White Paper: European Transport Policy for 2010 – Time to Decide
IVsource.net
26 March 2002

Of the many policy papers generated by public entities in Europe, this White Paper, published September 2001 by the European Commission, has been referred to many times by our European colleagues with respect to the future of Advanced Driver Support Systems (ADAS) and Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS).  Therefore, IVsource  decided it would be valuable to “take a look” and see what implications this paper may hold for our areas of technical and policy focus relating to intelligent vehicles.

Of the many policy papers are generated by public entities in Europe, the subject paper has been referred to many times by our European colleagues with respect to the future of Advanced Driver Support Systems (ADAS) and Intelligent Vehicle-Highway Systems (IVHS).  Therefore, IVsource decided it would be valuable to “take a look” and see what implications this paper may hold for areas of technical and policy focus for the intelligent vehicles world. 

The paper speaks to some very broad themes beyond the scope of our interest. However, traffic congestion and road safety are both addressed.  In the area of traffic congestion, containment of travel demand and mode shift away from roads are  emphasized.  In safety, ambitious goals are declared, with ADAS mentioned as part of the solution; however, understanding crash causality,  driver training and commercial vehicle inspections play a larger role.

Research and technology is noted as a key priority – as the Paper puts it, “now is the time for less concrete and more intelligence in the transport system.”

This critical review endeavors to present the content of the White Paper relevant to our industry, while adding perspective and comments from the editor.  It is intended to be brief, allowing readers a “sense” for the 100+ page White Paper, lessening the need to read it in detail.

The White Paper is organized in four parts:

I.  Shifting the Balance Between Modes of Transport

II.  Eliminating Bottlenecks

III.  Placing Users at the Heart of Transport Policy

IV.  Managing Globalization of Transport

Fundamentally, the Paper is based on breaking the link between economic growth and transport growth.  The key focus is to find ways to grow the economy without simultaneously incurring the typical costs of transport growth – congestion, environmental effects, and reduced quality of life.

The authors of the Paper put forth three options for the future:

a.  reduce travel demand and mode selection through road pricing alone

b.  in addition to a), take measures to increase the efficiency of non-road modes.  Investment in new infrastructure is excluded, however.

c.  In addition to a) and b), address road and rail bottlenecks through “targeted investment”

I.  Shifting the Balance Between Modes of Transport

Primarily, this section speaks to the vast imbalance between road and other modes (sea, air, rail).  Getting people and freight off the roads and into other modes is seen as a key component of congestion relief.  The Paper notes that 7500 km, or10%, of the European transport network is affected daily by traffic jams.  Heavy goods vehicle traffic is expected to increase by 50% over 1998 levels by 2010.

The focus for passenger mode shift is road to rail.  The focus for freight modal shift is both rail and sea (river and short-sea shipping).  Road user charges are seen as key to motivating the freight mode shift. 

II.  Eliminating Bottlenecks

The Paper sees a need for major investment in new infrastructure (road and rail) to alleviate bottlenecks in places like the Alps and Pyrenees mountains. 

Although separate lanes for automated trucks are under study within Europe, the Paper maintains a firm view that trucks simply must use roads less.  For the truck traffic that does exist, the Paper notes the usefulness of “precise traffic management at peak times” and driver assistance. 

III.  Placing Users at the Heart of Transport Policy

The Paper asserts that users’ prime concern is road safety, as they feel “constantly under threat.”  Studies are noted in which European drivers have said they expect stricter road safety measures, such as improved road quality, better training of drivers, enforcement of traffic regulations, checks on vehicle safety, and road safety campaigns.

Comment:  The issue of the priorities for the public is open to debate.  If you survey the public with the question, “What is your biggest concern about road travel?,” they would likely say something like   “I fear myself or my family being killed on the road.”  This is in accord with the Paper’s position.  However, if you survey the public with a slightly different question such as “Where do you most want improvement with road travel?” I contend that they would most likely respond with  “less congestion.”

The Paper says “the European Union must, over the next ten years, pursue the ambitious goal of reducing the number of deaths on the road by half; this by way of integrated action taking account of human and technical factors and designed to make the trans-European road network a safer network.”

Road accidents killed over 41,000 people in Europe in the year 2000.  The Paper notes the directly measurable cost of road crashes at approximately 45M Euro, and indirect costs are considered to be 3-4 times higher.  In contrast, the Paper also notes that efforts to prevent crashes are “woefully inadequate,” corresponding to less than 5% of the total cost of those crashes. 

The Paper also notes a vast disparity between crash rates in the various European countries.  The United Kingdom and Sweden, for instance, have the best records, and it is noted that the numbers killed on the road wold be cut by 20,000 per year if all countries could achieve their success.  This issue becomes more critical as eastern European countries apply for accession to the EU, where road safety measures are among the worst. 

Comment:  This goal is strongly in concert with similar goals in Japan and the US, although the Japanese give themselves significantly more time. Actions in the U.S. to accomplish this are seen as far below what will actually deliver the stated goal.  As congestion rises,  more and more traffic will lead to fewer deaths, as speeds will be slower; however the crash rate will rise.  Europe seems to envision achieving this goal through bringing the safety improvements from northern Europe to southern Europe.

The Paper acknowledges that the major responsibility for taking the necessary road safety measures falls not to the EU, but to national and local authorities.  However, EU actions are proposed as follows:

n      harmonization of penalties

n      promotion of new technologies to improve road safety

Depending on progress achieved in the next few years, the Paper notes that the European Commission may propose regulatory measures sometime after 2005.

Other areas of focus for road safety are:

n      warning motorists, through signage,  of “black spots,” or high crash areas

n      combating drunk driving

n      more detailed accident investigations to understand accident causality

In a section entitled “New Technologies for Improved Road Safety,” several areas are spoken to:

n      introduction of “black boxes” to increase the factual data surrounding crashes

n      introduction of electronic driving licenses

n      occupant protection

n      better vehicle speed management, seen as “an aspect of safety that will also help tackle congestion.”  “The most promising prospects here are offered by new technologies that can determine optimum speed at any moment with reference to traffic conditions, road features, and external conditions and pass the information on to drivers by way of information display boards or on-board communications systems.  Roads and vehicles throughout the Union need to equipped with these new technologies as soon as possible and information systems made accessible to everyone.”

n      taking measures to enhance market introduction of active safety systems, “the generalization of which could be facilitated by a Community-level agreement with the automobile industry.”  Such an agreement is expected to include systems for “distance control, collision prevention, and monitoring driver alertness.”  The report notes that active safety systems “hold out the prospect of road safety being improved by 50%.” 

Comment:  With regard to vehicle speed management, there are limited returns that can be gained with speed commands transmitted only to drivers for their response and compliance;  people can reliably perform speed  increments of something like 5 mph and up.  Much more significant road capacity gains can be made by electronically controlled speed management which operates with much finer speed increments and frequent adjustments so as to optimize flow.

Comment:  Any action by the EU to take regulatory action after 2005 to mandate active safety systems would have a major effect not only in Europe but throughout the world market.

When the Paper summarizes key actions within an Annex at the end of the document, the area titled “Unsafe Roads” targets many of the areas above, but, significantly, does not mention active safety systems.

IV.  Managing Globalization of Transport

The key issue here for the intelligent vehicles community is the Paper’s call for a single voice for the European Union in international bodies.  This could extend into the proceedings of the International Standards Organization, and affect voting in areas such as Working Group 14 of Technical Committee 204, which sets standards on ADAS.

Summary Commentary

Overall, the Paper focuses strongly on the implementation of existing techniques for reducing congestion and improving safety.  Maybe it would be unfair to expect more from such a high level document.  But I think it is fair to say that, at least for the road sector, the paper lacks vision and is more a call to action to take steps that are already known to be helpful.  This is laudable, except for the fact that the steps we now take (classic ITS) will not alleviate congestion and at best will only contain it. 

It could be argued that what the public really wants is “green mobility” – readily available travel with smooth traffic flow and no negative effect on the environment.  How much would this entire debate change if that were achievable?  In essence, the entire Paper is founded on the premise that green mobility is not possible. 

What would it take to achieve Green Mobility?  Success in fuel cells technology and some form of intelligent vehicle-highway system which would automate speed management and vehicle spacing to substantially increase per-lane capacities on the road.  Is it possible?  In purely technological terms, there is evidence that the answer is “yes”; the question hinges on whether society can adapt institutionally and economically to open the doors. 

[Top]

For More Information ...

(not available) 

[Top]