Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
‹#›
One objective is to convey the difference between participating in connected vehicle through a Core System, and being the owner or operator of one. 
3
F Those I’ll feature today. 
4
Value/Why Would Stakeholder Shift to Using a Core?
Core System’s V2I applications dramatically enlarge the communication capabilities of Traffic Management entities. This new capability will allow DOTs to deal with traffic management on a far more detailed, microscopic level than currently possible.
More accurate measurement and prediction of the traffic state across a wide network enabled by the new and richer data sets will allow much better traffic control and traffic flow.
Alternatives to Using a Core System
Fixed point detectors like inductive loops, radar and video sensors. 
CCTV surveillance also informs operators of traffic conditions at fixed locations. 
Probe vehicles and cellphone tracking are used in a very limited fashion by commercial data providers and local DOTs. 
The secure communications enabled by the Core System for the connected vehicle environment increases the scale of available traffic data by orders of magnitude, even if only a fraction of vehicles are connected.  Achieving coverage on this scale by existing detector technology is not financially feasible.  
 
Currently Traffic Management entities use fixed or mobile Changeable Message Signs (CMS) to communicate in real-time with the travelers on the road.  Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) is also used in a number of areas but with a small footprint.  Other communications are fixed signage and information supplied to pretrip sources like kiosk or internet.  The effectiveness of messages depends on the location of the CMS or HAR relative to the incident.  Connected vehicle applications can communicate directly to the driver with more effective in-vehicle messaging that may even be unique to that driver’s vehicle.  The kind of information available now online and via social media can be pushed to the vehicle.  Furthermore, this communication covers a much larger area than possible with fixed signage. 
5
Risks
The greatest risks are not technical but institutional. 
An appropriate financial model must be in place since the benefits distribute widely but the costs are borne narrowly.  The operating expenses of the Core could be part of the DOT budget.  It could be subsidized or paid for by user fees and sale of the collected data.  The policy must be in place beforehand to ensure successful operation.
The most significant benefits not realized until sufficient penetration of connected vehicles in the traffic stream.  That means if penetration takes longer to build up than anticipated, the cost savings and other benefits will likewise take longer to materialize delaying the return on investment. 
In addition, a gap in the connected vehicle environment due to either a gap in communications coverage or regions not serviced by a Core System (late deployers) will substantially reduce the benefit for those that have the Core System in place.
The skills to operate a Core System may be in high demand if current educational pipelines are not synchronized with anticipated demand. 
 
Other Considerations
 
Owner/Operator versus Participator
A local DOT may be able to use an existing Core especially if already put in place by the State DOT.  If not the local DOT may need to establish its own minimum Core System to gain these benefits.  A large municipal region may want to operate its own Core anyway for greater control and reliability. 
A State DOT may want to operate a Core System because no other entity is likely to operate a Core with statewide coverage.  Operating the Core may be the best way to address rural and urban needs in an integrated fashion that satisfies all stakeholders.  
 
Outstanding Questions
What barrier will the minimum requirements to operate a Core System pose to States and smaller local DOTs?
What happens to traffic control and traffic flow at boundaries across operating regions where one has a Core System and the adjacent region does not? 
Could there be a Core System with multiple-State coordination?  For example, a jointly-operated or franchised Core System to serve a multi-State corridor or a metro area that overlaps multiple States? 
6
Value/Why Would Stakeholder Shift to Using a Core?
Save more lives. 
Strategically resolve signal preemption priorities in real-time beyond the vicinity of one intersection. 
Manage traffic flow in the vicinity to minimize disruption to non-priority traffic.
Warn vehicles in traffic beyond the line of site of the approaching Emergency Vehicle.
Alternatives to Using a Core System
Optical and acoustic line of sight systems and short range radio beacons are currently in use but most of these systems only operate one intersection ahead. 
Beacon signals are subject to blockage and interference. 
They provide little time for traffic ahead to respond and offer nothing to aid recovery of traffic flow. 
Only the secure and pervasive communications that a Core System provides for the connected vehicle environment will allow an emergency vehicle to communicate with the infrastructure and individual vehicles using the same system. 
 
Proprietary in-vehicle systems (like Onstar) automatically contact 911 through an operator.  Connected vehicle makes this possible for all vehicles without regard to make or manufacturer of the vehicle and hardware and at much lower cost than trying to integrate various commercial systems.  Connected vehicle has the potential to provide more information than commercial 911 systems.  Furthermore, since no subscription is required  obtaining this data via a Core System lowers the cost for both drivers and emergency responders. 
7
Risks
Signal timing conflicts may occur operating across regions where existing preemption systems are still active, where there may, or may not, be signal control via a Core System. 
 
Vehicle manufacturers that may provide incomplete vehicle crash data. 
 
Other Considerations
 
Owner/Operator versus Participator
All of these benefits should be available where a Core System is already in place.  In the absence of another Core in the region, the rescue service may operate a Core to gain these benefits. 
 
Outstanding Questions
Can Core Systems change the paradigm for emergency response, especially near jurisdictional boundaries, with a new level of communication and potential for real-time asset management? 
8
Value/Why Would Stakeholder Shift to Using a Core?
Potential of significantly increasing safety of truck operations, thus eliminating losses for logistics companies.
Safety applications could allow for increase of vehicle size  without trading off safety.
Electronic monitoring and inspections reduce unproductive stop times while enabling enforcement agencies to reduce staff or refocus staff on other areas.
Alternatives to Using a Core System
Blind spot monitors already in use on modern freight trucks.
Warning systems such as bridge height warnings using laser measurement systems are also deployed in small numbers at vital infrastructure sites.  H expensive and therefore not in widespread use. 
Moreover, they are not that effective due to the ambiguity of which vehicle triggered the warning lights.  Drivers often assume it is another vehicle.  The in-vehicle warnings enabled by connected vehicle applications make it clear to the driver that the warning is for them. 
 
Static weigh stations require vehicles to pull over for weighing and inspection.  Only a fraction of vehicles are checked.  Downstream stations would not know if a particular vehicle has been screened and certified at an upstream station so it may be unnecessarily rechecked. 
Weigh in Motion stations exist at a number of places to screen for overweight vehicles without requiring trucks to pull over.  They are expensive and require annual or more frequent recalibration to maintain their modest accuracy. 
 
The connected vehicle environment creates a single platform for trucks to communicate with the regulatory infrastructure, the traffic control system, their fleet managers, intermodal and freight facilities and others in a way that would be prohibitively expensive if done by application specific systems.  The new capabilities stem from the efficiency and security of the communications provided by the Core System. 
9
Risks
Achieving full value, particularly at border crossings, will require working out agreements between States, State regional organizations, Canada and Mexico. 
Institutional risks will be greater than technical risks.  For example, not all regional partners cooperating in mutual data exchange, having differing credentialing standards, or not coming online in the same time frame delaying full benefit to the entire corridor. 
 
Other Considerations
Owner/Operator versus Participator
Participating in a Core System, already in place by a State DOT for example, will ensure trusted communications and privacy of the data exchanged.  Both State enforcement agencies and private trucking companies benefit. 
 
Operating a Core System would be of value to a trucking company that wants a higher level of proprietary processing of the data exchanged with its vehicles.  That might also be the best way to guarantee the kind of regional or national coverage it needs rather than relying on many States and localities. 
A State enforcement agency might want to establish a Core System if the state DOT has not done so.  Otherwise, it might be best served by using that Core. 
10
Value/Why Operate or Use a Core?
Efficiencies that enable more self-sustaining business operations.  
Customer service that attracts ridership.
 Pricing better matched to demand. 
Lower operating and maintenance costs. 
Alternatives to Using a Core System
Existing standalone proprietary systems     lack of data integration and the redundant hardware needed make these functions more costly than with a Core System.       Core System, tracking and taking data from vehicles can be scaled far beyond what is possible now because of the minimal incremental cost and independence from hardware or vehicle make. 
 
Current priority systems trigger the next intersection in sight.  Alter signal timing plans in a way that does not aid recovery of signal synchronization.
11
Risks
Integrating all these separately run functions may take more time, care and testing than might be initially apparent. 
Replacing or integrating proprietary systems may pose additional difficulties. 
System failure might take down all functions instead of one which might be the case now.  Developing the capability for Core Systems to back each other up and enable fail-over to maintain the continuity of operations is one possible mitigation. 
Other Considerations
 
Owner/Operator versus Participator
Transit operator can add a revenue stream by selling real-time position, trajectory and weather information collected by its vehicles to data aggregators. 
Can also buy data where it would help real-time operational management of the fleet. 
Vehicles can be tracked and managed with data transferred through the secure Core System.  
The Core System levels the playing field for small transit operators that cannot purchase and operate all the systems currently employed by large transit operations. 
 
By operating a Core System a transit operator has more flexibility to run custom applications and apply processing at the data distribution level unique to its operations.  That might enable unique pricing, route diversion, and incentive programs.  It would also guarantee the availability of the Core. 
 
Outstanding Questions 
Is there a business model where owning and operating a Core System has a clear advantage to just participating in a Core System operated by another entity? 
12
Value/Why Would Stakeholder Shift to Using a Core?
Authenticates the data supplier and data user (PayPal model)
Open data environments are possible – each data firm does not have to capture and store everything
Allow new entrants and small businesses to enter the data aggregation business by serving specialized niches. 
Alternatives to Using a Core System
Purchasing or harvesting data from State and Local DOTs. 
Purchasing data from proprietary networks.  These options provide more limited data set based on point sensors or a small sample of probe vehicles than is possible with a Core System and connected vehicles. 
Cellphone tracking data   not always vehicle based    far less accurate for position and speed than connected vehicle data. 
Each source requires a separate contract or agreement adding to the cost of acquisition. 
The connected vehicle environment …  single platform to acquire diverse data across a scale much larger than possible with any single data source.  Result is a secure data collection capability more efficient than any existing, or anticipated, transportation related system. 
Can level the playing field for small and startup businesses that cannot afford the investment made by the large established data aggregators. 
16
Risks
Data aggregators get sufficient data from other personal data sources directly over wireless internet.  In that case they would not need, and might not use, connected vehicle to obtain the data putting at risk any investment in a Core System.   
Risk to personal Privacy may be a deterrent. 
Insufficient coverage in the early years may not make it worth while.
Other Considerations
 
Owner/Operator versus Participator
Participating in a Core System provides access to an open market to buy and sell vehicle-based data. 
Ownership of a Core System provides control of the data processing and distribution.  This would enable proprietary handling of the data and lowers risk in the data supply. 
May also allow better regional or national coverage than relying on many State and local Core Systems. 
Privacy Implication
The privacy protection the Core System provides to data providers can be seen as a benefit or a deterrent to data aggregation companies.  Current data aggregation business models rely on personal information acquired without consent that is truly informed or technically coerced (eg., requirement to allow harvesting your iPhone address book and tracking of your phone calls to use the Google transit application).  On the other hand, a backlash via privacy legislation in Congress or consumer actions (protests, social media campaigns, boycotts, etc.) might be mitigated by turning to connected vehicle data.  It is not clear at this time how privacy will manifest itself in this user case. 
Outstanding Questions
What are the sustainable business models for data aggregators that use or own a Core System and for the data consumers that are their customers?
17
Value/Why Would Stakeholder Shift to Using a Core?
Enhanced Safety.
Shorter travel times.   
Smoother traffic flow with higher throughput. 
Less stressful travel.
Alternatives to Using a Connected Vehicle Core System
Conventional cruise control, ACC and commercial GPS navigation systems provide some of these capabilities but at a lower level of functionality.  Driver information sources exist but are not predictive or dynamic at a scale that can benefit drivers in real-time during a trip.   
Real-time parking information is not currently available to drivers except via DMS or radio in rare cases.
DMS and Variable Speed Limit signs can currently be used to adjust speed limits but are advisory in nature and seldom obeyed.  The ability to set and modify speed limits from a central location and send these messages directly to vehicles (either as advisory messages or to control platoon speed) allows traffic managers a greater level of control over traffic outcomes. 
Automated platooning to increase traffic density and throughput would also be new.  
18
Risks
Technological risk that applications relying on time-critical data such as BSM must work well and be reliable. 
Next, any form of automatic control of vehicle speeds or headways will require some means to address liability (such as legislated liability caps) and facilitate public acceptance. 
The value to individual drivers will also be a function of the penetration of connected vehicle technology in their region, hence a market risk.  
Safety risk from the co-mingling of connected vehicles with vehicles not in the system where there is speed control will need to be addressed. 
 
Other Considerations
 
Outstanding Questions
What will it take for public acceptance of more automated control applications like CACC, speed harmonization and platooning? 
What obstacles need to be addressed if any? 
 
Are there business models to support V2V applications or other in-vehicle services that are not safety related?
19
Value/Why Would Stakeholder Shift to Using a Core?
Better real-time management of facilities and incident response.
Real-time condition-based congestion pricing. 
To expand road pricing to more roads at low cost. 
Alternatives to Using a Core System
Proprietary systems like EZPASS.  Though often regional, these systems would not provide national coverage like that possible with the connected vehicle environment. 
 
Fixed signs, some Changeable Message Signs, and sometimes Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) provide messaging to drivers.  The in-vehicle messaging of connected vehicle drastically increases the coverage area for communicating with vehicles while allowing real-time messaging that can be unique to individual vehicles.  Drivers can learn what they need more safely and sooner while approaching toll plazas.  Drivers can receive lane closure or diversion messages before encountering an incident or even before approaching the toll road. 
20
Risks
Transitioning from existing wireless systems to connected vehicle could be complicated.  Overlapping the technologies in time may pose technical challenges and a sudden transition may pose marketing and management challenges.  
Because the billing process may identify the vehicle there is the same need to protect privacy as with existing systems. 
 
Other Considerations
 
Owner/Operator versus Participator
Participating in a Core allows the toll road authority to track and communicate with all equipped vehicles on its network. 
Also enable the sale of aggregated traffic data. 
Owning and operating a Core System would, allow for greater control of specialty applications for traffic control and road pricing as well as more control over reliability. 
 
Outstanding Questions
Where wireless toll collection already exists, is there a compelling business model for connected vehicle? 
Do the traffic control and pricing benefits outweigh the transition costs?
21
Value/Why Operate or Use a Core?
Competitive advantage from increased customer care and service, particularly innovative new pricing possibilities. 
Detailed, real-time knowledge of all vehicle locations and conditions. 
Lower operating and maintenance costs. 
Alternatives to Using a Core System
GPS and Satellite communications as well as Lojack-type radio systems offer the possibility for vehicle tracking but can be more expensive, especially for scaling to large areas like a State or nationally.  A Core System will not require additional hardware in each vehicle. 
Participating in a Core System can level the playing field for a small rental car company that cannot invest in proprietary data and communications systems that can be afforded by the larger companies.  The connected vehicle environment may enable smaller niche players to emerge in the vehicle rental space under new business models. 
 
Proprietary wireless systems could be implemented for fully automated check-in but require additional custom hardware on the vehicles and at the rental offices. 
 
Onstar and similar systems provide Mayday capabilities but generally contact 911 through an operator and not the fleet owner.  They also don’t support the larger diagnostic data flow enabled by a Core System. 
 
Current GPS Navigational systems provide route guidance and traffic information to drivers. 
 
The single platform for communication to support all applications that connected vehicle provides through the Core System allows the tasks noted above to be done at larger scale, lower cost, and more efficiently than possible with the existing separate systems.
22
Risks
Finding the appropriate business model to capitalize on real-time dynamic pricing may not be immediately apparent and require trial and error.  A rental operator should analyze the tradeoff between the expense of operating a Core System versus any change in revenue or market share that would result. 
 
Other Considerations
Owner/Operator versus Participator
Participating in a Core System run by others will allow the company to track its vehicles and sell position, trajectory and weather data collected from them.  Data aggregators and businesses selling traffic flow, routing and weather information would be buyers.  This would be an additional revenue stream for the company.  It could also buy more comprehensive traffic and weather information from these same sources if that would assist operations. 
 
Operating a Core System, a rental company can undertake dynamic pricing, single billing, custom mayday alerting, remote vehicle diagnosis, and fully automated wireless check in. 
Data distribution function of the company’s Core can provide proprietary processing of the data from special applications running on its own vehicles to accomplish these functions. 
Owning/operating would also guarantee the availability of the Core for regional or national coverage rather than relying on many State and local Core Systems.
 
Outstanding Questions
What will it take to quantify the competitive advantage of owning a Core System? 
Should vehicle-generated data be limited to what is in the BSM?
23