C-ITS Platform WG Enhanced Traffic Management 5th Meeting 25 January 2017, 10:00 13:00

Transcription

1 C-ITS Platform WG Enhanced Traffic Management 5th Meeting 25 January 2017, 10:00 13:00 Venue: Rue Jean-André de Mot 24 - Room 3/47 - meeting room G. Hanreich Executive Summary The work plan for the ETM WG was fitted to the Balanced Scorecard methodology 1. The Balanced Scorecard is typically designed for Organizations, to define its strategic lines, objectives, initiatives and actions to try achieving the long term vision and mission statement. The Balanced Scorecard provides the mind-set for the WG members to feel like they belong to an 'Organization' (or a 'Community') and, if they intend to improve the Organization's performance aiming to fulfil its mission, they need to better cooperate with each other. It also provides an approach to try and balance the different needs between Private/Public; Individual user/collective User; Command/Advice; Corridor/Network or Free of Charge/B2B Services. With Connected, Cooperative and Automated Driving, OEMs and Service Providers are expected to have a bigger role on traffic behaviour. Performing alongside with the public sector should widen the business opportunities provided that the trade-off attends the WG Vision. Public authorities may take on that role of commanding traffic but they will need to formulate their mobility policies at strategic level and narrowed down to the very essential, under well designed plans. Those plans will need to be communicated, understood and acknowledged, real time, by the other 'cooperative components' of the mobility system. After the brainstorm exercise a couple of ideas for the scenarios were presented. These proposals will need to be further described and investigated from a baseline view point until their operational process, providing a clearer picture for the involved actor expectations gap analyses - the stakeholder map. Action List (for the next meeting) Nr. Action Responsible 1 Prepare draft minutes and send for comments DG MOVE 2 Listing Scenarios All 3 Map C-ITS corridor activities linked to Traffic Management and propose topics for being discussed in the WG 4 Map H2020 corridor activities linked to Traffic Management and propose topics for being discussed in the WG All All 1 1

2 Introduction After presenting and approving the proposed agenda, the chair asked for the approval of the minutes from last meeting. As usual a short recap of the work done so far was presented: It is expected that Traffic Management will change into a collaborative framework where every actor is a 'cooperative component'. Thus Traffic Management Services will be provided under the combination of several actors, both from the public and private sector. In order to better understand these challenges, from an operational viewpoint while dealing with CAD under dynamic and adaptive TCP's and TCP's, the work plan will focus on a Scenario based approach. Several requirements were identified for the scenarios: The need to ensure the improvement of the 'end to end' road user experience while keeping mixed traffic safely and efficiently flowing. If possible, to use some of the day 1 and 1,5 services as inputs; To involve at least 4 different actors under the 'end to end' value chain; Under each scenario, it will be necessary to establish a stakeholder/actor map and describe its operational process to identify 'who' is doing 'what' and 'how' information is conveyed across. 1 Shaping the Content for ETM WG The 5 th meeting represents an important milestone in the WG planned activities, as it concludes the high-level strategic approach and kicks-off the scenario based approach. The chair presented the outline for the upcoming meetings, until September, and explained how activities could be planned in order to feed in to the content of the report the working group is expected to produce. C-ITS - Enhanced Traffic Management Working Group Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Vision and Objectives Definition M1 M2 M3 M4 Secenario definition M5 Stakeholder/actor Map & SWOT M6 Link with C-ITS Corridors M7 Deliverables and recomendations M8 M9 M10 Consolidation Publication of the 2nd report D1 The plan is fitted to the Balanced Scorecard methodology. The chair then explained the reasons why the Balanced Scorecard was chosen and how the methodology was expected to work. The Balanced Scorecard is typically designed for Organizations, based on their long term vision and mission statement. The methodology proposes to assess the organization under 4 different perspectives. While aiming for improving financial performance and meet the targeted user/customer's needs, the organization defines the strategic lines to take, its objectives, initiatives and actions to try achieving those goals. Starting from the agreed vision for the WG Cooperative Traffic Management - the chair highlighted the key message: connected elements acting collaboratively. In order to take a step forward, the WG was invited to think of itself as an organization. This should provide a framework for binding the 2

3 already good relations in between all the 'elements of the organization', in order to take advantage of CAD. A set of examples were presented to really demonstrate the need and the added value of: Stepping up from a voluntary, ad-hoc, collaboration processes to binding co-operation, framed under a contract between the different elements and set to provide a Traffic management service. Going from complementarity to interdependent support, meaning that the traffic management services are not to be provided side by side, but rather by working together; Going from an open-integration to a rational of orchestrations of services, where every element acts in harmony with each other in order to provide and make available the traffic management measures. Going from bi-lateral arrangements that fit the purpose of a specific context to building mutual benefits that can be, then, translated to a whole new range of other contexts, scenarios and traffic management services. The Balanced Scorecard provides the mind-set for the WG members to feel like they belong to an 'Organization' and, if they intend to improve the Organization's performance aiming to fulfil its mission, they need to better cooperate with each other. It also provides an approach to try and balance the different needs between Private/Public; Individual user/collective User; Command/Advice; Corridor/Network or Free of Charge/B2B Services. After presenting the consolidated Strategic SC Map the chair explained how the definition of the Strategic Objectives should provide the contents for the WG and help the 'organization' to meet its goals, through the definition of Objectives, Initiatives and Actions. In between the Vision and the Objectives lays the Strategic Lines to take, that work as the binding element between the objectives while framing their scope. The chair then presented the three Strategic Lines to take: 'end to end' Communication To ensure that needed Traffic Management measures are available and disseminated in realtime, trough dynamic dialogue between all the involved actors, so that mixed traffic may be aware and comply with those measures. 'end to end' Collaboration To promote the adequate combination of efforts from all, either from the public or private sectors, acting as 'cooperative components' to provide safe and efficient traffic management services. 'end to end' Performance To ensure the proper use of Public and Private resources or competences in order to provide the best achievable quality for the provision of, either, collective binding information or individual recommendations and advice. After agreeing on the top layer for the strategy, the WG will attempt to identify those objectives, Initiatives and Actions during the upcoming meetings, while exploring the scenario based approach and making use of the links to the C-ITS Corridors. The BSC proposes the objectives to be defined under four different perspectives: User/Costumer; Process improvement; Learning and Growing; and Financial, aiming to provide answers to each of the following questions addressed to the 'organization', accordingly to the next diagram. 3

4 A simplified version was proposed to the WG, focusing only on the Process improvement and the Learning and growing perspectives, by considering that every action towards the user/costumer will be aiming to improve the full extension of the 'end to end' road user experience, while providing the best achievable balance between the individual's needs and the collective's best interest. Process improvement relates to the C-ITS Corridors and CEF, while Learning and growing will provide the link to innovation, STRIA and H2020. Refocusing the discussion at operational level, the analyses of the CAD scenarios should provide information about the contents for the Objectives of the consolidated BSC, eventually leading up to the identification of the minimum requirements, or the building blocks for dynamic and adaptive TPM's or TCP's, while: Understanding what are the traffic management feed needs, in terms of vehicle data (floating/probe), in order to deploy the enhanced services; Understanding how the Traffic Manager's measures can be communicated to (and acknowledged by) the other 'collaborative components'; Addressing in-vehicle/in-display traffic information, under mixed traffic conditions. The chair then proposed to use another standardized methodology; Cobit 2, to apply to every scenario, splitting the governance issues from the management process

5 This split should provide better understanding on how the different 'collaborative components' need to, firstly, address the orchestration of the services (under every scenario, making use of TMP's or TCP's) in order for, secondly, the management process to run smoothly. With Connected, Cooperative and Automated Driving, OEMs and Service Providers are expected to have a bigger role on traffic behaviour. Performing alongside with the public sector should widen the business opportunities provided that the trade-off attends the WG Vision. After some discussion several comments and suggestions were made: The WG needs to focus its activity for the short term, to be pragmatic and present practical conclusions based on day 1 and 1,5 services, already being tested or deployed in the C-ITS Corridors. The orchestration of services needs to be understood, not only as a linear chain of actors, but as a multiplicity of chains. With CAD, the mobility system complexity is expected to be increase, thus different combinations of chains need to be set to answer different environment needs urban or interurban. Data is of the upmost importance, in order to better communicate, cooperate and perform. Data must fulfil the needs of the involved actors, either as producers or consumers of data. Data will be handed over from one actor to the other along the whole value chain, providing a service 'start to end'. The links in between the chain need to encompass a 'business' oriented perspective, in order for the provision of the 'start to end' service to become sustainable. The traffic system in Europe is very heterogeneous, therefore when choosing the scenarios the WG should consider flexible and modular solutions and not go into 'one size fits all' approaches; Adopting different levels of automation may be set by the vehicles themselves, accordingly to the (safety) principals established by the OEM's and the automotive industry. However, the concept of wordiness of automation for the use of the public road infrastructure was also referred. City authorities or traffic managers may need to recommend the downgrade of higher levels of automation, e.g. in city centers or under safety related critical situations. 5

6 The chair and some members considered the games theory 34 approach and coopetition 5 concept to be of help to understand the business cases of the future, when relating CAD with Cooperative Traffic Management. 2 Presentations, Q&A As in previous meetings, presentation on topics considered relevant for the purposes of the working group, provide a background and an opportunity for moving further into the discussion. There was only 1 presentation: Giacomo Somma, ICCS Sharing the results from TM.2.0 Task Force on Deployment Steps After briefly presenting the TM2.0 paradigm, the Task Force objectives were identified: Define criteria to select areas (cities / regions) for TM 2.0 deployment Identify and engage with potential cities / regions Provide an overview of TM status and of key needs to realise TM 2.0 Present the future plans & next steps towards TM2.0 implementation Several cities are already engaging with the TM2.0 concept; Helmond, Eindhoven, Tilburg, Breda, 's-hertogenbosch (NL), Ghent (BE), Salzburg (AT), Thessaloniki (GR), Verona (IT), Vigo (ES). The Stakeholders roles and engagement is being addressed at the level of the organisational reference architecture while discussing the benefits, incentives, regulations and contracts. First conclusions point out that cities tend to re-invest in existing physical and innovative digital infrastructure, try to remain technology-neutral to avoid lock-in and aim to develop seamless services continuity for different end-user categories. Data sharing and management as well as harmonised evaluation methodologies are key elements for service level improvement. Stakeholder's engagement relies on the establishment of truly functioning public-private partnerships to overcome deployment. Deployment steps and future perspectives relate to V2X cooperative systems when services are considered mature and proved their benefits, but need to be integrated with TM procedures and systems. City-led business partnerships may be enabled also through innovation procurement. 3 Discussion on the next steps and conclusions The last part of the meeting was left to a brainstorm exercise regarding the identification of the scenarios. The chair summarized the requirements that every scenario should have and pointed out some of the expected outcomes for the final report should address: Requirements for data (or data sets) to be handed over between the actors Governance issues between the involved actors (for commanding or advising traffic) The means for establishing communication amongst them (ITS Architecture, cloud to cloud, V2I )

7 Although inconclusive on the listing of scenarios, several comments and remarks were made during the discussion: Under every possible combination, of cooperating actors, a sense of upper coordinator for the orchestration of the services needs to be envisioned, possibly as an information broker or service broker, at governance level. Public authorities may fit into that profile but, as the management complexity is expected to increase significantly with CAD, the role needs to be limited to the very essential. There may be several layers for providing advice on traffic, under several chains, but there should be only one in charge of commanding traffic. For Public authorities to take on that role, they will need to formulate their mobility policies at strategic level, under well designed plans. Those plans will need to be communicated, understood and acknowledged, real time, by the other 'cooperative components' of the mobility system. Should Public authorities be able to achieve this, it might solve the Prisoner's dilemma 6 unlocking the adequate conditions for the other 'elements' to 'act collaboratively'. It is important to realise there are different contexts to attend different needs, urban, interurban and rural areas. As there are corridors and networks. Establishing binding cooperation between the different actors could be framed under performance contracts or service levels agreements. Focusing on the tools, previously, identified as enhanced traffic management services: Traffic information and smart routing *BUNDLED* In-vehicle speed limits and In-vehicle signage dynamic and static Cooperative Incident Management Probe Vehicle Data Zone access control for urban areas services should be considered when choosing the scenarios and designing the correspondent Traffic Management Plans: After the discussion, a couple of ideas for the scenarios were presented: Road works Incident management And some other, were latter on suggested: Road closure Planned Events Demonstrations, Marathon, A stretch of road that temporarily changes direction Re-routing These could be applied either to corridors or network scenarios. These proposals will need to be further described from the baseline view point until the operational process. A stakeholder map was provided and should be addressed describing the expectations of each of the involved actors in each of the scenarios, providing a picture for a gap analyses. Also a SWOT 6 7

8 will accompany the several scenarios, highlighting the common threats and opportunities. Templates were provided and explained. DATEX II and TM2.0 TF on the Exchange of TMP's were suggested to be invited, on the upcoming meeting, for presenting about TMP technical requirements. 4 Next meeting: 21 February

9 Annex I: Agenda Venue: Venue: Rue Jean-André de Mot 24 - Room 3/47 - meeting room G. Hanreich (Metro Station: Schuman) 10:00-10:15 Introduction Approval of the minutes from last meeting Adoption of the agenda for the meeting 10:15 11:30 Shaping the Content for ETM WG Presenting last meeting results Working Group Planning 2017 Balanced Scorecard Mission, Vision and Strategy Simplified consolidated Strategic Map Discussion, comments, suggestions. 11:30 12:00 Presentations TM 2.0 Task Force Deployment Steps 12:00 12:50 Discussion on the next steps Brainstorming exercise about the out-line for the Scenarios Understanding the Stakeholder map and the SWOT Templates 12:50 13:00 AOB Suggested agenda points for next meeting. 9