I-AT Interregional Automated Transport Partner Survey On .

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 2017Page 1/12Survey conducted between 13.06.2017 and 26.06.201715 answers in total (almost all project partners participated)1Definition of Automated DrivingBasicsFuntionality/CapabilitiesRole of HumansFields of applicationAutomated DrivingComputer SystemRange of automation levels (driver assistance to fullautomated driving)Systematization: SAE LEVELS for automation 1-5Vehicles use processes of control to perform (some or all)(predefined) driving tasksSmart and Connected (V2I, V2V)Preprogrammed systemsLearning systems that can react to certain changes in theirenvironmentDrives in mixed traffic on public roads without difficultyAllows passengers to conduct other activities (e.g. sleeping)No human driverWithout any human interference / human 'driver' does notand cannot interfereHuman operator leaves as much responsibilities as possibleto the systemSteward as back-upHuman driver is supported by automationApplicable to cars, trucks and buses (for public transport)Transportation of goods and peopleRemarks/Questions regarding a I-AT Definition for Automated DrivingWhich SAE Level could be the reference for I-AT?Which specific driving tasks are included in Automated Driving? Which ones are not?What extent of “Learning” or “Reacting” should the I-AT definition include? There is noconsensus regarding the role of humans in driving, but rather a range of possible occurrences(probably related to a very broad understanding of Automated Driving amongst the partners)Does “automated” mean, that humans have no possibility to influence the vehicles behavior atall?

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 20172Page 2/12TRL of Automated Driving in generalMost partners see Automated Driving as a technology that has been demonstrated in an industriallyrelevant environment or even an operational environment (TRL 6/7 – 60 % of answers). If this is the case,the technology, if proven to be feasible and successful in an operational context, should soon becompleted and deployed for commercialization. Nevertheless, there is also a group of project partners(TRL 1/2 – 15 % of answers), that see the technology only in the early stages of development.The average TRL assessed by the project partners is 5.1. This average assessment is mostly in line withthe ERTRAC Automated Driving Roadmap (2015) that envisages pilots/large scale demonstrators (TRL 57) for Conditional Automated Driving (SAE level 3) for 2017 and demonstrations for Automated UrbanRoad Transport (SAE level 4/5) for h/id38/ERTRAC Automated-Driving-2015.pdf

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 20173Page 3/12Interest of Project PartnersBasicsKnowledgeProject PartnerReputation/ExpertiseAsset for Future BusinessOpportunitiesInfluenceGeneral Interest in the innovative topicMajor trend in the development of a safer, more efficientand more sustainable traffic and transport systemAutomated buses as an alternative for public transport (inrural areas)?Is the infrastructure ready for the future?New Mobility ConceptsLinks to Electro MobilityReinforcing position in research and educationImportant topic for principals (ministries, authorities,companies, etc.)Vehicle Development/ ManufacturingConsultingTransportation of passengers/goods (especially last mile)Law and policy making process

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 20174Page 4/12IssuesTechnicalLegalHuman FactorDeploymentImpactSensor data fusionSystem learningHigher Speeds ( 50 km/h)Mixed trafficReaction time, esp. related to fast and unforeseencircumstances and movements of cyclists and pedestriansSafetyCybersecurityOptimization of physical and digital infrastructure andLegal uncertaintySpecial vehicle permissions neededCurrent regulations do not allow for automated driving on aregular basisInteraction between humans and automated vehiclesHow will current drivers react to this technologyMissing consensus on what is "safe"Confidence and Acceptance of passengersSocial securityComfort, user-friendliness and reliabilityDiversification of risks and responsibilities between driver,vehicle owner, insurances, car producers and the stateNew distribution of objects of regulation between carregistration law and traffic lawRegulation for new business models (esp. in public transport)Traffic Safety, efficiency, sustainability and comfortCrucial effects are to be expected, but project partners onlyhave simulated ideas about impactNeeds further research

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 20175Page 5/12Most important:-Technical capabilities of companies involved, feasibility of autonomous driving in the next 30years is yet unclearLegislation influenced by the automotive industry, hinders innovationUnclear definitionsCurrent regulatory frameworkManaging the overall innovation processSafetyAcceptanceSensor data fusion, deep learningPermissions for autonomous cars to drive on public roadsthe state of technology; more specific: the 'intelligence' of the softwareFleet ManagementDriving OperationsInsuranceOptimizing the interaction between vehicle, human driver/passenger and infrastructureThe project partners name a very diverse set of issues that are crucial for their organizations whichreflects the diverse composition of the partnership. Recurring issues are technical feasibility of thesystem in general and certain operational aspects, safety, acceptance as well as the regulatoryframework.

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 20176Page 6/12Objections-Involvement of public authorities in technology innovation usually linked to private companiesFeasibility of automation (in urban contexts)Complexity of Automated Driving(Risky) Technology pushHuman-out-of-the-loop issuesAcceptanceFuture job losses through Automated Driving

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 20177Page 7/12Project I-ATAlmost 75 % of all project partners think that I-AT addresses TRL 7 (system prototype demonstration inoperational environment) but there are also project partners that think I-AT will reach TRL 8 or 9 andprove the operability and market readiness of automated driving. Therefore, the average TRL attributedto I-AT is 6.9 – almost two levels above the TRL assessed for Automated Driving in general. Obviously, theproject partners have high expectations regarding the scope and impact of the project I-AT.8Decision to participate-General (research) focus of the company/organizationGaining experience/knowledge, expanding portfolioBuild consulting service capacityShape the policy- and law-makingGeneral InterestContinuation of a previous projects or research (e.g. moving from demo to functional automatedtransport with WEpods)Future business opportunityTransition towards sustainable mobility

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 20179Page 8/12Obstacles-Financial issues, esp. related to funding in European projects (prefinancing) and procurementrulesCurrent regulations are to strictHigh dependency on I-AT project declarations causes a low productivity, bad teamwork, andendangers the project resultInvolvement of local authorites takes more time than expected(Missing support from German authorities)210 StakeholdersResearch/DevelopmentTransport CompaniesInternalSpring InnovationEL-KWRESTU DelftHan UniversityRobot EngineeringRobot Care SystemsASEAGExternalOther researchersOther transport companiesOther logistics companiesEmployeesAuthoritiesFinancingProject DevelopmentCustomers/Clients2Answer given was non-distinctiveStaff associationRoad Authority AachenCity of AachenCity of VaalsCity Region AachenInterreg ATrade unionsOther authoritiesOther politiciansOther funding opportunitiesOther project developersUsers/Passengerspossible future Clientswith related issuesOther vehicle operatorsOther vehiclemanufacturersOther service providers

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 2017Page 9/1211 Stakeholder cooperation within I-AT so farProject partners overwhelmingly consider the cooperation with stakeholders to be good, constructiveand collaborative. Some state the exchange of relevant information works well but that there also havebeen some hard discussion with stakeholders (no further details given).12 Stakeholder IssuesProject managementDeploymentInternalExternalOngoing discussions aboutresponsibilitiesExact project goal, relation tofull autonomous drivingTypes of roads where automated driving is feasibleInteraction between automated vehicles and other roadusers

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 2017Page 10/1213 Market IntroductionThe majority of project partners expect autonomous driving to ready for market introduction within thenext 5 or 10 years. This assessment aligns more or less with the project partners’ views regarding thecurrent TRL of Automated Driving in general as well as the goals for I-AT.

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 2017Page 11/1214 Requirements for market introductionRemarks/QuestionsTechnicalLegalHuman FactorDeploymentImpactReliable and able technologySafety in an expanding rangeof roads, traffic densities andweather conditionssuccessful pilot projects witha fleet of vehiclesAdjustment of the legalframework (esp. possibility todrive without driver/steward)AcceptanceFavourite choices of usersCosts for the automatedsystem must be cheaper thanusing human driversNeeds a reliable company asa one stop service provider(responsible for vehicle,software, hardware, etc.)AffordabilityQuality of automated vehicles

I-AT – Interregional Automated TransportPartner Survey on Automated DrivingResultsJune 2017Page 12/1215 Possibilities and Risks of Automated Driving for project partnersPossibilitiesBasicsKnowledgeVehicle AutomationNew forms of mobilityProject PartnerReputation/ExpertiseFunding opportunities fromresearch grants and industrialfundingDeploying automatedvehicles as launchingcustomerNeed for further researchUse knowledge to createspecific business cases (esp.in consulting andengeneering)More flexibility for customersCost-saving in publictransportationParticipation in the legislativeprocessCreating a look and feel forservicesAsset for Future BusinessOpportunities/FundingInfluence30 June 2017Contact person:Dennis Nill IKEMMagazinstraße 15-16 D-10179 BerlinTel. 49 (0) 30- 408 18 7017dennis.nill@ikem.deRisksUnderestimating theimportance of research inthe implementationprocessBankruptcy of partnersFailure to achieve projectobjectivesBad press for the projectInterdependency amongproject partnersInvesting in a technologythat will not be succesfulin the endtechnology may advancetoo slowSome partner input willonly be visible if there isenough budget tomaterialise itInsufficient profit fromtechnologyNew competitors in(public) transportation(e.g. Carsharing)Managingdemand/growthInternal resistanceagainst AutomatedDriving (e.g. from staffassociations)

the ERTRAC Automated Driving Roadmap (2015) that envisages pilots/large scale demonstrators (TRL 5- 7) for Conditional Automated Driving (SAE level 3) for 2017 and demonstrations for Automated Urban Ro