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.

22 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 Robert Denaro, ITS Consultant, Long Grove, Illinois, USA Oliver Carsten, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom Roberto Arditi, SINA Group, Milan, Italy Richard Bishop, Bishop Consulting, Granite, Maryland, USA Risto Kulmala, Finnish Transport Agency, Helsinki, Finland 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 2, automateD City Center: highly automateD urban oPeration Ginger Goodin and Aria Etemad Ginger Goodin and Aria Etemad, the planning commit- tee champions for Use Case Scenario 2, described this scenario. They summarized the key characteristics of the scenario, the context and time frame, and the sec- toral perspectives. The full text of the use case is given in Appendix C. Etemad reviewed Table 7 and the key characteristics of the automated city center use case scenario. The use case focused on vehicle automation for negotiating dense urban traffic and automated parking within a city cen- ter. Representing a high level of automation—Levels 3 and 4—the use case would allow drivers to transfer driv- ing tasks to an automated system in a networked urban center. Vehicles would operate at speeds of approximately 10 to 40 miles per hour. Dedicated space was not required, and it was anticipated that both the public and the pri- vate sectors would be involved in the implementation and operation of the use case. Etemad highlighted the Automated Driving Applications and Technologies for Intelligent Vehicles (AdaptIVe) project as one example of this approach. AdaptIVe is a large-scale, European Commission–sponsored, automated demonstration project in Europe involving 30 partners, including 11 automotive vehicle manufacturers and eight countries. It involves three different types of applications: automated parking, urban and city driving, and highway driving. The use case posits that the driver remains behind the wheel, with vehicles operating at low to medium speeds. Etemad described the typical characteristics of city centers, which included high-density employment and residential development, closely spaced signalized and networked intersections, and parking structures. He also noted that the city center environment involved multiple street users, including automobiles, trucks and delivery vehicles, buses, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Etemad described the operating scenario developed by the symposium planning committee for the automated city center use case. Vehicle routing would be initiated when a driver entered a destination into the vehicle’s navigation system via a connected app before a trip. The navigation system would offer the driver the most auto- mated route. The driver would engage automation and would oversee operation of the vehicle. An urban traffic

23U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O 2 : A U T O M A T E D C I T Y C E N T E R management system would monitor the roadway net- work and communicate with the driver and other street users as needed, including asking the driver to resume the driving task when necessary. The vehicle would nego- tiate the optimal route. By means of the city parking database, the vehicle would be routed to available park- ing close to the requested destination. The driver would select a parking preference on the basis of information on parking availability and prices provided by the sys- tem. The space would be reserved and the vehicle would drive itself to the location. After the driver leaves the vehicle, it would self-park in a fully automated mode. Goodin discussed the context and the possible time frame for the automated city center use case scenario. The logical targets for implementing the scenario were cities without extensive surface and underground pas- senger rail systems and smart cities with V2X connectiv- ity. Goodin noted the importance of traffic management systems in this scenario. She also noted that the focus on safety was important for the use case. The automated city center use case was envisioned as being enabled through public–private partnerships, Goodin reported. Vehicle mobility and parking could be packaged into a single service by new providers that would work with cities and other public agencies to develop, implement, and operate the service. With respect to timing, Goodin noted that Level 4 self-parking was anticipated to be available within the time frame of 2018 to 2020 and that Level 3 urban automation was estimated to be available after 2025. Goodin described potential benefits and limitations of the automated urban operation scenario for users, cities, and businesses. Possible user benefits included improved safety, more relaxed driving, time savings from auto- mated driving and parking, and reduced fuel consump- tion. Potential limitations focused on the availability of services and the costs associated with the system. Goodin noted that potential benefits focused on better performance of the transportation network, including optimized flow, reduced vehicle emissions, and reduced accidents. Optimized parking supply and revenue repre- sented another potential benefit to cities. The potential liabilities to cities included increased vehicle miles trav- eled and the cost of infrastructure improvements. Goodin suggested that from a business perspec- tive, the automated city center scenario would provide opportunities for the integration of vehicle and infra- structure systems into a seamless and invisible under- pinning to the effective movement of people and goods. The scenario also supports the smart city notion, which envisions investments in digital systems and infra- structure to connect transportation with other sectors, including energy, healthcare, and water and solid waste services to further economic and environmental objec- tives. She suggested that the integrated strategic urban transportation management described in the scenario would provide opportunities for private-sector involve- ment in data analytics for urban network optimization, modal integration, payment integration, and parking infrastructure operation. breaKout grouP a Robert Denaro and Oliver Carsten Oliver Carsten summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group A. He highlighted the general discussion on opportunities and barriers, noting that some participants discussed expanding the use case to include both cities of all sizes and urban freight applications. The participants also discussed the potential application of the scenario to valet parking of large- and medium-sized trucks. It was suggested that the highly automated urban operation scenario would also have environmental ben- efits. Potential barriers discussed by participants included the risk of collisions with vulnerable road users (VRUs), public acceptance, and the costs to cities. Carsten listed the research topics identified by differ- ent breakout group participants: • Potential urban freight applications, including – Valet parking or self-parking for commercial vehicles, enhancing the distribution of goods and – Technologies for supporting safe truck opera- tions in urban areas; • Development of a business case for cities that would highlight the benefits that could be realized by TABLE 7 Key Characteristics of Use Case 2: Automated City Center 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.

24 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 participating in field operation tests (FOTs), demonstra- tions, and deployments; • Explanation of the link to smart cities and environ- mentally friendly cities (suggested as part of developing a business case); • Links to the quality of the urban environment; • Approaches to maximize the environmental ben- efits of the automated city center scenario; • Application of the automated city center scenario to enhance urban redevelopment; • Consumer attitudes and acceptance; • Interaction with other road users and possible safety concerns; • Methods to increase road efficiency and road capacity; and • Development of a phased implementation approach that would consider the benefits to different users, syner- gies with other use cases and applications, and funding methods, including the potential for collecting fees and the qualification of user benefits. breaKout grouP b Roberto Arditi and Richard Bishop Richard Bishop summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group B, noting that partici- pants discussed numerous potential opportunities and barriers. Examples of opportunities cited by participants included improving the efficiency of the urban transport system, the environment of cities, and safety. Bishop noted that participants identified several legal issues as possible barriers. Bishop listed the 12 research topics discussed by the participants: • A common framework for assessing potential lia- bility in vehicle crashes occurring in an automated mode; • A road code or driving rules for automated vehicles (AVs), to facilitate deployment; • Current knowledge related to the interaction of VRUs, AVs, and non-AVs; • Best practices for municipalities to adopt or encour- age AV use; • Benefits and costs of unintended consequences from the standpoint of a city; • Data-sharing standards and protocols for vehicle- to-vehicle communication; • A process for certifying road segments for AV operation; • Reexamination of regulations on distracted driving; • Enforcement issues and police interaction with AVs; • Additional needs for regulations governing AVs; • Potential cybersecurity issues and countermea- sures; and • FOTs to further advance AV deployment, includ- ing the automated city center use case scenario (a topic supported by many of the group’s participants). breaKout grouP C Ginger Goodin and Risto Kulmala Risto Kulmala summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group C. The group partici- pants identified reducing congestion levels and enhanc- ing the quality of life in urban areas as opportunities associated with the case study. They suggested that early education and outreach to users were important for gaining public acceptance of AVs. Possible barriers identified by some participants included the availability of needed technology and the liability and safety issues associated with the interaction of AVs and non-AVs under Level 3 automation. The group identified the following four research top- ics as important: • Behavioral privileges, the human–machine inter- face, and response times for Level 3 automation to suit all driver segments; • Demonstration of the use case scenarios in the European Union and the United States with the incorpo- ration of all four automation levels; • Potential liability issues that might be encountered with Level 3 automation, including a code of practice, standards, and informed consent; and • Innovative business models for public–private partnerships to deploy elements of the automated city center use case. One example discussed was integrat- ing automated driving and self-parking with insurance reductions, real estate developments, and businesses. Other research topics identified by individual partici- pants included • Development of more accurate sensors and effi- cient vehicle algorithms adapted to address different urban settings, • Potential land use impacts, • Approaches for enhancing multimodal mobility, • Different communication technologies for linking AVs and VRUs, • FOTs and demonstration projects coordinating the interaction of all user groups, and • Testing of routes or city centers reserved for AVs connected to a traffic management cloud.

25U S E C A S E S C E N A R I O 2 : A U T O M A T E D C I T Y C E N T E R breaKout grouP D Aria Etemad and Steven E. Shladover Steven Shladover summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group D. He noted that the dis- cussion included some of the potential benefits of Level 3 versus Level 4 automation and reported that participants seemed to favor moving toward Level 4 automation to realize more benefits and eliminate some of the ques- tions about mix traffic conflicts associated with Level 3 automation. Two of the key opportunities participants identified in the automated city center scenario included traffic flow and safety improvements that would result in reduced traffic congestion. Other opportunities included more efficient land utilization from higher density urban parking and improved driver comfort and convenience. The two barriers suggested by some participants as most important were human factors challenges related to driv- ers reengaging in driving tasks after automated operation disengages and the technical challenges of addressing the complexity of urban environments. Shladover listed four research topics identified as important by individual participants: • Potential human factors issues associated with the Level 3 automation used in the automated city center scenario, especially – The roles of the driver, – Interaction between the driver and the vehicle, and – A system for a safe stop if the driver does not reengage in the driving task when automated opera- tion disengages; • The legal framework for developing and testing Level 3 automation; • Certification procedures for vehicles and infrastruc- ture in these types of Level 3 automation scenarios; and • The socioeconomic impacts associated with the scenario and development of a business case for cities to participate in the automated city center use case. breaKout grouP e David Agnew and Keir Fitch David Agnew summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group E. He reported that partici- pants discussed possible trade-offs between Level 3 and Level 4 automation and the potential benefits of Level 3 automation in mixed traffic. The participants identified improving the environment of city centers, improving the driving experience for system users, and enhancing safety as possible benefits associated with the automated city center scenario. The potential barriers they discussed focused on the difficulty of managing the mix of AVs and non-AVs in the Level 3 traffic environment. Agnew noted that the three research topics identified as important by the group focused on the interaction of AVs and non-AVs with Level 3 automation: • The capacity of drivers operating in an automated mode to reengage in the driving task and the develop- ment of a human–machine interface, • A safe-stop system in a city environment for drivers who have not reengaged in the driving task, and • The impact of this scenario on traffic flow and VRUs and the benefits of Level 3 automation. Other research topics discussed in the breakout group were • Intelligent transportation systems infrastructure and the traffic control systems needed for this scenario, • Data needed to identify liability in the case of crashes, • Use of crowd-sourced data to identify safe drop-off areas, • Maximization of the use of available big data from traffic management centers and related systems when automated city center applications are being developed, and • The impact of these applications on urban plan- ning, land use, transport modeling, and the environment. breaKout grouP f Natasha Merat and Jane Lappin Jane Lappin summarized the discussion of the use case scenario in Breakout Group F. She reported that the group discussed several opportunities, including • Relieving drivers of the stress of urban driving and providing time for other activities, • Improving safety, • Reducing vehicle and pedestrian interactions, • Enhancing mobility for the elderly and special pop- ulation groups, • Increasing the attractiveness of cities with smart infrastructure and smart vehicle services, • Increasing mobility and reducing congestion in densely developed neighborhoods, • Increasing private-sector financing, and • Encouraging public–private partnerships with the business community and property owners.

26 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 Potential barriers discussed in the breakout group focused on the possibility of inducing demand and the creation of the need for additional regulations and poli- cies to address negative impacts. Lappin reviewed the research topics identified by indi- vidual breakout group participants: • Mixed modal operations involving manual and automated vehicles; • The concept of balancing short-term parking with other demand management policies and practices and using automation to maximize access; • Policies to accomplish desired urban, commercial, and societal goals of the automated city center scenario; • Distribution of costs and benefits among different user groups; • The impact of the automated city center scenario on overall safety, including the interaction of AVs and VRUs; • The need to adapt the driver interface to support age and human variables in driver capabilities; • The best approaches for cities of different sizes and configurations, including a comparison of EU and U.S. approaches; • The need for new traffic models to adequately address the automated city center scenario and other AV applications; and • The need for new driver behavior models to ade- quately address all use cases. oPen DisCussion In the open session, individual symposium participants provided additional comments on the merits, oppor- tunities, barriers, and potential research topics associ- ated with the automated city center use case scenario. Much of the discussion focused on the need to better define Level 3 automation and the potential human fac- tors issues associated with Level 3. Some participants suggested that Level 3 was a transition step, or bridge, between Level 2 and Level 4 automation. It was sug- gested that rather than being a long-term state, Level 3 represents a short-term transition to Level 4. Other par- ticipants indicated that Level 3 is appropriate for some AV applications and cautioned against ignoring Level 3 automation. Still other participants suggested that while the automation levels are necessary from a design and development standpoint, automation should be trans- parent to users. The potential benefits to a city that would result from the automated city center use case scenario and other AV applications were discussed. Some participants sug- gested that the use case would increase the attractiveness of a city as well as create opportunities for private-sector investments. Other participants noted the potential to reinvigorate urban areas. It was further suggested that cities would benefit from using land for more valuable purposes than parking.