By Caroline Visser

Having participated at the 2^nd EU Connected and Automated Driving conference (EUCAD)[1], I was inspired by the variety of initiatives and innovations. During the session on Infrastructure support for automated driving, one particular inquiry projected through the online Q&A application read: is it time for Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) readiness assessment tool for road infrastructure?

I wondered what readiness assessment tools could be out there already. This is what I found and my thoughts on taking these forward.

KPMG, as mentioned in the conference, has developed an Automated Vehicle (AV) readiness index to assess the readiness of countries at a national level. The components it assesses include 25 aspects, along four pillars: policy & legislation, technology and innovation, infrastructure and user acceptance. Consumer opinion is researched and taken into account. The Netherlands, Singapore and Norway are the highest scorers according to the 2019 edition of the index. The aspects integrated in the infrastructure assessment are:

• The density of Electric Vehicle charging stations;
• Quality of mobile internet;
• 4G coverage;
• Quality of roads;
• Logistics infrastructure; and
• Technology infrastructure change readiness.  

The “Quality of Roads” aspect sparked further curiosity. The hypothesis is that CAV works better on high-quality roads and seem to conclude that countries with poor road infrastructure would be slow to adopt CAVs.  The indicator that KPMG used is borrowed from the road quality index of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global competitiveness report. This particular index is based on the opinions of local business executives of the road networks.

This raises two concerns on whether it is an optimum indicator. First, there are obvious limitations to what executives observe and how they shape their view on the quality of roads. Did they travel around the country to assess their nation’s road network? How is this not just limited to the road between their offices, homes or the airport? What aspects of the road did they pay particular attention? Potholes, markings, guard rail, signage? Second, tangible evidence collected using a proper methodology rather than subjective views would be preferable. However, that is a subject for another blog post.

There should be other methods that are based on factual information to assess the quality of the road network, including the critical aspects required to assess the readiness for the CAV (r)evolution.  Cars can drive autonomously without connectivity on any road, i.e. by relying on their sensors and data collection capacities. I recall somebody saying some years ago at a UN event that “intelligent cars only need stupid roads”. Automated cars function better, however, being connected with other cars and the surrounding infrastructure. This will deliver greater efficiency and faster operation, especially in densely constructed and populated environments like cities. The benefits to society, such as increased safety and reduced congestion, will then materialise.

Road infrastructure appropriateness for different levels of automation might vary; the requirements to roads for SAE[2] level 1 automation (driver assistance) will likely not be as demanding as for SAE level 5 (fully autonomous driving). Although clearly, level 4 and beyond is not likely to materialise anytime soon. This is an important observation as that means significant changes are generally expected to be in sync with the investment time horizon for road authorities to adapt road networks that can accommodate these levels.

Nevertheless, it is critical that transportation agencies start innovating and investing in technology now and, encouraged by policy, to make the road infrastructure more appropriate for CAV.

Transportation agencies need to start investing in technology and make the road infrastructure more appropriate for connected and automated vehicles.

Upon some Q&D (quick & dirty) research, one of the more concise summaries of the implications for road infrastructure of the introduction of CAV is provided by Catapult Transport Systems, in their report “Future Proofing Infrastructure for Connected and Automated Vehicles”. The report highlights some aspects of infrastructure that require varying degrees of adaptation to accommodate CAV. These include:

• Traffic management measures; e.g. information provision around road works, start-stop times traffic management measures, dealing with denser traffic, connecting junctions and new roads to the electricity grid and fibre optic/copper cabling, interpretation by CAV of traffic signs and signals, especially in emergency/incident situations;
• Road markings and signage; e.g. visibility/appropriateness for CAV perception, increased funding and maintenance (to a higher standard) for road marking, enhanced durability;
• Safe harbour zones; e.g. their frequency and design, how to avoid their misuse;
• Role of service stations; e.g. safe harbour functionality charging location, intermodal hub/P&R,
• Car parking; e.g. CAV valet parking, flexible approach to car park design and planning, acknowledging the potential for less demand in future decades
• Small Automated Demand Responsive Public Transport Vehicles;  e.g. where road space is limited, encourage shuttles, pick-up/drop-off zones for automated public transport vehicles when designing urban areas. Consider segregation of automated public transport vehicle (dedicated areas/lanes)
• Crossings and junctions; rather complicated for CAV, e.g. Infrastructure mounted sensors and V2I communications to CAVs, especially for robust, mission-critical failsafe information, consider moving to signals where practical, or along routes where CAVs are expected to operate
• Impact on bridge structures: bridge enforcement following HVG platooning as it could change the loading on long span bridges.

Infrastructure Victoria also did an extensive study: “Automated and Zero Emissions Vehicles – Transport Engineering Advice”. It examines the impacts that CAV might have on road assets throughout their life cycle: from the design, build, maintain and operation perspective.

Capturing these type of aspects in a road readiness index for CAV could provide a much more factual and thorough assessment for road authorities to see where they stand and where to put their investments.

I would appreciate your suggestions on other variables that should be included in an assessment tool for CAV readiness of road infrastructure. Even more, we would be thrilled to know if you fancy being a launching customer for the tool that Global Road Links is happy to develop.

---

[1] The conference organised by the European Commission on 2-3 April 2019 in Brussels. Proceedings available here: https://connectedautomateddriving.eu/eucad2019-webstreaming/

[2] SAE stands for Society of Automotive Engineers.

---

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the organisers of the EUCAD conference (April 2019) for the interesting two days. Risto Kulmala of Traficom, Finland, is thanked for pointing to the Infrastructure Victoria study and Rik Nuyttens of 3M, Belgium, for bringing up the Gartner hype curve.