Business Models to Facilitate Deployment of Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations (2020)

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.

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND As potential tools to address the transportation system’s safety and mobility performance, connected vehicle (CV) technologies have received much attention globally over the past two decades. This attention is warranted; safety and congestion issues on the nation’s highways continue to pose a challenge to transportation agencies. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported nearly 36,000 fatalities from roadway crashes in 2018 (NHTSA, 2020). The 2019 Texas Transporation Institute (TTI) Urban Mobility Report states that the recent 8- to 10-year economic growth pattern has increased congestion to the highest measured levels in most urban cities in the US (Schrank et al., 2019). Nationally, according to INRIX’s Global Traffic Score Card, drivers lost more than $88 billion in time to congestion (INRIX, 2020). State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and other agencies at local, metropolitan, and multi-state levels of government (collectively referred to in this study as DOTs) have a compelling interest in exploring every tool at their disposal to address these challenges. CVs use advanced wireless communication technology to enable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. When roadway infrastructure (e.g., signal controllers, traffic control devices) is appropriately fitted with compatible communications technology, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I or I2V) connectivity can be established. V2V and V2I communication platforms are a primary component to enable CV applications, which are specific uses of vehicle, infrastructure, and other system user data to achieve certain objectives, most often related to safety, mobility, environmental mitigation, and agency operations. Other components of the CV infrastructure environment include relevant roadside and centralized hardware, software, in-vehicle and roadside sensors, and telecommunication networks. The information exchanged within the CV infrastructure environment alerts drivers in real-time of impending safety of life situations or network congestion issues so they can take appropriate actions. At the same time, the information exchanged can also help traffic signals and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) equipment and operational strategies to adapt to traffic conditions to relieve congestion or improve travel time reliability. In the US alone, more than 50 pilot or test bed programs, spread across dozens of states and cities, are investigating the benefits, costs, operational considerations, and partnerships associated with deploying CV technologies. DOTs recognize the value of CV technologies in helping achieve the strategic objectives of saving lives and relieving congestion. As documented in their policy frameworks and statements, several agencies are currently planning and preparing for a future where CV technologies could become a part of their routine business operations (NOCoE, 2020). A core consideration in any such planning effort is an assessment of the need for and the nature of public CV infrastructure investments to support applications based on CV technologies. The primary product of the research summarized in this report is the separately published Guidance to Develop Business Cases and Explore Business Models for Connected Vehicle Infrastructure to Support Automated Vehicle Operations. It presents (1) methods to identify the most plausible CV infrastructure investments that DOTs may encounter for which quantitative

2 business case arguments must be advanced; (2) how to build effective business case arguments that consider market conditions and uncertainties; and (3) specific business model options during project procurement and delivery that help agencies deliver on the value propositions articulated in the business case with the least cost and risk. PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY In 2015, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) developed a CV roadmap outlining a research program to investigate critical issues facing deployment of connected and automated vehicles (AVs). This study is a part of that program and seeks to expand the body of knowledge to enable DOTs to make better decisions on how to prepare for and invest, as appropriate, in CV technology. The purpose of this study is to provide information and guidance for decision-makers at DOTs on: 1. The issues influencing investment in CV infrastructure (including both V2I and I2V communication), the potential public and private benefits and costs of CV infrastructure investment, and the potential impact of such investment on AV deployment. 2. Business cases to be made, in financial and economic terms, for investments in CV infrastructure, along with viable business models to implement an investment for which there is a positive business case. 3. The methods and data any DOT may use to develop, evaluate, and effectively present a business case for such investment if justified by the agency’s specific situation. The findings and applications of the research to meet these objectives is presented in chapters 2– 5. Chapter 6 summarizes the findings and suggests areas for further research. The remainder of this introductory chapter provides additional context and background, including definitions of key terms used throughout the report, historical context and trends on the development and interest in CVs, an overview of why DOTs are motivated to consider investments in CV infrastructure and the issues they must address as they weigh such investments, approaches for moving forward with CV investments that incorporate application of the business case, and further detail on the organization of the report starting with chapter 2. DEFINITION AND USE OF KEY TERMS This report uses terms that benefit from clear definition. The following sections define key terms related to CVs and AVs, as well as several terms related to business and investment decision- making. Connected Vehicle “Connected vehicles” is a concept built around wireless radio transmission of data (Figure 1) that plays an important role in a wide range of transportation applications by: • Connecting vehicles directly to each other (V2V) and to non-motorized travelers (e.g., vehicle-to-pedestrian, vehicle-to-bicycle or vehicle-to-anything, V2X) for a variety of safety, mobility, and environmental applications.

3 • Connecting vehicles directly to traffic management infrastructure (V2I), including traffic control devices via radios in roadside units (RSUs) and Traffic Management Centers (TMCs) to provide infrastructure-based messages, collect probe data for systems and asset management, and potentially provide an external gateway to third-party services (e.g., such as wireless message security credential management services). • Connecting vehicles via a communications network both to bypass the need for RSUs and to connect vehicles and TMCs directly to application platforms in the cloud. Source: WSP Figure 1. Types of Vehicle Connectivity Connected Vehicle Applications There are many CV applications and application groupings with no standardized terminology. The most authoritative catalog and definition of CV applications is the Connected Vehicle Reference Implementation Architecture (CVRIA) that provides a comprehensive listing, a common language basis, and an architectural framework for nearly 100 V2I and V2X CV applications (ITS JPO, 2016). The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) ITS Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) categorizes these applications as follows (ITS JPO, 2018a): • Safety (applications also referred to as active safety or safety-critical applications that require high-speed, reliable, and secure communications to avoid collisions). o V2V safety, e.g., emergency electronic brake lights, Forward Collision Warning (FCW). o V2I safety, e.g., red light violation warning (RLVW), curve speed warning. • Mobility, e.g., signal priority (transit, freight), queue warning, dynamic speed harmonization, cooperative adaptive cruise control. • Agency data, e.g., probe-based pavement maintenance, CV-based origin-destination studies.

4 • Environment, e.g., eco-approach and departure at signalized intersections, Eco-Traffic Signal Timing. Connected Vehicle Communications CV applications are enabled by the transfer of data and information between vehicles/drivers or other users, transportation agencies, and private service providers. The applications have different technical requirements in terms of latency, bandwidth, and range. Some applications, particularly for safety-critical and time-critical (e.g., dynamic or real-time mobility), have more stringent requirements in terms of required latency, bandwidth, spectrum, and security than others like route guidance or infotainment. Two types of communications technologies are addressed in this study: • Network-Based Cellular and Satellite Communications. Network-based CV communication is in commercial use today and relies on the transmission of private vehicle location data via mobile or vehicle-embedded conventional (3G/4G) cellular radios transmitted through original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to third-party service providers who collect similar data from participating fleet vehicles. These service providers, using cellular networks on an over-the-top basis, sell the analyzed and enhanced data, such as volume, speed, and direction, back to OEMs (and their vehicle subscribers), to DOTs (who use it for traffic management or planning), and to other commercial entities (e.g., free or subscription-based navigation providers). With the debut of 4G LTE in 2012, cellular bandwidth was expanded, and signal communication latency significantly reduced. • Direct Peer-to-Peer Communications Systems. Direct peer-to-peer communications enable wireless device-to-device communication on a direct peer-to-peer basis without any external routing or intermediation by external entities. This form of communication is essential for active safety and some mobility applications because of its low-latency (short time delays in message transmission), high reliability (assurance of message delivery), and secure communication of critical safety-related vehicle information in a high-speed, mobile environment where multiple units are operating. Two principal technologies for direct peer-to-peer communication exist—the Dedicated Short-Range Communication standard (DSRC) and the emerging cellular V2X (C-V2X) standard (and the projected 5G C-V2X standard). DSRC is the only field-tested commercially available technology as of mid-2020. It uses the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated 75 megahertz (MHz) of spectrum in the 5.9 gigahertz (GHz) band for use by ITS vehicle safety and mobility applications. The C-V2X cellular technology-based standard has also been undergoing rapid development and testing, with some OEMs indicating support for its deployment. Connected Vehicle Infrastructure CV infrastructure is a component of the broader category of ITS infrastructure. It focuses on V2I and V2X communications. The essential aspects of this infrastructure include the following: Additional CV infrastructure components are summarized in chapter 2 (Table 5).

5 • Roadside Units (RSUs). An RSU is composed of a radio transceiver, an application processor, and interface to the V2I and V2X communications network. It also has an attached global positioning system (GPS) unit. The RSU (Figure 2) is mounted on a pole on the side of a roadway or in a traffic signal and requires power, fiber connection, and appropriate network equipment like switches to transmit and receive data from on-board units (OBUs) and other networked elements. Source: CDOT Figure 2. Installed Roadside Unit • Vehicle On-board Units (OBUs). OBUs are the vehicle side of the V2I system and can be either built-in or brought into the vehicle. Built-in OBUs are integrated into the vehicles by the OEMs that work with their suppliers to manufacture the units in accordance with governing vehicular standards and requirements of the auto companies. An OBU comprises a radio transceiver, a GPS system, an applications processor, and connections with vehicle systems and the vehicle’s human machine interface (Gáspár et al., 2014). OBUs provide V2V communications as well as V2I and V2X communications. • Traffic Management Centers (TMCs). TMCs, also known as traffic operations centers, are another part of the infrastructure necessary to enable V2I functionality. These centers collect and process data from OBUs and RSUs (Steadman and Huntsman, 2018). TMCs exist today and typically collect volume, speed, and occupancy data, as well as data from pavement sensors, weather stations, and cameras, and more recently collect data using toll tag readers, Bluetooth wireless communication readers, and third-party data. TMCs in a CV environment could be used to manage crashes, control traffic signal systems, disseminate traffic information, and route guidance to drivers (Kimley-Horn and Associates and Noblis, 2013).

6 • Backhaul. An important aspect of the V2I is backhaul communications for security applications, data transfer, and storage. Backhaul includes a robust, high-bandwidth Ethernet communications network capable of meeting the latest Internet protocols. A fiber optic network is viewed as a sustainable backhaul solution for both CV infrastructure and ITS functions. Many agencies are in the process of locating fiber optic networks within their rights-of-way (ROWs) and connecting traffic signal controllers (FHWA, 2012). Additional CV infrastructure components are summarized in chapter 2 (Table 5). Automated Vehicle According to USDOT, AVs operate without direct driver input for at least some aspect of a safety-critical control function (e.g., steering, throttle, or braking) (ITS JPO, 2018b). There are six different levels of automated driving functionalities. USDOT has an articulated position on AVs for Automated Driving Systems (vehicles at Level 3-5 automation) (USDOT, 2020). Figure 3 provides a description of all six levels of vehicle automation. AVs may be autonomous (i.e., use only vehicle sensors) or connected (i.e., use communications systems such as connected vehicle technology, in which cars and roadside infrastructure communicate wirelessly). Investment Decision-making Terms Several concepts related to business and investment decision-making are at the center of this study and benefit from clear definitions. • Value Proposition. A clear statement that explains how a service, product, or feature uniquely solves the problems of a specific customer segment (relevancy) and delivers specific benefits (quantified value). A value proposition articulates these expected outcomes relative to the status quo option. • Business Case. A business case is an evidence-based justification for a proposed investment option or opportunity. It is presented in a structured manner that enables decision-makers to quickly assess the expected benefits from the investment against an organization’s objectives and make informed investment decisions. • Business Model. A business model is a specification that defines how a proposed CV project and its value can be delivered to the customer at an appropriate cost. It is a framework for operationalizing an undertaking with a good business case. It should articulate the approach proposed to acquire resources to deliver the project and mitigate risks.

7 SAE J3016 TM LEVELS OF DRIVING AUTOMATION SAE Level 0 SAE Level 1 SAE Level 2 SAE Level 3 SAE Level 4 SAE Level 5 What does the human in the driver's seat have to do? You are driving whenever these driver support features are engaged - even if your feet are off the pedals and you are not steering You are not driving when these automated driving features are engaged - even if you are seated in " the driver's seat You must constantly supervise these support features; you must steer, brake, or accelerate as needed to maintain safety When the feature requests, you must drive These automated driving features will not require you to take over driving These are driver support features These are automated driving features What do these features do? These features are limited to providing warnings and momentary assistance These features provide steering OR brake acceleration support to the driver These features provide steering AND brake acceleration support to the driver These features can drive the vehicle under limited conditions and will not operate unless all required conditions are met This feature can drive the vehicle under all conditions Example Features • automatic emergency braking • blind spot warning • lane departure warning • lane centering OR • adaptive cruise control • lane centering AND • adaptive cruise control at the same time • Traffic jam chauffeur • local driverless taxi • pedals /steering wheel may or may not be installed • same as level 4 but feature can drive everywhere in all conditions Source: Society of Automotive Engineers, 2016 Figure 3. The Spectrum of Automated Driving

8 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND TRENDS The growing significance of CV technology, interest in its purported benefits to DOTs and transportation systems users, and viability for investment sets the stage for the findings of this research. This section reviews key developments and activities in research and early testing over the past 20 years. This context provides a baseline understanding of past and ongoing national and state initiatives to explore making investments in CV infrastructure and articulates why meeting the objectives of this project is a worthy contribution along the path to realizing a transportation system that accommodates and capitalizes on the growing numbers and eventual ubiquity of CVs. The Evolution of Transportation Systems Management and Operations, Intelligent Transportation System, and Connected Customers Over the last 20 years, a rapid evolution in communication and information technology applied to transportation systems operations, and more broadly to individuals’ everyday lives, has given momentum to clear interest and value in making investments in CV infrastructure. DOTs have made substantial progress in mainstreaming TSMO into their missions, goals, and top-level programs. Public sector infrastructure-based ITS technologies and concepts of operations have evolved to incorporate new and more complex situation-responsive and network integration approaches, such as integrated corridor management and real-time adaptive ramp metering. DOTs are implementing these advanced operational strategies because they have proven to help meet key safety and mobility objectives. Further advancing the speed and volume of data transfer between vehicles and with infrastructure that CV infrastructure can facilitate is a natural advancement of this progress. Within this environment, system users themselves are increasingly connected with constant access to communication and information through a growing and ubiquitous digital wireless communications network (e.g., cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth). The concepts of a “connected driver” and “connected infrastructure” are therefore a logical extension of what a “connected customer” demands for new mobility options that suit their preferences. At the same time, connectivity is not a new concept to transportation systems users, even absent large-scale availability of vehicles with built-in capability to communicate with infrastructure with the speed and reliability afforded by DSRC or similar technology. Certain commercial V2I services have been provided for many years, including long-established (cellular or satellite- based) V2I systems offering traveler assurance, navigation, and infotainment through both vehicle-embedded and mobile (smartphone) applications. CV applications where the vehicle acts as a “probe” by virtue of a cellular or Bluetooth positional signal have also been used for public sector traffic management purposes. National Research and Planning for Connected Vehicles and Infrastructure Alongside the development of advanced ITS and TSMO technology, the federal government has led formal public program-level support for CV technology. Starting in the late 1990s, research at the NHTSA focused on the need for high-speed, low-latency dedicated communications for active safety applications. In October 1999, USDOT obtained the DSRC spectrum at 5.9 GHz

9 from the FCC to “increase traveler safety, reduce fuel consumption and pollution, and continue to advance the nation’s economy” (FCC, 1999). In 2003, a new FCC ruling defined seven channels—six service channels and one control channel—for DSRC (FCC, 2003). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) IntelliDrive Strategic Plan was completed in 2009 (IntelliDrive was an early term referring to CVs and CV technology) and reflected early state DOT interest in CVs. The plan articulated AASHTO’s commitment and role in supporting nationwide CV infrastructure deployment (Mixon Hill, Inc., 2009). A subsequent AASHTO Connected Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Analysis, completed in 2011, provided “insights and direction on what approaches would be practical for infrastructure deployment; what the vehicle, communications infrastructure and application environment would look like in the future; and the advantages and challenges of a phased infrastructure deployment approach by the agencies” (Hill and Garrett, 2011). With the support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), AASHTO developed a Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis in 2013 to quantify roadway infrastructure costs and other prospective impacts of the applications of wireless communications on improving safety, mobility, and the environment (Wright et al., 2014). In 2013, NHTSA announced its intent to mandate DSRC equipment on new vehicles followed by a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in 2016. During this period, DSRC-based technology and systems development and deployment issues were pursued through technical studies supported by USDOT, as well as state DOT safety and CV pilot studies, many in cooperation with vehicle manufacturers. These technical studies and pilot activities helped establish a defined set of V2I applications and their benefits across a range of DOT program activities and mission objectives, including mobility, safety, and the environment. The CVRIA, published by the ITS JPO, provides a comprehensive listing, a common language basis, and an architectural framework for nearly 100 V2I and V2X connected vehicle applications (ITS JPO, 2016) (see Section 1.2.2 for further detail). In 2017, USDOT incorporated the CVRIA into a major upgrade to the National ITS Architecture, an important step that formalized CVs’ inclusion in the unifying framework for all ITS planning, design, and implementation. This research draws on the CV applications in the CVRIA—many of which depend on V2I communications, as analyzed in this study—and their benefits to DOTs and transportation systems users as demonstrated through numerous pilots, test bed activities, and deployments over the last five years. MOTIVATIONS FOR PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN CONNECTED VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE CV applications can generally be categorized into two groups: (1) those that do not have any infrastructure information requirements, and (2) those that depend on information from infrastructure (Parikh, et al., 2019). Most of the V2V CV applications fall under the former category and would not require any DOT infrastructure investments. However, most of the V2I CV applications fall under the second category and may require some level of DOT investment—capital or human resources or both—in the future.

10 The motivation for any investment is the expected outcome such investment brings when compared to the status quo option, i.e., its value proposition. The closer the alignment of the value proposition of the CV infrastructure investment to the DOT’s strategic goals and related objectives, the higher the motivation to invest. Another factor motivating investment in CV infrastructure is the opportunity cost of not deploying V2I applications. Opportunity costs can be expressed in terms of suboptimally allocated capital outlays for system rehabilitation, expansion, and enhancement; increased costs of operating the system; lost revenues; reputation risk; and an insufficiently prepared organization to manage disruptive change caused by external factors (e.g., vehicle technologies). The value proposition for CV infrastructure investments to enable V2I applications has been postulated in past research in the areas of safety (intersections, work zones), dynamic mobility (real-time traffic and incident management), DOT fleet operations (transit, maintenance), and DOT asset management and maintenance operations. In the US alone, there are currently 123 planned or operational CV deployment locations across 30 states, including 57 operational projects (largely pilots and test beds) with 15,506 devices and covering 6,182 infrastructure components. Additionally, these locations include 66 planned projects with 3,371 devices and 1,916 infrastructure components (ITS America, 2020). The 50+ CV pilot studies and test bed deployments nationwide are assessing a range of V2I applications and their benefits under various USDOT- or state-funded programs. This study analyzes these projects and draws conclusions on the readiness of V2I applications. The positive early learnings from these programs are creating conditions for DOTs to consider larger CV infrastructure deployment initiatives. Over the 5- to 10-year planning horizon of this report, some agencies have committed to CV infrastructure investment or to taking immediate actions that support such investment as shown in agency strategic or program plans that focus on CVs. Table 1 summarizes three examples, providing evidence of state-level initiatives that integrate consideration of significant investments in CV infrastructure into their current and longer-range planning activities. However, as introduced in the next section, such larger program ambitions are tempered by several uncertainties that must be considered when making investment decisions.

11 Table 1. Example State DOT CV Strategic and Program Plan Statements Supporting Investment Example State DOT Plan and Content Statements of Intent to Make CV Infrastructure Investment Florida DOT’s (FDOT) Connected and Automated Vehicle Business Plan Lays out principles and specific investment objective “aggressively supporting the deployment of the Connected and Automated Vehicle Program to achieve near term and sustainable safety, mobility, and economic development (SME) benefits” by “… [moving] from planning to full-scale Connected and Automated Vehicle deployment and implementation using various applications” (FDOT, 2019). • “Provide network connectivity and types of connections from field locations to the Regional TMCs and central TMC.” • “Upgrade traffic signal controllers and evaluate upgrade options so that signal controllers can interface with an RSU for extraction of SPaT basic safety messages.” • “Develop MAP data for pilot locations.” [MAP, or map data is a standardized V2I message broadcast by an RSU describing the geometric layout of an intersection.] • “Conduct pilot projects with applications in smart work zones, autonomous truck mounted attenuators (ATMA), truck platooning, pedestrian safety applications, multimodal applications including transit and freight, and aging driver mobility applications.” • “Implement connected and automated vehicle projects in all Florida DOT Districts to achieve the SME goals. This shall be accomplished with input from the Districts and the TSMO Leadership Team.” Michigan DOT (MDOT) Connected and Automated Vehicle Program Strategic Plan Identifies a series of program strategies to achieve its connected and automated vehicle goals. Notable goals that indicate a commitment to CV investment include serving as a national model to catalyze CV and AV deployment and establishing foundational systems to support wide-scale CV and AV deployment (MDOT, 2017). • Institutionalizing CV and AV among MDOT initiatives: “Connected and Automated Vehicles will be integral to a wide range of MDOT programs and initiatives, including [TSMO], Towards Zero Deaths, … and the top-level business and strategic planning for the broader ITS program.” • Institutionalizing information technology and security for CV and AV: “[developing] best practices and standards to secure the system, address installations, and [creating] the required outside connections to reach security certificate and data management systems off the State network.” • Addressing CV related design: “establishing approved design standards and specifications for CV related equipment, addressing requirements to support CV as part of traffic signal controller standards.” • Incorporating CV considerations into other infrastructure projects: “CV systems will greatly increase needs for communications infrastructure throughout the MDOT roadway network. This includes both conduit for fiber optic/wired communications, as well as physical cabinet space at ITS and traffic signal installations to house additional equipment. Michigan DOT will build provision of this infrastructure into all projects today to support CV deployment tomorrow.” • “Support the development of high priority V2I applications” identified as “work zone, pavement condition, road weather, and SPaT-enabled applications.”

12 Table 1. Example State DOT CV Strategic and Program Plan Statements Supporting Investment Example State DOT Plan and Content Statements of Intent to Make CV Infrastructure Investment • “Accelerate Connected and Automated Vehicle benefits through fleet deployments” by “[outfitting] vehicles to support benefit acceleration and regional testing activities.” The Pennsylvania Joint Statewide Connected and Automated Vehicle Strategic Plan Identifies specific objectives in nine business areas that address the state’s goals for preparing for and advancing CV (and AV). Several objectives imply significant investment in CV infrastructure or ancillary systems to support future investment (Lopez et al., 2018). • Communication: “Planning for efficient and redundant statewide communications will require a considerable effort to catalog and manage the existing fiber assets, as well as plan to build a complete network in the future.” In addition, “Make Installation of Conduit for Fiber a Requirement for Applicable Design Projects.” • Traffic Signals: “Controller replacement, either strategically, or as part of programmed signal modernization projects should also be done to prepare for Connected and Automated Vehicle. These upgrades should include IP‐ ready ports and NTCIP compliance for a full‐scale Connected and Automated Vehicle deployment, while still achieving integration with new or existing systems.” • Back Office: “Upgrade TMC and other IT Legacy Back‐ Office Systems [to prepare for Connected and Automated Vehicle].” • Security: “Plan … [and] Implement Security and Credentials Management System.” COSTS AND UNCERTAINTIES INFLUENCING PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN CONNECTED VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE Investment decisions are always predicated, in part, on cost. This study extensively examines the costs of CV infrastructure investment by reviewing the most current research on CV infrastructure component costs and real-world deployment experience. The costs to establish and maintain CV infrastructure to enable V2I applications include those for wireless communications units on the roadside or RSUs, backhaul telecommunication infrastructure, a Security Credential Management System (SCMS) to enable trustworthy and privacy-protected information exchange, back office data management or processing capabilities, and support for monitoring and maintaining the system components. For DOT-owned and operated vehicles without native equipment, costs could also include those for providing compatible wireless communications radio units also referred to as brought in OBUs and the relevant human machine interfaces or After Market Safety Devices (ASDs). For V2I applications involving signalized intersections, additional costs could include those for specialized signal controllers and information message sets. Finally, each V2I application may have other unique interface development and software development costs associated with the specific information (message sets) to be communicated between the wireless communications units. Establishing and maintaining CV infrastructure to

13 enable V2I applications at a scale large enough to create systemic impacts can therefore be a capital-intensive undertaking. Uncertainties Influencing Department of Transportation Decision-making Although costs, along with funding and expected returns from investments made, are always a major consideration for any investment decision process, CV infrastructure investments include a few other unique cost-related externalities that DOTs must consider that add a greater level of uncertainty to the mix. These externalities are imposed by non-DOT actors—the automotive industry, the telecommunications sector, and federal regulators of the electromagentic spectrum—whose actions determine, to some degree, if DOT CV infrastructure investments are warranted, relevant, or useful. These uncertainties are briefly described below. • Wireless Technology Uncertainty. At the heart of CV infrastructure is wireless communication radio technology. Both 3G and 4G LTE-based wireless communications are used for ITS purposes today. V2I is considered the next generation of ITS. However, for certain V2I CV applications involving safety and dynamic mobility, high-speed, reliable, low-latency communications are necessary to alert or warn drivers in a timely fashion. Investment in communications infrastructure to support these applications are of primary concern to DOTs. The two clear wireless communication choices for such safety-critical applications available today are DSRC technology and the cellular vehicle- to everything1 (V2X) or C-V2X technology. Although CV applications can work with either technology, the lack of a national or global consensus on which technology will be used in CVs and AVs coupled with the timing uncertainties of when C-V2X will be available for general use have affected projected timelines for the market penetration of suitably equipped vehicles. This, in turn, has a major impact on DOT investment decisions and other deployment activities. • Investment Obsolescence Uncertainty. If C-V2X and emerging 5G become the de facto wireless communication standards as opposed to DSRC, the involvement of DOTs in providing physical communication infrastructure (e.g., RSUs) to enable CV applications may be diminished because the cellular communication infrastructure is owned and operated by private telecommunication companies. But, at the same time, new business- to-business data sharing or data-centric service relationships between CV/AV data owners, CV infrastructure owners and operators, and potentially other third parties could emerge that require a different type of investment. The lack of clarity about the future in terms of the communications technology landscape raises fundamental uncertainties in the investment decision processes of DOTs and the supply chain actors who provide equipment and services to them. 1 V2X communications is a term that is used to collectively reference V2V and V2I communications as well as wireless communications between vehicles and personal devices of pedestrians (V2P), vehicles and the cloud (V2C), and other entities.

14 • Spectrum Availability Uncertainty. Another significant uncertainty is if the 75 MHz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band will continue to be exclusively available for ITS safety- related uses. The FCC has proposed a realignment that would open the lower 45 MHz of the spectrum for unlicensed use and assign the remaining the 30 MHz either to C-V2X only or to a combination of DSRC and C-V2X. The reasons for the realignment are numerous but include what the FCC calls a “lack of progress in using the set aside 5.9 GHz spectrum for transportation safety purposes.” Recent research by USDOT and transportation stakeholders has determined that the impact of the reduced spectrum on the ability of CV wireless communications technologies (e.g., DSRC, C-V2X) to successfully support safety-critical and time-critical CV applications (both V2V and V2I) is severely threatened, and as a result, the transportation community largely views FCC’s proposal unfavorably. This issue will affect both public and private sector investments in CV technologies. To move past these issues and make relevant decisions regarding CV infrastructure investments will require that DOTs work with their supply chains and with non-DOT actors to align vision and priorities for the benefit of the transportation system users. It will require a thorough examination of national, regional, and local factors to advance options for or against such investments. Relationship of V2I Communications to Automated Vehicles Operation In addition to costs and these uncertainties, the interrelationship of CVs to AVs add complexity to the investment decision-making process. AVs, as well as advanced driver assistance systems focused on safety, are evolving along a separate but parallel technological and policy path and have begun to penetrate the commercial vehicle market. Some AV manufacturers state that their vehicles do not require connectivity in their current vehicles and service offerings and are not predicating their products’ functionality or market viability on public agency provision of CV infrastructure. CV infrastructure to enable V2I communication, however, can play an important role in the success of AVs. Without a strong CV infrastructure component that provides real-time information about the DOT network’s status, condition, and performance, AVs may not be able to fully deliver their promised benefits—beyond just safety enabled by on-board sensors and/or V2V connectivity—that include reduced congestion, improved mobility, and reduced fuel consumption. Shladover (NASEM, 2019) argues that, as AVs achieve greater levels of automation, V2I connectivity that allows AVs to access DOT network information is especially critical to deliver transportation benefits at the system-level. The importance of CV infrastructure (i.e., V2I technology) to AV operations is recognized in the current CV and AV policy statements and frameworks of some state DOTs, e.g., Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania (NOCoE, 2020). It is also recognized in the current federal policy direction (FHWA, 2020).

15 HOW TO MOVE FORWARD: CONNECTED VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT DECISION OPTIONS IN AN UNCERTAIN ENVIRONMENT Given the uncertainties, some DOTs might prefer to adopt a “wait and see” approach to let the technology market stabilize before committing any financial or human resource investments related to CVs. Others may decide to take a more cautious investment approach by taking calculated risks now in anticipation of greater returns later. They may, for example, begin with investments that lay the groundwork for the eventual agency deployment of CV applications that also support other more immediate priorities such as deploying advanced ITS applications on a corridor or a TSMO strategy (termed “no regrets” investments). Such initial investments could be leveraged later with minimal cost and agency disruption as the market situation concerning technology and penetration of suitably equipped vehicles becomes more certain. Whether an agency decides to adopt a “wait and see” approach or a more cautious investment approach, evidence and analysis that establish the rationale for investment at the time investments are being considered are important to support the decision-making process. This evidence-based analysis is termed a business case, and it is an important part of a wider range of factors (e.g., policy, public engagement, political motivations, organizational capacity) that decision-makers consider as part of the investment decision process. Making a business case is a routine part of an agency’s business model or practice that deals with transportation project planning and procurement. It can be qualitative or quantitative; the latter is reserved for projects where capital and operating expenditures are greater. RESEARCH APPROACH SUMMARY The study’s research approach included the key activities and methods as summarized below. Introductory material to chapters 2–5, respectively, includes further explanation of the methodology and data used to reach the findings presented in each chapter. • Literature Review. The research team consulted an extensive body of literature, including technical documentation on CV communication technologies and infrastructure components; US federal, international, and academic research program results; state- and local-level pilot and test bed activity summaries; V2I application and CV infrastructure project deployment information; DOT strategic planning documents related to CVs and AVs; and literature on business case development, including applications in a transportation system investment context. The research team used this literature to formulate state-of-the-practice findings on (1) CV technology market trends and assess readiness, (2) the aspirations of current DOT CV programs and the issues influencing their choices to make (or not make) investments, (3) the benefits of V2I applications and alignment with DOT mission objectives, and (4) the costs of CV infrastructure investment, business cases to be made to support investment, and business models for implementing positive business case outcomes. • Workshop. The research team organized a facilitated one-day workshop of public and private sector leaders and experts to (1) explore priority value propositions to justify public sector CV infrastructure investments, (2) discuss key issues and questions to be

16 answered when making a business case for public investments in CV infrastructure, and (3) discuss aspects of potential business model arrangements. • Case Studies. The research team developed several case studies of proposed, pilot, or initial deployments of CV infrastructure by DOTs. The team developed the case studies based on DOT interviews, a review of publicly available project information, and project data obtained from those interviewed that had not been previously disseminated. Case study findings helped validate the study’s proposed business case framework and components. • Expert Review and Analysis. The research team included national experts in CV and AV technologies who contributed their knowledge and analysis of the literature and research products throughout the course of the study. As a complement, ongoing consultation with expert practitioners at several DOTs provided current insight and validation on key project elements, such as benefits and costs, strategic CV planning outcomes, and business case arguments for their own agencies’ choices to make investments in CV infrastructure. • Real-world Deployment Data Collection. Building on the engagement with DOTs to prepare the case studies and obtain expert review and analysis, the research team collected real-world cost data from 10 active CV infrastructure deployments for use both as an indicator of the level of investment a DOT should expect for V2I applications of interest and as an input into a benefit-cost analysis tool developed as a product of this study. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 includes introductory material. Chapter 2 reviews the V2I applications of potential interest to DOTs based on findings from the literature. The benefits of each application and their alignment with a DOT’s strategic objectives are also presented. The chapter includes a shortlist of V2I applications for infrastructure investment based on an assessment of the deployment readiness of CV infrastructure components. CV infrastructure requirements needed to deploy the V2I applications and the scale of costs involved are then discussed. Rough order of magnitude costs by CV infrastructure component, as well as an estimate of each component’s share of an overall system investment are presented. Based on the observed benefits, readiness, and costs, the chapter concludes by suggesting when to advance a CV investment option under consideration to a business case analysis in the face of certain uncertainties. Chapter 3 presents the two viable choices available to decision-makers when considering public investments in CV infrastructure given the uncertainties outside the DOT control affecting V2I connectivity. These are the “wait and see” and the “cautious investment” approaches. Based on an analysis of information available from advanced pilots and projects, the chapter presents a suggested approach to select and sequence V2I applications for those agencies wanting to pursue

17 the cautious investment approach and advance investments that present the least risk and offer immediate benefits. Chapter 4 is mostly focused on the process to develop a quantitative business case to justify CV investment options. It begins with an explanation of when such a business case analysis may be needed and who is responsible to developing it. The chapter then provides detailed guidance on the step-by-step construction of the components of the business case arguments and how to summarize them for review and consideration by decision-makers. In presenting the business case development process, this chapter highlights relevant data sources and methods that may be useful in constructing the business case along with a description of a benefit-cost analysis tool developed as part of this research. The chapter concludes with applying the business case framework articulated to three CV infrastructure investment projects that have been contemplated in the recent past on a post hoc basis to examine its usefulness as a decision support tool. Chapter 5 articulates the plausible business model options available to DOTs during the procurement planning phase of V2I projects that can aid in minimizing risks to delivery. The model option choices discussed include (1) a traditional DOT-vendor-service provider model, (2) a P3 model, and (3) an “all-in services” model where the private sector acts both as a vendor of hardware and a service provider under an integrated contract. Chapter 6 presents conclusions and recommendations for further research.