IntelliDrive Task Force Survey December 8, 2010 Roger Berg (Denso), Dmitri Khijniak (Kapsch) Bob Rausch (Transcore)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Ben Pierce, Battelle March 2, 2010 US DOT IntelliDrive SM Program.
Advertisements

CCPA Annual General Meeting, Rotterdam 6 December 2011 Henning Scholz, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin & CCPA Secretary Proposal for Change to the CCPA.
Roadmap for Sourcing Decision Review Board (DRB)
PSD SECRETARIAT RESOURCE PERSON: NIYI LAWAL Medium Term Sectoral Strategies Presentation at the 2009 Stakeholders Budget Harmonization Session.
Research & Innovation Evolution from IMI1 to IMI2: challenges ahead Elmar Nimmesgern, PhD DG Research & Innovation 1.
RESOLVE, Inc. National Geothermal Collaborative An Overview January 20, 2004.
Council of Deans of Health Anne Marie Rafferty – Executive member; Council of Deans of Health.
COMMUNITY RESOURCE MAPPING Train the Trainer MAST - NH December 15, 2006 Facilitated by: Kelli Crane.
Stakeholder meeting on the SHIFT²RAIL Strategic Master Plan Manuel Pereira, IST Lisbon ERRAC Vice Chairman 20 th June 2014, Brussels 1.
Original vision for Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII):
IntelliDrive Safety Workshop July 20, 2010 Alrik L. Svenson US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration IntelliDrive.
1 LBNL Enterprise Computing (EC) January 2003 LBNL Enterprise Computing.
1 14. Project closure n An information system project must be administratively closed once its product is successfully delivered to the customer. n A failed.
Western States Energy & Environment Symposium October 27, 2009.
1-2 Training of Process FacilitatorsTraining of Coordinators 5-1.
Moving Research into Practice.  Implementation is the routine use of a SHRP 2 product by users in their regular way of doing business.  Users can include.
“”Capacity and services to road users” Task descriptions Paul van der Kroon, Paris November 2005.
Challenges of Global Alcohol Policy Developments FIVS Public Policy Conference 7-9 April 2014 Brussels, Belgium.
A Research project undertaken by 157 Group and MEG.
IntelliDrive Policy and Institutional Issues Research Valerie Briggs Team Lead, Knowledge Transfer and Policy, ITS Joint Program Office, RITA May 4, 2010.
Information Technology Architecture Group ITAG, version 2.0 We need resource commitments! February ITLC.
Chapter 9 Developing an Effective Knowledge Service
USDOT, RITA RITA: Oversight of USDOT’s R&D programs  University Transportation Centers $100M  UTC Consortia $80M  UTC Multimodal R&D $40M  Intelligent.
“NetHope’s Open Humanitarian Initiative (OHI)” Gisli Olafsson, Emergency Response Director, NetHope, Inc. September 12,
IntelliDrive SM Strategic Plan 2009 Ted Trepanier SSOM – SCOTE Manchester The IntelliDrive SM logo is a service mark of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
THOMSON REUTERS—GLOBAL INSTITUTIONAL PROFILES PROJECT DR. NAN MA SCIENCE AND SOLUTION CONSULTANT THOMSON REUTERS OCT 19 TH, 2010.
V ehicle I nfrastructure I ntegration Jeffrey F. Paniati Associate Administrator for Operations and Acting Program Manager for ITS Joint Program Office.
EDUCAUSE 2014 Top Ten IT Issues. Today’s Agenda Introduction to EDUCAUSE IT Issues History & Methodology 2014 Top Ten IT Issues Selected Issues Reviewed.
American Community Survey ACS Content Review Webinar State Data Centers and Census Information Centers James Treat, ACSO Division Chief December 4, 2013.
Harnessing a multi-stakeholder platform for improved land governance in Malawi Ivy Luhanga – Principal Secretary, Paul Jere – Land Governance Consultant,
Implementation Overview SHRP 2 Oversight Committee June 18, 2012.
Draft – discussion only Advanced Health Models and Meaningful Use Workgroup June 23, 2015 Paul Tang, chair Joe Kimura, co-chair.
1 1 Workshop on Improving Statistics on SME's and Entrepreneurship, Paris, September 2003 Draft Conclusions and Recommendations.
ITS Standards Program Strategic Plan Summary June 16, 2009 Blake Christie Principal Engineer, Noblis for Steve Sill Project Manager, ITS Standards Program.
Smart Grid Interoperability Panel & ISO / RTO Council Smart Grid Projects David Forfia SGIP Governing Board Member – Stakeholder Category 21 ISO/RTO Sponsor.
COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS. WHY DO ASSESSMENTS? “The long term development of a community rests on its ability to uncover and build on the strengths.
The Canada Border Services Agency and Coordinated Border Management Regional Conference of Customs Directors General, April 22-25, 2012.
The Internet Society (ISOC) Sebastián Bellagamba Manager – Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean
Objectives and Strategies of RRSF The RRSF has been prepared with an overall objective and four specific objectives to overcome the identified problems.
Addressing the Challenges of Implementation of the Results of National Research Initiatives From an Implementing Agency Perspective and from a National.
International Harmonization of Cooperative Systems Standards and the IntelliDrive SM Program ITS-JPO Standards Program Update Brian Cronin Team Leader,
Five Year ITS Strategic Plan (2010 – 2014). 2 U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration Overall ITS Community.
Methodologies and Tools for Technology Needs Assessment: an Overview Zou Ji Dept. of environmental Economics and Management, Renmin University of China.
New Services in Mobility: C-ITS
Water Plan Update 2013 Wrap-Up Session Pre-work Survey Recap March 26, 2014.
1 Strategic Plan Review. 2 Process Planning and Evaluation Committee will be discussing 2 directions per meeting. October meeting- Finance and Governance.
Statewide Radio Feasibility Study (SIRN) Presented by Tom Harris SIEC Chair Mike Ressler.
Incorporating Connected/Automated Vehicles into the Transportation Planning Process November, 2015 Max Azizi US DOT.
1 Presented by Jim Nixon, Breakout Session Moderator December 15, 2005 Report from Breakout Session #2 Individuals/Organizations to Government.
Amity School of Business Amity School of Business Management Foundation Module-II By Neeti Saxena Assistant Professor, ASB 1.
1 IntelliDrive SM Vehicle to Infrastructure Connectivity for Safety Applications Greg Davis FHWA Office of Safety RD&T U.S. Department of Transportation.
U.S. Department of Agriculture eGovernment Program Smart Choice Pre-Select Phase Transition September 2002.
1 SRCM IN THE ECA SUB-REGIONAL OFFICES (SROs) PROGRESS REPORT November 2012 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Presented by: Ms. Beatrice KirasoUNECA 1.
1 ISWGNA and AEG: Mandate and governance 7 th meeting of the Advisory Expert Group on national accounts Apr 2012, New York.
SUPPORTING PEOPLE PROVIDER FORUMS An overview of Supporting People’s new approach to Performance Monitoring and Quality Assurance.
Melissa Lance Operations Systems Manager July 16, 2015 Connected Vehicle Update National and Virginia Perspective.
1 USDOT Next Generation Initiative Laurie Flaherty EMS Division, NHTSA.
Mobility Choice Blueprint
Vehicle to Infrastructure Deployment Coalition (V2I DC) & SPaT Challenge Overview January 8, 2017.
Data Impacts of Transportation Reauthorization: Data Community’s Plans and Strategies Pat Hu Chair, TRB National Transportation Data Requirements and Programs.
TSMO Program Plan Development
Opportunities for Growth
The Strategic Information Technology Formulation
AMPO Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) Working Group
Regional and Global Comparative Analysis of Information Society in the Arab region Dr. Nibal Idlebi Chief, ICT Applications Section UN-ESCWA September.
Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems Directive 2010/40/EU
Canadian Animal Health Surveillance System
The GEF Public Involvement Policy
MODULE 11: Creating a TSMO Program Plan
Dairy Subgroup #1: Fostering Markets for Non-Digester Projects
Presentation transcript:

IntelliDrive Task Force Survey December 8, 2010 Roger Berg (Denso), Dmitri Khijniak (Kapsch) Bob Rausch (Transcore)

Discussion Task Force Charge and Activity About the Survey Survey Focus and Measures –Respondent Profile –Quick Summary of Results Lessons Learned Next Steps Chair, Greg Krueger (MDOT) Task Force POC: Steven Bayless (ITSA) Chair, Greg Krueger (MDOT) Task Force POC: Steven Bayless (ITSA)

Chair's Charge to Task Force Membership : January 2010 How do we define what "deployment" is and what it looks like? Define those benefits in a tangible way that can withstand the rigors of intense public scrutiny when every dollar spent is challenged by an increasingly skeptical public? How can we support the US DOT objective of High Value Demonstrations? Are there things we can do as a 501(c)3 that US DOT cannot do? IntelliDrive Task Force

Task Force Activity Currently there are three Task Force Subgroups –Two are looking are exploring “early” commercial adoption of DSRC before USDOT regulatory activity. –Is there a broad understanding of IntelliDrive challenges among diverse stakeholders? If not, formulate some “common questions” to address –Understand universe of roadblocks or risks that are critically burdening the start of IntelliDrive(SM) deployment. Freight Rail Airport EMS Light Vehicle Transit Roadside Motorcycle Intersection Mobile Devices Applications

About the Survey Survey focused on –early application deployments in 1-4 year –risks for early deployments of the IntelliDrive system Survey focused on applications enabled by use of the 5.9GHz DSRC technology Survey was limited to IntelliDrive taskforce members Survey is short - 14 questions Conducted on-line Survey had higher than expected response rate ~ over11% (30 responses from about 250 members of IntelliDrive taskforce)

Survey Focus Measure attitude and opinion on the priorities, issues and risks related to the start of commercial deployment of IntelliDrive in the short term (1-4 years). IntelliDrive Task Force members are largely supportive USDOT research needed to support a regulatory decision by NHTSA starting in However, many members of the Task Force would also like to identify issues that would enable earlier, smaller scale commercial deployments of IntelliDrive. Discover issues to facilitate discussions and self-organizing efforts of the taskforce

Survey Questions Individual understanding, experience and level of interest Organizational experience Rank of three applications as best candidates for early (1-4 years) deployment Most likely deployed platforms -Intersection, Roadside/Tolling, Device, or Vehicle Identify top three highest priority roadblocks to applications Identify risks by categories -Deployment, Funding, Operations Rank risk categories by importance to progress in short term * questions in bold italics ask for free form write-in responses

What kind of organization/perspective does your response to this survey represent? Representation from all segments –Over 60% of the respondents were private enterprise or consultants, the rest academia and government

Respondents’ experience Majority of respondents are familiar with the IntelliDrive program –Majority of the surveyed have spoken at conferences on the topic, with a small percentage “still learning” about the program Most respondents are focused on design, systems integration and planning in ITS– majority of people appear to be very familiar with overall systems approach and IntelliDrive objectives

Rate your organization's current level of interest in IntelliDrive 86% of respondents claim that their organizations are “very interested” (ranked 4-5) in IntelliDrive SM. 60% of respondents reported interest in contributing to a discussion of issues identified in the survey (a result from another question)

What applications are the best candidates for early (1-4 years) commercial deployment? Top 5 applications: –Traveler Information –Tolling –Safety –Commercial vehicle –Probe

What are the highest priority roadblocks to commercial deployment of early Intellidrive applications? Top risks identified as generally expected: –uncertainty in funding –value proposition –deployment strategy –concerns about low DSRC penetration –maturity of standards, technology and products

Rate risks that need to be resolved to see IntelliDrive deployment moving forward Legal concerns and O&M funding are rated higher than initial deployment funding

Lessons Learned Need to cross-interpret answers between free form questions and multiple choice –example: biggest “early deployment” risk ? free form shows funding/business model –free form gave nineteen different types of risk across three categories multiple choice is liability More task force discussion necessary to ensure a common understanding of terminology.

Next steps Engage survey respondents in further discussions –60% of respondents interested in contributing to future discussions Develop task force consensus on highest priority focal points Utilize on-line forum and face-to-face meetings to formulate critical definitions and task force perspectives Document outcomes

THANK YOU! Questions?

Caveats Not a statistically valid survey –respondents are self selected. Survey questions are subject to multiple interpretation across and within stakeholders groups –Survey designers included both multiple choice and free- form answers on the same topics. –Compiling and reporting free-form answers to the task force Widget surveys generally are an introduction into a discussion on the topic raised by the poll – that is what this poll does.

Prerequisite issues for early deployment (1/2) Early deployment risks Technology/Standards maturity Marketing and outreach Interoperability, agency coordination System reliability, scalability Availability of infrastructure Application/Value proposition Liability Early funding risks Budget priorities Funding O&M model Technology/Standards maturity Political consensus Incentives to deploy

Prerequisite issues for early deployment (2/2) Operating risks Funding model for O&M O&M staffing and personnel expertise Liability System governance Obsolescence Public/private partnership arrangement Technology alternatives

What do you see most likely deployed within the short time frame of 1-3 years 5.9 Tolling has made to the top of early deployment applications