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.

16 USE CASE SCENARIO 1 Freeway Platooning Moderately Automated Freeway Operation Robert Denaro, ITS Consultant, Long Grove, Illinois, USA Roberto Arditi, SINA Group, Milan, Italy Oliver Carsten, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom Richard Bishop, Bishop Consulting, Granite, Maryland, USA Ginger Goodin, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas, USA Risto Kulmala, Finnish Transport Agency, Helsinki, Finland Aria Etemad, Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, Germany Steven E. Shladover, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA David Agnew, Continental Automotive NA, Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA Keir Fitch, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium Natasha Merat, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom Jane Lappin, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Presentation of use Case sCenario 1, freeWay Platooning: moDerately automateD freeWay oPeration Robert Denaro and Roberto Arditi Robert Denaro and Roberto Arditi, the planning com- mittee champions for Use Case Scenario 1, described this scenario. They summarized the key characteristics of the scenario, the system concept, the operation, the user experience, and potential benefits. The full text of the use case is given in Appendix C. Denaro reviewed the key characteristics of the freeway platooning use case scenario (Table 6). The freeway pla- tooning scenario involved moderate automation at Levels 2 and 3 and high speeds. Dedicated lanes for the platooning vehicles could be used but were not required. Both the private and public sectors would likely be involved in the deploy- ment of the scenario. The two examples of freeway platoon- ing were the European Commission Safe Road Trains for the Environment (Sartre) project and the automated vehicle technology company Peloton, which specializes in technolo- gies for commercial vehicle platooning. Denaro noted that the interaction with the infrastructure was medium. He sug- gested that feedback on these use case characteristics from the breakout groups would be beneficial. Denaro expanded on some of the use case characteris- tics and parameters. The moderately automated scenario focused primarily on the platooning of commercial vehi- cles, but the ability of privately owned passenger vehicles to join a platoon was included in the use case. The opera- tion would be subject to motor vehicle standards and road operator approval in the deployment areas. The use case focused on limited-access interurban highways and motor- ways, with the potential use for dedicated lanes and time restrictions. Denaro highlighted the system concepts for freeway platooning, which included a lead commercial vehicle and trailing commercial and passenger vehicles. He noted that vehicle-to-vehicle communication was critical for this use case and commented that infrastructure and lane marking improvements would probably be needed to support this scenario. A method for automated entry and exit from a platoon would also be needed. The use parameters and operation could be weather sensitive, he noted. The initial emergence of truck platoons could occur by 2018, Denaro said, with platoons of private pas- senger vehicles following at a later date. He suggested that the discussions in the breakout groups could assist in identifying research needed to implement freeway platooning over the next few years. Benefits could be

17U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O 1 : F R E E W A Y P L A T O O N I N G realized from reduced congestion, he noted, but infra- structure investments would probably be needed to fully realize these benefits. Denaro said that it was anticipated that the lead com- mercial vehicle would be operated by a trained driver. The drivers in trailing vehicles could conduct tasks other than operating the vehicle. He indicated that while driv- erless trailing vehicles were not anticipated in the short term, they might be possible in the future. Denaro noted that the use case assumed platooning vehicles could operate at relatively high speeds, depending on local speed limits and conditions, and suggested that highway capacity could be increased by approximately 15%, with energy savings of 8% to 16% realized by the trailing vehicles. This scenario would complement existing rail and metropolitan transport systems, Denaro suggested. Pub- lic agency investments in new signage, roadway mark- ings, and perhaps dedicated lanes would be needed to support this scenario and to realize the full benefits. Connected vehicle technology, dedicated short-range communication, or, eventually, guaranteed low-latency device-to-device cellular connections would also be needed. Denaro noted that the interaction of platoon and nonplatoon vehicles would need to be managed. Arditi described some of the anticipated benefits of truck platooning: • Relaxing the hours of service limitations for opera- tors of trailing vehicles might be considered. • Platooning could make the commercial driving profession more attractive to new operators. • Drivers in trailing vehicles could engage in other tasks. • Vehicle platooning could increase capacity and reduce congestion on highways and motorways and improve safety. • Truck platooning could provide for more efficient commercial shipping. Arditi discussed potential benefits from this use case scenario to cities and authorities. In addition to reduc- tions in energy consumption, vehicle emissions, and traffic congestion, these benefits include improvements in traffic flow management and safety and additional productive time for drivers. Passenger vehicle platoon- ing might provide additional options for residential loca- tions by allowing individuals to live farther from central cities or major employment concentrations. The possible limitations cited by Arditi were the need for infrastruc- ture upgrades, public acceptance of platooning vehicles and mixed traffic, interjurisdictional standards, and security concerns. The potential business-sector benefits identified by Arditi were reductions in the cost of operating com- mercial fleets, increased competiveness of commercial vehicles with other freight modes, and new business opportunities with passenger vehicles in platoons and with drivers in following vehicles. The possible limita- tions of freeway platooning included required invest- ments by small fleet operators and passenger vehicle compatibility costs, he said. Arditi concluded by presenting possible topics and questions for discussion in the breakout groups. He sug- gested that participants consider possible legal, technical, and economic issues that would prevent the operation of freeway platooning over the next 2 to 3 years. Other top- ics suggested for discussion included the role of research to facilitate the deployment of freeway platooning and possible transatlantic cooperation on research projects and field operations tests (FOTs). breaKout grouP a Robert Denaro and Oliver Carsten Oliver Carsten summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group A. He reported that participants discussed a wide range of potential opportunities and barriers associated with the free- way platooning scenario. The opportunities included improved energy efficiency, operator cost savings, driver health benefits, and increased roadway vehicle throughput. The barriers identified by different par- ticipants included driver training needs, operating in TABLE 6 Key Characteristics of Use Case 1: Freeway Platooning Use Case Level of Automation (SAE) Speed (mph) Dedicated Space Private or Public Examples Available Now (Projects) Interaction with Infrastructurea 1. Freeway Platooning 2–3 High (>70) Possibly both Both Sartre, Peloton 3 2. Automated City Center 3–4 Low (10–40) No Both AdaptIVe 4 3. Urban Chauffeur 4 Low (<30) Both Public Google, CityMobil2 5 a1 = low, 5 = high.

18 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 multiple jurisdictions, liability issues, adequate road capacity, the possible need for dedicated lanes, road surface quality, pavement markings, and funding for needed roadway improvements. Carsten reported that the group identified 18 potential research topics, six of which the participants identified as important: • FOTs with different applications of vehicle platoon- ing in various settings to document business approaches, use of the platoons by commercial vehicles and other vehicles, and interaction with nonplatooning vehicles; • The need for vehicle-to-infrastructure communica- tion with vehicle platooning; • Qualifications needed in the drivers of lead and trailing commercial vehicles and the appropriate train- ing to meet these qualifications; • Public acceptance of commercial vehicle platoon- ing and private passenger vehicle platooning; • Modeling of the interaction of commercial vehicle platoons with other vehicles to identify road infrastruc- ture needs; • Potential misuse and abuse involved in different vehicle platooning scenarios; and • Risk scenarios, risk modeling, and reliability. breaKout grouP b Roberto Arditi and Richard Bishop Roberto Arditi summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group B. Examples of the oppor- tunities the group saw in the freeway platooning sce- nario included the reduction of fuel use and of the costs of freight shipments, improvement of truck efficiency and safety, and better use of limited roadway capacity. Participants also suggested that private passenger vehi- cles could be allowed to join a platoon, perhaps for a distance-based fee, and that drivers in following vehicles could make productive use of their time. Possible barriers identified by some breakout group participants included hours of service regulations for truck drivers, regulations or guidelines for vehicle following distance, and liabil- ity if crashes occur. Other possible barriers suggested by participants were highway infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate vehicle platoons (e.g., longer ramps), safety and congestion concerns for nonplatoon- ing vehicles, the impact of bad weather on platoons, and dealing with individual trucks. Participants also identi- fied the impacts of multiple trucks arriving together at a destination, the need for additional training for truck drivers, security concerns, and unintended consequences as other potential barriers. Arditi reported that the participants identified numer- ous research topics to help advance deployment of the freeway platooning scenario, many of which focused on operations, technology, infrastructure, and safety issues. Research topics suggested by different participants included • Impacts of closely spaced truck platoons on pave- ments and bridges, • Techniques to optimize platoon spacing dynami- cally to address any infrastructure concerns, and • Optimal platoon length and operating strategies. Research topics related to safety included • Methods for safely stopping following vehicles when a driver does not respond to take over control, • How to address individual vehicle failures in a platoon, • Safety impacts on nonplatooning vehicles, and • The need for special lanes for platooning vehicles. Arditi noted that some participants suggested it would be beneficial for FOTs in the European Union and the United States to target these questions and issues. breaKout grouP C Ginger Goodin and Risto Kulmala Ginger Goodin summarized the discussion in Breakout Group C. She highlighted some of the opportunities asso- ciated with the freeway platooning scenario discussed by different participants, including reducing transport costs and fuel use, improving efficiencies and safety, creating new trucking and freight business models, and the poten- tial for private passenger vehicles to join truck platoons. Goodin reported that of the numerous challenges and barriers identified by the group, many focused on oper- ating elements, including platoon formation, operation of a platoon, and splitting or ending a platoon. Other related challenges were platoon lengths, requirements for lead and following drivers, and interaction with non- platoon vehicles. Goodin noted that participants discussed two phases for deployment of the truck platooning scenario—a transitional phase and full automation—and potential research topics associated with each. The participants suggested that more issues were likely to be encountered during the transitional phase. Research topics identified as important during this phase focused on the previously discussed challenges and barriers. Goodin highlighted two topics:

19U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O 1 : F R E E W A Y P L A T O O N I N G • Development of a concept of operations (ConOps) plan detailing the entry and exit of vehicles to a platoon, the length of a platoon, and the responsibilities of drivers in the lead truck and the following trucks and • Development and testing of different business models, financing approaches, and user charges on rural and urban freeways. Other research topics in the transitional phase suggested by participants included FOTs involving different poten- tial operating strategies on roadways with different geo- metric characteristics, volumes, and speeds. Participants suggested that sharing the results of these transatlantic FOTs would assist in making prog- ress toward the second phase, full automation. Goodin reported that participants discussed the time frame for the transitional phase and that some suggested that the 3-year window presented in the use case was optimistic. breaKout grouP D Aria Etemad and Steven E. Shladover Steven Shladover summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group D. He reported that par- ticipants discussed several opportunities and barriers to deploying the freeway platooning use case. The opportu- nities focused on the ability of truck platooning to help address the shortage of commercial vehicle drivers, the commercial operator hours of service regulations, and traf- fic congestion. Other potential benefits identified by par- ticipants related to reducing truck operating costs, energy consumption, and emissions. Possible barriers discussed in the breakout group included acceptance by other road users, the potential of platoons to block freeway entry and exit ramps, allocation of liability among platoon members, and the need for changes in laws and regulations. Shladover listed the five research topics suggested as beneficial by the different participants: • Multistate or multinational demonstrations or FOTs—participants suggested that comparisons could be made between demonstrations in the European Union and the United States; • The rules of the road for interaction with other roadway traffic; • The value proposition from truck platooning for supply chain users, especially truck fleet operators; sug- gested elements of this analysis included identifying the economic costs and benefits to fleet operators, indepen- dent truckers, shippers, and the public; • The impact of platooning on freeway operations and traffic flow (a somewhat related research need); and • Potential driver issues and the impacts on opera- tors of the lead truck and the following trucks; sugges- tions for the elements of this analysis included – Hours of service regulations for drivers of the lead and the following trucks, – Use of graduated licenses for operators of the following trucks, and – Impact on truck driver recruitment and retention. breaKout grouP e David Agnew and Keir Fitch Keir Fitch summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group E, noting that much of it focused on ensuring the safety of platooning and non- platooning vehicles. He reported that the participants identified the following opportunities associated with the freeway platooning scenario: • Increasing truck fuel efficiency, • Increasing roadway capacity at bottlenecks, • Allowing drivers in following vehicles to perform other duties, • Reviewing the hours of service regulations, • Developing and using platoon time tables, and • Allowing commercial vehicles, buses, and pri- vate passenger vehicles to join regularly scheduled platoons. Fitch reported that the participants questioned whether vehicle platooning could work safely without Level 4 automation. Other possible barriers identified by some participants included liability issues in the case of a crash or a vehicle malfunction, the business case for investing in the needed automation, and the possible impact on commercial driver hours of service regulations. Fitch described the two safety-related research topics discussed by individual participants: • Standards for a human–machine interface to ensure that drivers of following vehicles were able to reassume the driving function and • Minimum conditions or standards for safe opera- tion of vehicle platoons, including providing for an auto- mated safe stop. A related research topic discussed by the participants was developing standards for platooning vehicles. Par- ticipants suggested that standards governing platooning vehicle brakes, power, data communication capabilities, and other factors were needed to ensure the safe and effi-

20 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 cient operations of freeway vehicle platoons. Additional related research topics focused on • Facilities and areas that would be safe for platoon- ing vehicles and the decision-making process for approv- ing routes, • Hours of service regulations for drivers in follow- ing vehicles, • Interaction of platooning and nonplatooning vehi- cles, and • Guidelines and protocols. Participants also suggested that a benefit–cost analysis was needed to determine the viability of the platooning use case. breaKout grouP f Natasha Merat and Jane Lappin Jane Lappin summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group F, noting that the group included a mix of representatives from the public and private sectors. Lappin reported that the group discussed the following opportunities associated with the freeway platooning scenario: • Measurable economic benefits to commercial vehi- cle owners, operators, and shippers; • The potential for passengers in private vehicles to experience faster and more relaxed travel by joining a platoon; and • Transit buses joining a platoon or the organization of a platoon of buses. Possible barriers discussed by participants included con- flicts between platoon and nonplatoon vehicles, public acceptance, and infrastructure costs to accommodate platooning vehicles. Lappin reported that the group identified 13 potential topics for research: • FOTs and demonstrations to move research proj- ects forward and determine how platooning systems work in a complex real-world context (many partici- pants supported this topic); • Algorithms for assigning truck platoons to routes so as to avoid the most congested urban freeways and motorways; • Differences between the European Union and the United States related to commercial vehicle fleet technol- ogy, roadway network characteristics, laws, regulations, and other elements; • The best policies in different platooning contexts and approaches to maximize societal benefits and limit negative societal impacts; • Public acceptance of different lengths of truck platoons and various operating plans and examin- ing the impact of the weight of truck platoons on bridges; • The potential opportunity or business case for pri- vate investment in a roadway infrastructure for truck platooning; • Potential liability issues in relation to multisub- scriber platoons, including the assignment of liability for different types of situations; • Overall ConOps for different truck and vehicle pla- tooning scenarios; • Examination of the need for public testing, verifica- tion, and validation of platooning approaches developed by the private sector and development of draft protocols and measures as needed; • Platooning to enable innovative forms of public transport; • Different approaches to truck platoon formation, including facilitated and spontaneous platoons; • The benefits, limitations, and impacts of different approaches; and • Development of shared platoon scenarios for future EU-U.S. research and FOTs. Lapin noted that participants in the breakout group dis- cussed that convening sectoral meetings and facilitating ongoing EU-U.S. interaction on topics of shared interest, such as the results of FOTs, would be beneficial. oPen DisCussion In the open session, individual symposium participants provided additional comments on the merits, opportu- nities, barriers, and potential research topics associated with the freeway platooning use case scenario. The fol- lowing topics were discussed: • Benefits to the trucking industry, including energy savings, increased fuel efficiency, reduced operating costs, and increased driver recruitment and retention; • Possible impacts on driver hours of service, train- ing and requirements for drivers in lead vehicles and fol- lowing vehicles, and protocols for entering and leaving a platoon; • The length of platoons, the speed of platooning vehicles, impacts on other road users, and private pas- senger vehicles joining a platoon; • Adoption of platooning by the trucking industry; • Vehicle equipment needs;

21U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O 1 : F R E E W A Y P L A T O O N I N G • Public acceptance; • Safety concerns; and • Safe-stop capabilities. Several participants discussed sponsoring FOTs in the European Union and the United States to further define the business case for this scenario, to develop ConOps to address the questions raised during the discussion, and to build acceptance within the trucking industry and among other roadway users. Participants also suggested that FOTs could explore policy implications, alternative busi- ness models, the phasing of implementation, and whether to allow transit buses and private passenger vehicles in a platoon. Some participants suggested that sharing the results of these transatlantic FOTs would be beneficial to all groups. Participants also discussed possible time frames for freeway platooning, and some suggested that it was more a midterm than a short-term scenario.