or seriously injured. Autonomous vehicles and a freeway infrastructure adapted to the new technology will provide road users with safer traffic and an improved environment as well as contribute to the creation of a new market, new jobs, and new opportunities. City, regional, and roadway manag- ers therefore designate corridors, routes, roadways, and lanes for use by platooned vehicles. In some cases, new lanes are constructed for platooned vehicles. Public oppo- sition to “truck only” lanes is overcome by the ability of private cars to join and benefit from platoons. Business (What’s in It for the Private Side?) Freight haulers see a reduction in costs per load per kilo- meter, and this reduction has positively affected their competitiveness with other modes of freight transport. These cost advantages are a significant competitive advantage between fleets that compels all companies to adopt the technology quickly. Consumers in their vehicles have time to stay con- nected, which leads to a tremendous increase in the avail- able daily time slots in which they are connected and available for advertising. These found minutes in the day are in an environment in which consumers’ other options are limited, and this time is therefore extremely productive for advertisers. This development leads to increased con- sumer consumption of entertainment, principally video. Research In the near future, the research on automated vehicles operating on the freeway should focus on several areas: Context This highway platooning scenario is created within the next 2 to 3 years. State highway agencies are attracted to technological means of dealing with increasing truck traffic and related congestion. For modest effort and cost, agencies are able to bring about significant gains in the efficiency of current infrastructure. Agencies need to invest in new signage, roadway markings, and, in some cases, dedicated lanes. Connected vehicle technology (V2V and cellular 3G LTE) according to the national standard is a prerequisite. Public agencies recover their costs through a distance-based charge for platooned operation (over and above the gas tax, which is still in place). Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) messaging occurs, but no data are retained. All other roadway operations remain the same. Liability for incidents and crashes remains with the driver and the freight operating com- pany. The general public is broadly appreciative of vehi- cle connectivity and Internet access from vehicles. The provision of access to platooning for private passenger vehicles leads public opinion toward acquiescence with closely spaced truck platoons and special infrastructure provisions for trucks. Sectoral Perspectives User Experience (What’s in It for the User?) Commercial drivers are required to obtain additional training and certification to be a lead or following driver in a platoon. For drivers in following vehicles, hours of service rules provide credit for time spent platooning– following. Commercial vehicle platooning results in increased vehicle utilization, and therefore more favorable rates and an increase in the jobs available in this sector. Drivers can multitask while driving on the highway, and time may be spent in other endeavors, such as additional training. Truck driving has therefore become attractive to a new demographic of drivers. Professionalism in truck driv- ing has increased for certain sectors of the motor carrier industry, including large national fleets. However, some elements of the industry are seeing opportunities to deploy less-skilled drivers with minimal training. Consumers in private vehicles have undergone sig- nificant changes in behavior now that travel time on the highway is much more productive. Travelers now choose to drive between spaced destinations instead of using trains or short flights. Internet connectivity allows trav- elers to communicate and carry out transactions. Mixed traffic of manually operated vehicles and auto- mated vehicles is a critical issue for safety and public acceptance.

79A P P E N D I X C : U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O S • How can the societal and economic impacts of such automated vehicle technology applied to the motor- way context be quantified? Are traffic simulations good enough? • What would be the requirements of the freeway infrastructure for the operation of platoons? • What may be the unintended consequences of introducing platoons in freeways together with manu- ally driven vehicles? • What are the typical traffic situations suitable for platoon operations? • How should V2V communication protocols be extended to enable dialog and negotiations between involved vehicles before and during platooning? • Is there a need from the digital infrastructure? What are the data needed? • Are there legal issues that prevent this operation in the next 2 to 3 years? • What are the responses and reactions of road users using or interacting with automated vehicles? Potential Uncertainties, Barriers, and Opportunities The following issues are raised as thought starters only. The treatment is not intended to be complete or binding for the purposes of the symposium. Technology • What is the role of V2X communications, both V2V between vehicles and vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) to the infrastructure and to the cloud? Is V2X essential for platooning? • What vehicle headways are practical while still retaining efficiency benefits? • Will it be possible for following commercial vehi- cles to be driverless? • What is the practical limit for the length of platoons? • How will adverse weather affect the availability of automated driving? • Will these systems be limited to factory installation or will there be aftermarket devices as well? Legal • What are the discussion issues and points to be considered with standardization organizations for the definition and extension of communication protocol? • What are the barriers in national and international law to the operation of automated vehicles on the high- way, and what are the changes needed? • Are there any unique legal considerations for pla- tooning vehicles? Policy Making and Regulations • What is the maximum allowed speed for auto- mated vehicles on the highway? • How will the authorities have to adapt existing reg- ulations, or create new ones, or both, to ensure the full compatibility of these vehicles with the public’s expecta- tions regarding safety, legal responsibility, and privacy? • What is the impact on the equipment of existing and new infrastructure? • What are the criteria for the design of new infra- structure and relevant equipment? • Will platooning vehicles be restricted to dedicated lanes? Business Models • What business models might emerge for allowing passenger cars to join commercial vehicle platoons? • How will insurance premiums change with statis- tics on accident rates? • What business forces might emerge to encourage and accelerate the deployment and acceptance of auto- mated vehicles? Human Factors • What are the unknown human factors issues, such as expectations for the driver to take control on occasion? • What are the issues with mixed traffic (manual and automated)? Security • What applications are required in terms of safety? • What actions need to be carried out to maintain an updated digital infrastructure without impacts on safety and security? Is standardization needed? • Are special precautions necessary for platoon- capable vehicles? Certification, Testing, and Licensing • Will certification be required of automated com- mercial vehicles that operate in platoons? • Will special licensing be required of vehicle drivers to act as platoon lead?

80 T O W A R D S R O A D T R A N S P O R T A U T O M A T I O N • What maximum speed will be used to test auto- mated vehicles on highways? • Will automated vehicles be subject to regular inspection and certification? • Will automated vehicles be limited to maximum speeds different from posted speed limits? Public Acceptance • How will consumers react to high-speed platoons of large vehicles? • Are there some foreseeable unintended conse- quences of operating automated vehicles and platoons on highways? use Case sCenario 2 automateD City Center: highly automateD urban oPeration Ginger Goodin, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, USA Aria Etemad, Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany Use Case Scenario 2 considers vehicle automation for negotiating dense urban traffic as well as parking within a city center. The city center is characterized by high- density employment and residential development, closely spaced signalized and networked intersections, parking structures, and multiple street uses (automobile, truck, transit, bicycle, pedestrian). The examples are two rel- evant European projects: AdaptIVe4 and iGAME.5 Overall Scenario The scenario represents a high level of personal vehicle automation [Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Levels 3 and 4] that allows the driver to transfer driving tasks to his or her personal vehicle in a networked urban center. The vehicle operates at low to medium speeds with the driver in place. Before beginning the trip, the driver enters the destination into the vehicle navigation system via a connected app. One of the routes offered is “most automated.” As the driver navigates into the urban environment, the driver engages into a car-following mode (similar to SAE Level 2) and oversees the opera- tion. On given sections of the trip (including roads, 4 See http://www.AdaptIVe-ip.eu. 5 See http://www.gcdc.net/i-game. arteries, and even intersections) in which automation is approved or suitable, the vehicle may offer to engage the Level 3 or 4 automated mode. As the driver trans- fers the driving task to the vehicle, the vehicle keeps the driver informed on the foreseen time until the next possible manual intervention. An urban traffic operation system monitors the urban road network for any potential issues and may ask the vehicle to come back to a SAE Level 2 automation mode; that is, the driver is asked to monitor the driving task again but not necessarily with the need to intervene. Without the driver’s intervention, the vehicle negotiates the urban street system, optimizing its choice of lanes and speed to avoid stops and reduce fuel consumption until it comes to a road that is not approved or not suit- able for Level 3 automation. The traffic operation cloud communicates messages to the vehicle as well as other street users (transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians) to optimize overall system flow. The system uses communication channels between the vehicle and an urban traffic operation cloud connected to smart traffic signal controllers and other sensors. If the vehicle is notified about the lack of parking space at its destination or a faster multimodal option, the driver may also be advised during the trip to stop at a designated parking area and continue his trip with another mode of transport. If the driver does not have designated parking, the vehicle determines available parking before reaching the destination. The vehicle searches the city parking database for parking availability within one-quarter mile (or one-quarter kilometer) of the final destina- tion, and the automated system begins to dynamically route the vehicle to the general location of available spaces at a structure, lot, or on-street location. As the driver arrives at the urban center, the vehicle transmits parking availability and pricing information to the driver. After the driver selects a parking preference, the space is reserved, and the vehicle adjusts its route and automatically drives itself to the parking location. Upon reaching the parking space, the driver exits the vehicle and the vehicle goes into fully automated mode to park itself in its designated space (garage, lot, or on-street). Context The first complete example of this scenario could take place within 5 years with strong involvement of a few leading cities. Economic development imperatives lead cities to seek smart city status and generate local pride in the earliest deployment of intelligent systems. In this scenario, the cities targeted exclude megacities in which

81A P P E N D I X C : U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O S multimodal rail transport is predominant (see Figure 1). Instead, the scenario targets the kind of cities in which the city leaders give preferential treatment to automated vehicles (which are still privately owned) and continue to accommodate conventional vehicles (whose operations in the city center are strongly regulated or priced at a pre- mium). City leaders’ intense focus on the avoidance of crashes, injuries, and fatalities drives significant changes in the way city transportation infrastructure is managed. These changes include smarter intersections, smarter interactions with pedestrians and cyclists, smarter modal connections, and smarter parking. V2X connectivity is an important pillar of the city’s smart transportation infrastructure. These significant changes are realized by means of public–private partnerships. The city works with new service providers who price vehicle mobility within the city along with parking as a single service. Above all, the big data generated by vehicle movements and related transactions are used by the city and its partners to orchestrate a completely new level of harmonious traffic movement and safety. Users enjoy reduced insurance rates in response to lowered crash probabilities. However, traffic incidents and crashes have not been eliminated, and the city and its partners, including original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), bear new liability for these events. Trips within the city are not exclusively by privately owned passen- ger vehicles; service providers make good use of existing modes of public transport to interface with vehicle travel and parking. Sectoral Perspectives City–Authority (What’s in It for the Public Side?) The scenario described may result in better network performance and more efficient vehicle routing, mini- mizing the traffic circulation and congestion caused by the search for parking (assuming that the trip demand remains the same). The benefits include • Optimized flow along main corridors of the city, • Reduced fuel consumption and emissions in urban environment, • Reduced stops, • Reduced accidents, and • Optimized parking supply and revenue generation (for publicly owned parking facilities). The scenario may encounter some resistance by leaders in the smart city movement. It may lead to an increase in urban vehicle miles traveled, as reaching the city center and finding a place to park may be easy and comfortable. City officials may prefer to favor vehicle- sharing schemes integrated with multimodal travel and 100 80 M od e (% ) City Size 60 40 20 Car, motorcycle, taxi, cycle Surface, underground railBus. tram 0 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 0 FIGURE 1 Mobility: mode options in European cities of different sizes. (Source: Mike McDonald, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.)

82 T O W A R D S R O A D T R A N S P O R T A U T O M A T I O N keep the parking opportunities for private users enter- ing the city perimeter. Business (What’s in It for the Private Side?) This scenario opens opportunities for integration of vehicle and infrastructure systems into a seamless and invisible underpinning to the effective movement of people and goods. The operational concept supports the notion of smart cities, a movement that envisions the use of digital technologies to connect transportation with other sectors, including energy, health care, and water and solid waste services, with the aim of furthering eco- nomic and environmental objectives. Navigant Research estimates that by 2023, cumula- tive global investment in smart city infrastructure will reach $174 billion.6 The integrated, strategic urban transportation management described in this scenario provides opportunities for private sector involvement in data analytics–system optimization of the urban network, modal integration, payment integration, and parking infrastructure operation. Perspectives (Time Frame) The deployment will probably be in steps, starting with specific areas within the urban center. Lower levels of automation (Level 3) and automation in certain restricted areas (Level 4 parking) will be intro- duced first. The anticipated time frame is as follows: • Level 4 parking: 2018 to 2020 and • Level 3 urban automation: 2025 or later (invest- ments in infrastructure typically require a long time frame). Research [To be discussed at the symposium.] Potential Uncertainties, Barriers, and Opportunities The following issues are raised as thought starters only. The treatment is not intended to be complete or binding for the purposes of the symposium. 6 Navigant Research. Smart Cities, 2014. http://www.navigant research.com/research/smart-cities. Technology • What are the technology requirements to advance this use case, both for vehicles and for urban traffic man- agement systems? • Will data centers that aggregate vehicle and infra- structure data, or traffic management clouds, need to be created? • What will be necessary in the design and develop- ment of automated applications to support this scenario? How do onboard sensors and communication technolo- gies for connected vehicles converge? • What are the interoperability issues between vehi- cles and the traffic system? • What mechanism will define vehicle interaction with other urban travel modes? Legal • What are the legal issues, particularly with respect to the liability of the vehicle operator in Level 3 versus Level 4 modes, the vehicle manufacturer–supplier, and the traffic system owner–operator? • What are the roles and responsibilities of public agencies to provide relevant operations for the vehicles in this scenario? What is the public agency’s responsibility for reliable connectivity and accurate information? For roadway certification? Policy Making and Regulations • What are the issues for urban network infrastruc- ture investment, especially with respect to the long lead time for capital investment? What about public funding for ongoing operations and maintenance? • What are the quantifiable benefits that would jus- tify public investment? • Are there implications for urban mobility plan- ning, including land use impacts? • Are there professional capacity concerns regard- ing the public workforce in supporting the urban traffic management system? • Is there need for enabling legislation for private partnerships and procurement strategies to support this use case? Business Models • What are the commercially viable business models that facilitate this particular use case, and how can the various stakeholders enable them?

83A P P E N D I X C : U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O S • Is there a viable business model in which the cus- tomer pays more for the features? • If vehicles can park themselves, what are the impacts on land use or use of space in a parking garage? • Will time driven with automated features be logged for the purpose of reduced insurance rates? • Will only low-cost technology be needed for some features? (For example, vehicle dynamics tech- nologies for sharp cornering will not be necessary anymore.) • What is the best order for introducing automated features? At a first glance, luxury and business cars will have automation. What could be gained by reversing this order, that is, starting with a volume model? In doing so, industry might raise acceptance in a broad level and not through slow democratization. • How will societal benefits be maximized with mixed fleet operation? To what degree will automated vehicles be prioritized in the operation of the street net- work or in the assignment of parking? Human Factors • What are the human factors challenges with this scenario, particularly with respect to the transition between levels of automation and, potentially, multiple transitions based on road system certification? • What concerns may arise with a driver making a parking selection while in Level 3 mode? Security • What are the security issues and the respective roles of the public and private sectors? • Which security level will be sufficient for connected vehicles? • Will an information technology specialist be needed in each repair shop? • Is identification of the driver before driving needed to ensure proper assignment of driver to responsibility? Certification, Testing, and Licensing • What will be required for verification and valida- tion of systems? • How will road segments be certified? • Will driver training or selection be needed for rental cars with high automated content? • What is the impact on training for obtaining a driv- ing license? Public Acceptance • What are the consumer acceptance issues? • What are the public acceptance concerns that may affect political action? How can the public and private sectors influence? • What happens when no parking is available? • Is the multimodal alternative acceptable? • What happens when a driver changes plans? • Will route and parking space depend on vehicle type, and, if so, what are the acceptance concerns? use Case sCenario 3 urban Chauffeur: fully automateD tailoreD mobility serviCe Natasha Merat, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom David Agnew, Continental Automotive NA, Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA Use Case Scenario 3 considers highly automated vehicles (SAE Level 4) on given urban routes on which a driver is no longer required for vehicle control and operation.7 The vehicles currently operational in this space use highly accurate mapping and guidance technologies to follow a designated route, which can be a shared urban road or a separate track. The vehicles are not owned by individuals but shared among users in an urban setting. In a 5- to 10-year time frame, it is foreseen that these vehicles will be used as a complementary feeder service to main public transport networks or in tandem with car- and bike-sharing schemes. These vehicles will be capable of traveling safely on given roads of the cities at a low speed ((45 kilometers per hour) and may be part of the future of public transport systems that promise to reduce urban congestion and the need for vehicles owned by individual users within cities. The urban chauffer is also useful for areas with low to medium demand and can be summoned on demand by using call points or smartphone technology. With the same technology, the service may provide a single-passenger vehicle or one that can carry up to 12 people. Today most such systems operate in well-controlled restricted or dedicated environments, such as amusement parks, industrial complexes, and airports. They require a degree of protective infrastructure that limits interaction with other traffic and road users. Examples of vehicles in place include the Personal Rapid Transit at Heathrow 7 The full SAE description is “the driving mode–specific performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driv- ing task, even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene.”

84 T O W A R D S R O A D T R A N S P O R T A U T O M A T I O N in their expectation of mobility on demand—anytime, anywhere. Mobility services are available to all ages and demographics, regardless of whether the person cur- rently drives or not. Public agencies at the city, county, regional, and state levels grant access to licensed mobility service provid- ers, subject to a usage fee for the infrastructure. Vehicle technologies are sufficiently advanced that wide access can be granted without prohibitive infrastructure costs. Public agencies welcome such mobility services because more citizens enjoy more mobility at a lower cost. At the same time, legacy problems of crashes, congestion, and pollution are being systematically eliminated. Automated vehicle technology has evolved to the point that it is greatly trusted by the general public.8 This high degree of reliability and trust has resulted in the transport industry’s investing in a new level of variety and adaptability in vehicle designs that can be tailored for many specific driverless applications. Such applica- tions address the movement of passengers as well as the delivery of goods. These new vehicles are intended to be shared and offer new levels of efficiency and afford- ability. Vehicles are owned, operated, and offered to consumers through a new business model of mobility as a service (MaaS). Driverless vehicles are still a minority and need to interact safely with conventional human- driven vehicles as well as with privately owned vehicles with varying levels of automated capability. Wherever this mix of traffic may represent risks, segregation of tracks may be planned, similar to bike paths on large roundabouts. Extensive data are collected by the mobility services company and used to optimize services. Certain data are provided to public agencies under infrastructure access agreements in order to efficiently manage the infrastruc- ture and monitor the public impact of driverless vehicle operations on traffic behavior. In comparison with conventional human-controlled vehicle highway operations, driverless vehicles are very safe, and the contiguous operation of conventional vehicles has also become safer. Nevertheless, relatively infrequent but complex system crashes occur. There- fore, comprehensive risk assessment and management are required and are provided by third parties that enter into agreements with mobility service providers, public agencies, and OEMs. These agreements are supported by quality systems that include universal performance standards for vehicles, infrastructure, and the related roadside technology. 8 The studies made in the field in the Cybermove (2001–2004), CityMobil (2006–2011), and CityNetMobil (2008–2011) projects show that once the public has actually tried a fully automated vehicle, it trusts the technology; that is, evolution of automated vehicle technology beyond today’s state of the art is not required before the public will trust the technology. Airport in the United Kingdom and Masdar in the United Arab Emirates, the Park Shuttle Group Rapid Transit system at Rivium in the Netherlands, and the rail-based group rapid transit in Morgantown, West Virginia, USA. There is now a gentle move toward integrating these vehicles within a more mixed and shared urban space. Examples of projects wishing to realize this concept include the Google pod concept; the CityMobil2 proj- ect; the Low-Carbon Urban Transport Zone at Milton Keynes, United Kingdom; and the Food Valley project in Wageningen, Netherlands. Overall Scenario Driverless vehicles have been successfully tested and deployed in many controlled environments. They are capable of embracing many potential risks and hazards in detecting obstacles and vulnerable road users (VRUs) as well as other nonautomated vehicles. An advanced ver- sion of these vehicles may have the capabilities described in the following scenario. A user, living within the range of operation of a pri- vately owned service, uses a smartphone app linked to a billing service to call for a vehicle from his or her home. The user identifies location and destination and a desired departure or arrival time; receives route alternatives, including multimodal choices; and picks his or her best choice. A fleet management system selects the best vehicle to dispatch, which may be one that is either already on the route with other users on board or an empty vehicle. The vehicle drives automatically to the user’s address, pulls into the driveway, and stops. The user validates the e-ticket and enters the vehicle, which continues its route to the metro station. The vehicle drives into the desig- nated stopping area of the metro station and stops at a safe unloading zone close to the entrance. The user exits the vehicle, and the vehicle moves on to its next user. The multimodal journey continues until the metro station of arrival, where a vehicle drives out from a densely parked area to a dedicated pickup zone. The user jumps into the vehicle, which drives him or her to the final destination. The fleet vehicles drive along roads that are designated accessible for an SAE Level 4 vehicle, completing all routing, turning, accelerating, and braking as needed automatically. The vehicle is connected to a fleet operator that guarantees the service and to the infrastructure (via V2I technology) to support safe and efficient movement at intersections. Context This scenario takes place within the next 10 years as a complement to the rail and metro transportation in a large city. Users from all parts of society are united

85A P P E N D I X C : U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O S Sectoral Perspectives User Experience (What’s in It for the User?) This service is thought to be particularly useful for those who do not wish to drive or cannot drive. Acting as what is effectively a public transport system, these vehicles provide the user with the ability to engage in other tasks during the commute to and from home to destination with minimal waiting time between modes. The poten- tial use of these vehicles is very attractive for people with impairments and disabilities as well as for older citizens who no longer wish to drive or are unable to drive and for young people without a license or the resources to own a vehicle. However, further usability and ergonomic requirements may be required to accommodate these populations. The level of service linked to the travel time and reli- able multimodal transfers for such service in a mixed space needs to satisfy user expectations. City–Authority (What’s in It for the Public Side?) With a dramatic reduction in parked private vehicles, public spaces have become free spaces. Transport in urban settings has become much safer as the number of crashes, especially with VRUs, has been reduced. How- ever, there is a need to ensure that safe communication and interaction with VRUs are considered during vehicle and sensor development. Indeed, the safe behavior of the vehicles might induce a different (less rule-abiding) behavior on the VRU side, which would make it more complex for such vehicles to navigate. These vehicles dramatically reduce the use of private transport in an urban environment and thereby reduce congestion and transport-related emissions. This con- cept may also increase the adoption of public transport (demand driven). Business (What’s in It for the Private Side?) The business model in this scenario shifts from owner- ship to usership with MaaS in mind. Some vehicle man- ufacturers have become directly engaged in providing urban mobility services. New service providers have entered the market, own the vehicles, and engage with customers. Current ser- vices such as Uber provide, as a model, a part of the ser- vice described above but fail to integrate the multimodal dimension. The role of diffused or shared ownership is a new paradigm in which many business opportunities may open up the competition to new players. The result may be a lower volume of vehicles on urban roads but increased usage, which will keep mobility and vehicle miles traveled to the same level and therefore lead to a younger and often renewed vehicle fleet. Private companies specifically benefit by engaging consumers in their products in a space that no longer requires the driver’s attention to the road. Advertising will therefore play a big part in this form of transport, as drivers become passengers able to surf the net, watch movies, and interact with their smart devices. Research There is a desire on the part of both urban authorities and businesses to deploy and test the feasibility of such sys- tems. The EU CityMobil2 demonstration projects focus on the use of these vehicles in six European cities and the United Kingdom. In the United States, Google has announced its intention to deploy its next phase of such vehicles for on-road evaluation. These activities indicate the need to begin answering many of the new questions and challenges associated with highly automated vehi- cles. Some research areas for these vehicles include • Evaluation of the effectiveness of the sensors and perception systems to perform the specific mission, • Overall system reliability and safety and the trade- off with the availability of the system, • The potential for accelerating implementation or optimizing performance via modifications to the existing road and infrastructure, • Exploration of unintended interactions with users and other stakeholders, • Enhanced methods of verification that provide confidence in system performance and system safety in timely and economically tenable ways, • Use of V2X communication to further optimize performance, and • Identification of the limits of interaction with other road users and road types (isolated versus go anywhere). Potential Uncertainties, Barriers, and Opportunities The following issues are raised as thought-starters only. The treatment is not intended to be complete or binding for the purposes of the symposium. Technology • How effective and sensitive are the sensors imple- mented on these vehicles?

86 T O W A R D S R O A D T R A N S P O R T A U T O M A T I O N Human Factors • What are the most effective ways for automated vehicles and VRUs or other road users to interact? • What is the best way to interact with the user so that he feels comfortable sharing the vehicle, depending on demand between origin and destination? • How should the system interact with users in cases of vehicle breakdown or incident? Would it be sufficient to dispatch a new vehicle, as is done for taxis today? Security • What security measures are needed for the opera- tion of such vehicles in isolated areas or at night? Do these measures annihilate the benefits of automation or require the presence of an operator? • Are there security issues or data protection issues related to origin–destination information? Do these issues differ from those of existing services such as Uber? • What is the appropriate response to incidents, and how rapid is the response time from the operator or emergency services? Certification, Testing, and Licensing • Will different certificates and testing procedures be required for different infrastructures and layouts in cities? • Will certification be based on vehicle speed appro- priate for the area? Public Acceptance • What are the consumers’ needs for such vehicles? • Which consumers will use these systems? • Will the vehicle provide safe, fast, and efficient door-to-door service? • Is the service affordable for those who need it most? • How do the vehicles interact and communicate with other road users and other (nonautomated) vehicles? • Can vehicle behavior become more acceptable, so that automated vehicles do not simply stop in the presence of all obstacles but negotiate the road network intelligently? • How do weather conditions affect the operation of these vehicles? Legal • As no drivers exist in these vehicles, will the fleet operator agree to be liable for malfunction? • What needs to be done to prepare stakeholders for this shift of risks and responsibilities? • Can the overall risk reduction be measured? What is the proportion of the shift of risk between stakeholders? • In view of national and international law, what are the different nations doing to enable the operation of fully automated vehicles? • What are the roles and responsibilities of the public authority in the operation of fully automated vehicles? Policy Making and Regulations • What is the policy for allowing such vehicles in shared space? • What are the acceptable safe speed and risk levels in different infrastructures? • What is the best proportion of these smart vehicles compared with other means of public transportation such as buses, taxis, shared vehicles, and shared bikes? Business Models • What is the value to cities of implementing these vehicles? • What business forces might emerge to encourage and accelerate the deployment and acceptance of auto- mated vehicles?