Topic Study 5: Impact assessment of ITS and

impacts of selected ITS and C-ITS systems

Panos Iordanopoulos, CERTH

Risto Öörni, VTT
Charis Chalkiadakis, CERTH
Fanny Malin, VTT
This topic study is part of the CAPITAL e-learning platform, a project funded by the European
Union to design and deliver a collaborative capacity-building programme, including training
and further education, for public and private sector practitioners in the field of (cooperative)
intelligent transport systems (C-ITS & ITS).

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement N° 724106.

For more information on the CAPITAL e-learning platform, visit https://its-elearning.eu

Legal Disclaimer
The information in this document is provided “as is”, and no guarantee or warranty is given
that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The above referenced consortium
members shall have no liability for damages of any kind including without limitation direct,
special, indirect, or consequential damages that may result from the use of these materials
subject to any liability which is mandatory due to applicable law. © 2019 by CAPITAL
Consortium.

This document was last updated on May 27th, 2019.

2
Abbreviations and Acronyms

Acronym Definition
EC European Commission
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
CEA Cost-Efficiency Analysis
C-ITS Cooperative Intelligent Transport System
FCD Floating Car Data
GLOSA Green Light Optimal Speed Advisory
GPS Global Positioning System
GOA Goal-Oriented Approach
ITS Intelligent Transport System
MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis
RTTI Real-Time Traffic Information
TTG Time To Green
VMS Variable Message Sign
V2I Vehicle to Infrastructure

3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Background .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2. Objective and scope of the study ................................................................................................. 6
2. Methods............................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1. ITS impact assessment ................................................................................................................ 7
2.2. Impacts of selected ITS and C-ITS systems ................................................................................ 7
3. Impact assessment of ITS and C-ITS systems ................................................................................... 8
3.1. Evaluation methods ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.2. ITS evaluation frameworks ........................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1. Goal-oriented approach ....................................................................................................... 10
3.2.2. Economic Analysis Approach .............................................................................................. 13
3.3. Considerations in ITS services evaluation ................................................................................. 13
3.4. Criteria for an effective ITS (and C-ITS) evaluation methodology ............................................. 15
3.5. Data collection for impact assessment of ITS and C-ITS........................................................... 15
3.5.1. Conventional in-situ/in-site technologies – sensor network technologies ........................... 16
3.5.2. Mobile traffic probes ............................................................................................................ 16
3.6. The FESTA Handbook ............................................................................................................... 18
4. Impacts of ITS and C-ITS services ................................................................................................... 20
4.1. Impacts of ITS ............................................................................................................................ 20
4.2. Impacts of C-ITS......................................................................................................................... 27
5. Discussion and conclusions .............................................................................................................. 32
6. References ........................................................................................................................................ 33

List of Figures
Figure 1. Funding schemes and their relation to the TRL (adapted from SEE-ITS D5.1.). .................. 19
Figure 2. Methodology for evaluating a FOT (adapted from FESTA 2016). ......................................... 19

List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of impact areas and related stakeholders and methods. ........................................ 14
Table 2. In-situ technologies for data collection .................................................................................... 16
Table 3. Selected ITS systems: description and summary of impacts (adapted from iMobility Effects
Database). ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Table 4. Selected C-ITS systems: description and summary of impacts (adapted from iMobility Effects
Database). ............................................................................................................................................. 28

4
 1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The digitalisation of transport and the deployment of intelligent transport systems (ITS) is
proceeding rapidly. ITS apply information and communication technologies to transport. They
have the potential to improve the sustainability of transport by increasing safety and reducing
emissions. Cooperative-ITS (C-ITS), the next step of ITS development, apply wireless
technologies enabling communication between vehicles, infrastructure and other road users.

Uncertainty and lack of information on the impacts on new ITS and C-ITS systems are one of
the barriers to deployment of new ITS technologies. This barrier will be addressed by one of
the CAPITAL study modules, which will provide information on the safety, environmental and
traffic efficiency impacts of ITS and C-ITS systems. The study module will be supported by a
related topic study, which aims to provide a timely, comprehensive and consistent overview of
the impacts of selected ITS and C-ITS systems.

Due to the large number of ITS available, this topic study had to be focused on a limited
number of ITS and C-ITS services. When selecting the ITS systems and services to be
covered, it was considered preferable to focus on systems that are technologically mature and
contribute to the objectives of transport policy—safer, cleaner and more efficient transport.
Efforts to identify priority ITS for deployment in Europe have been made by earlier projects
such as iMobility Support, iCar Support and eSafety Support in cooperation with the European
iMobility Forum (earlier the eSafety Forum). The list of priority systems developed by the
iMobility Forum and related definitions of the priority systems were therefore taken as a
starting point for selecting ITS services to be covered in the study:
 eCall
 Real-time travel and traffic information
 Dynamic traffic management
 Speed alert
 Dynamic navigation systems
 Eco-driving coaching
 Local danger warnings
 Adaptive headlights
 Eco-driving assistance
 Blind spot monitoring
 Lane departure warning
 Obstacle and collision warning
 Emergency braking.

In addition to ITS systems in general, the CAPITAL project aims to provide information on
cooperative ITS (C-ITS) services. The standards of many C-ITS services have been
developed during recent years, and discussions on their deployment in Europe have been
carried out within the framework of the C-ITS Platform supported by the European

5
Commission and the Amsterdam Group. Both the Amsterdam Group and the C-ITS Platform
have provided roadmaps for deployment of C-ITS in Europe. The C-ITS Platform has identified
a list of C-ITS services which are considered technologically mature and for which relevant
standards have been developed. These services are the so-called Day-1 services and were
therefore selected for analysis in this study:
 Hazardous location warning:
o Emergency brake light
o Emergency vehicle approaching
o Slow or stationary vehicle(s) warning
o Traffic jam ahead warning
o Road works warning
o Weather conditions
o Other hazardous notifications

 Signage applications:
o In-vehicle signage
o In-vehicle speed limits
o Probe vehicle data
o Shockwave damping
o Green Light Optimal Speed Advisory (GLOSA)
o Signal violation/Intersection safety
o Traffic signal priority request by designated vehicles.

1.2. Objective and scope of the study

The objective of this topic study is to provide a timely, comprehensive and consistent overview
of 1) ITS impact assessments (CERTH) and 2) the safety, environmental and traffic efficiency
impacts of selected and above-listed ITS and C-ITS systems on the European level (VTT).

Chapter 2 describes the scope and the methods used to collect information on the two
subtopics. The results on ITS impact assessments is summarised in Chapter 3 and the
impacts of the selected services are summarised in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a
discussion and conclusion of the topic study.

6
 2. Methods
2.1. ITS impact assessment
A literature study was carried out to collect information on the methods for assessing the
impacts of ITS and C-ITS services. The literature study focused on the material already known
to the authors due to their earlier work. When collecting material on ITS impact assessment,
priority was set on collecting material that is applicable to a wide range of ITS and C-ITS
systems and covering all aspects considered necessary to build an overview of the topic.

The collected material was summarised around six subtopics:

 Evaluation methods
 ITS evaluation frameworks
 The FESTA handbook
 Considerations in ITS service evaluation
 Criteria for an effective ITS and C-ITS evaluation methodology
 Data collection for ITS impact assessment

Finally, the FESTA handbook was summarised and presented as an example.

2.2. Impacts of selected ITS and C-ITS systems

The study was performed as a literature study to collect information on the impacts of selected
ITS and C-ITS systems. The data was mainly collected from the following:

 iMobility effects database: descriptions of ITS systems, summaries of studies and of

the impacts of the systems available in the iMobility effects database, literature study
 Literature study on printed and electronic material.

The information on the ITS systems were mainly collected from the iMobility effects database
since it contains an extensive review of available study results. The information on the C-ITS
services was mainly collected from publications of the C-ITS platform.

The use of peer-reviewed studies based on empirical data and carried out in the European
context has been prioritised. Expert assessment has been used when no assessed impact
was available. Attention was also paid to what reference point was used in the studies (e.g.
pre-existing ITS services or situation without ITS services).

Because the impacts of different ITS systems depend greatly on the environment and traffic
system where the system has been used or tested, studies not relevant for Europe were
excluded from the results.

7
 3. Impact assessment of ITS and C-ITS systems
3.1. Evaluation methods
There are various methods for evaluating Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and Cooperative
ITS (C-ITS) projects. The choice of the right method, though, for the evaluation of such
projects is important. The method to be applied must maintain a balance between the
complexity and cost of the evaluation and the cost of the potential project (Newman-Askins et
al. 2003). Therefore, each responsible authority and the involved developers should define for
each specific case if a very broad “all OK” or “all not OK” indicator is efficient or if a very exact
benefit/cost assessment to guide a major investment is required.

Another critical factor for choosing the right method for the evaluation of ITS and C-ITS
services is the complexity of the evaluation and the complexity of each method. The required
complexity of the evaluation depends on the purpose of the evaluation results. For example,
the degree of complexity required for determining the net worth of the project to society is
much higher than for performance measurement (Newman-Askins et al. 2003).

The main problem with the evaluation of ITS and C-ITS services is that the methods of
evaluation require a significant amount of data, which is difficult to gather because of the
nature of ITS projects. ITS projects are usually enhancements to the existing transport
infrastructure, and for that reason there is no need for a full economic impact analysis in ITS
and C-ITS projects (Newman-Askins et al. 2003).

Usually, the distributional effects of ITS and C-ITS projects and services are considered in a
socioeconomic analysis such as cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or multi-criteria analysis (MCA)
(Newman-Askins et al. 2003). The CBA method is the most common method for evaluating
ITS and C-ITS projects, while the cost-benefit ratio (i.e. the actual output of the method) is
based on assumptions mainly about the monetary values of the benefits.

The cost-benefit ratio can be incorporated into a goal-based evaluation framework, where it
will serve as one of several indicators of the evaluation framework; this leads to the use of the
MCA method. However, it should be noted that such a solution may lead to the risk of double-
counting certain impacts, since some cost- and benefit-related factors may be included in both
the cost-benefit ratio and the MCA (Newman-Askins et al. 2003). CBA of ITS and C-ITS is
discussed further in Topic study 7 (Cost-benefit analyses of ITS and C-ITS services).

Cost-efficiency analysis (CEA) is used to compare ITS and C-ITS projects when a defined
service impact is expected and information regarding the costs is available (Bristow et al.
2007). However, no monetary value or valuation techniques are required for service impacts.
Cost-efficiency analysis compares the impacts of a project to its costs.

8
The European Union EVA ITS evaluation manual recommends (Newman-Askins et al. 2003):

 The use of CBA methodology only when specific monetary values regarding costs are
available
 The use of MCA methodology when specific monetary values are not available (for
major impacts)
 The use of CEA methodology in cases when specific monetary values are available
(only for the costs) and a specified impact is achieved.

Impacts of various measures affecting the transport system have been studied based on
changes in the level of service (LoS) of physical infrastructure such as road links and junctions.
In previous evaluations of ITS and C-ITS services, factors related to capacity analysis such
as traffic volumes, traffic density, road geometry and signal parameters have been used to
calculate a Level of Service (LoS). LoS provides qualitative information on operational
performance of road links and junctions. Nevertheless, those factors used to calculate the LoS
do not include the full benefits of ITS. For example, impacts on environment or safety are not
reflected in changes in LoS.

3.2. ITS evaluation frameworks

There are six (Hills and Junge 2010) or seven (Tarry et al. 2012) steps in choosing the best
approach to evaluate the impacts of ITS and C-ITS services. These steps are presented
below:

 Step 1: Clarification of the evaluation background. This is a preliminary stage

designed to mention which evaluation process is being undertaken, the intended use
and users, the intervention objectives to be considered, and the resources needed.
 Step 2: Consideration of the intervention’s nature. This step dabbles with the type
of intervention (e.g. policy, programme, package or scheme), and how this will give
feedback for the evaluation approach.
 Step 3: Mapping the intervention logic. This step explains the factors that are likely
to shape the delivery of the intervention and therefore influence its success. Step 3
helps to highlight what evidence is required from the evaluation and, in particular,
indicate where key gaps in the existing evidence base might be.
 Step 4: Defining the evaluation purpose and framing the evaluation questions.
This step is built on the previous steps to ensure that the evidence produced by the
evaluation meets the requirements of the stakeholders.
 Step 5: Deciding on the most suitable overall approach to the impact evaluation.
There are three available approaches: the outcome approach, which compares the
situation before an intervention with the situation after its introduction; the experimental
approach, which compares the outcome of an intervention with what would have
happened in its absence; and the theory-based approach, which articulates and tests
the assumed connection between an intervention and anticipated impacts. In this
particular step there is the final decision about the most suitable approach, according
to what needs to be evaluated.

9
  Step 6: Refining the chosen evaluation approach. Depending on the outcome of
the previous step, and whether a decision has been made that there is a need for
evidence that is attributable to the scheme, the next stage is to select an appropriate
approach to achieve this.
 Step 7: Implementation of the evaluation data collection program. The final step
of this process is actually the implementation of the chosen evaluation framework,
based on the decisions made in the above steps.

There are two ways to assess the benefits of ITS deployment: the goal-oriented approach
(GOA) and the economic analysis approach (EAA) (Mehta et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2000). The
GOA begins with defining the goals and the aims of the services and determining specific
measurements. This method focuses on whether the output has achieved its original goals
(Mehta et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2000).

The EAA method focuses on cost-efficient ways to achieve the set target of the service. If, for
example, the target of a service is reducing congestion, EAA would ask whether this service’s
target is beneficial economically, and how the rate of return on investment compares to similar
projects (Mehta et al. 200, Peng et al. 2000).

In the next two subchapters, additional information is provided about the GOA and EAA
methods.

3.2.1. Goal-oriented approach

The goals of the ITS and C-ITS services are predefined. It is critical, however, that the final
selection of the implemented and deployed ITS and C-ITS services is an iterative approach
and with the participation of all stakeholders. That way, the defined evaluation framework and
the evaluation measures are selected based on desired targets and measures (EC 2010,
Lomax et al. 2000, Turner and Stockton 1999).

This method is used for the evaluation of ITS and C-ITS services in order to (Turner and
Stockton 1999):

1. Understand their impacts

2. Quantify their benefits
3. Help make future investment decisions
4. Optimise existing system operation and/or design.

This ITS and C-ITS evaluation framework consists of two main elements:

1. Designation of transportation goals and objectives.

2. Enumeration of evaluation measures (Turner and Stockton 1999).

A comprehensive evaluation framework should be able to:

1. Identify the process needed to specify the goals, objectives and potential impacts; and
2. Develop measures to estimate the impacts (Lomax et al. 2000).

10
The ITS evaluation plan consists of some main goals; where each has its main characteristics
(Kaparias et al. 2011, Kulmala et al. 2002, Lomax et al. 2000, Mehta et al. 2001, Peng et al.
2000, Turner and Stockton 1999):

1. Improve the safety of the transportation systems by:

a. Reducing the number of fatalities; and
b. Reducing the severity of collisions.
2. Increase the operational efficiency and capacity of the transportation system by:
a. Reducing interruption due to incidents;
b. Improving travellers’ LoS and convenience
c. Increasing the infrastructure’s capacity.
3. Enhance present and future productivity by:
a. Reducing costs incurred by fleet operators and others;
b. Reducing travel time
c. Improving transportation systems’ planning and management.
4. Enhance the personal mobility and the convenience and comfort of the transportation
system by:
a. Providing access to pre-trip and on-trip information;
b. Improving the safety and security of the travel
c. Reducing the travellers’ stress.
5. Reduce energy and environmental (external) costs associated with traffic congestion
by:
a. Reducing harmful emissions
b. Reducing energy consumption.

According to the European Commission’s Directive 2010/40/EU (EC 2010), the used
measures in the evaluation phase of ITS services shall:

1. “Be effective—make a tangible contribution towards solving the key challenges

affecting road transportation in Europe (e.g. reducing congestion, lowering emissions,
improving energy efficiency, attaining higher levels of safety and security including
vulnerable road users);
2. Be cost-efficient—optimise the ratio of costs in relation to output with regard to meeting
objectives;
3. Be proportional— provide, where appropriate, for different levels of achievable service
quality and deployment, taking into account the local, regional, national and European
specificities;
4. Support continuity of services—ensure seamless services across the Union, in
particular on the trans-European network, and where possible at its external borders,
when ITS services are deployed. Continuity of services should be ensured at a level
adapted to the characteristics of the transport networks linking countries with countries,
and where appropriate, regions with regions and cities with rural areas;
5. Deliver interoperability—ensure that systems and the underlying business processes
have the capacity to exchange data and to share information and knowledge to enable
effective ITS service delivery;

11
 6. Support backward compatibility—ensure, where appropriate, the capability for ITS
systems to work with existing systems that share a common purpose, without hindering
the development of new technologies;
7. Respect existing national infrastructure and network characteristics—take into account
the inherent differences in the transport network characteristics, in particular in the
sizes of the traffic volumes and in road weather conditions;
8. Promote equality of access—do not impede or discriminate against access to ITS
applications and services by vulnerable road users;
9. Support maturity—demonstrate, after appropriate risk assessment, the robustness of
innovative ITS systems, through a sufficient level of technical development and
operational exploitation;
10. Deliver quality of timing and positioning—use of satellite-based infrastructures, or any
technology providing equivalent levels of precision for the purposes of ITS applications
and services that require global, continuous, accurate and guaranteed timing and
positioning services;
11. Facilitate inter-modality—take into account the coordination of various modes of
transport, where appropriate, when deploying ITS; and
12. Respect coherence—take into account existing Union rules, policies and activities
which are relevant in the field of ITS, in particular in the field of standardisation."

Those goals/elements can be represented as indicators in the evaluation process.

Another need is the categorisation of evaluation measures. There are two types of
categorisation: The first uses the terms of output and outcome evaluation measures. Output
(or efficiency) evaluation measures are, in general, aggregate in nature and correspond to a
certain transportation facility. Examples of output evaluation measures are traffic volume per
lane and total vehicle delay. Outcome (or effectiveness) evaluation measures are those that
typically characterise the transportation effects into certain groups. Examples of outcome
evaluation measures are individual travel times/trip time reliability and travel costs (Turner and
Stockton, 1999).

The distinction between these two categories is important for three reasons (Turner and
Stockton 1999):

1. Output measures are typically aggregate facility statistics; because of that they are
unable to dynamically approach the travellers’ responses. On the other hand, outcome
measures are structured to typically work that way.
2. Outcome measures are associated with different transportation goals like mobility and
accessibility.
3. Output measures are easier to measure (because of their nature). Outcome measures
require measures either at the level of the individual traveller or at company level.

In order for the proper evaluation of ITS services, it is necessary to balance the output and
outcome measures through the evaluation of ITS (Turner and Stockton 1999).

12
The second categorisation type is one of the “few good measures” as defined in the literature
(Lomax et al. 2000, Mehta et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2000). This approach is designed to provide
some basic consistency between evaluations and offer information on the yearly progress of
ITS efforts. The “few good measures” approach is a sound technique, but the need for
extensive data sets can increase the project budget (Lomax et al. 2000, Mehta et al. 2001,
Peng et al. 2000).

The “few good measures” include crashes, fatalities, travel time, throughput, user satisfaction
or acceptance, and cost (Lomax et al. 2000, Mehta et al. 2001, Peng et al. 2000).

A similar performance-based approach is used in the United Kingdom. In this method,

performance indicators (including value-for-money indicators) were developed in an
evaluation framework to evaluate several ITS projects in the United Kingdom (Peng et al.
2000).

3.2.2. Economic Analysis Approach

The EAA method for ITS and C-ITS services evaluation uses similar economic analysis
techniques to those used for highway projects. EAA quantifies the specific monetary value of
ITS and C-ITS impacts. EAA also focuses on quantifying the short-term and long-term
economic impacts of ITS and C-ITS projects “on regional and national economies, the users,
the private sector, the community and the environment”. This approach attempts to reduce
everything to a single cost-benefit ratio (Peng et al. 2000).

The evaluation of ITS and C-ITS services should take into account not only benefits related to
transportation system users; it should include other factors as well, relevant to other
stakeholders (e.g. transportation infrastructure providers and managers, potential private
investors, ITS technology providers etc.). This would ensure that the evaluation takes into
account all different aspects of ITS and C-ITS implementation (economic, social,
environmental etc.) and that each deployment is an investment that has to be evaluated
through CBAs (Peng et al. 2000).

3.3. Considerations in ITS services evaluation

Despite their differences, the GOA and EAA methods are closely related. Some GOA
evaluation frameworks incorporate the concept of economic analysis, while some EAA
frameworks also take into account various goals and objectives of ITS and C-ITS services.
The main difference lies in how each method takes into account the economic benefits; they
are one of the many components of the GOA evaluation method, but they are the main
parameter in the EAA method (Peng et al. 2000).

Nevertheless, both methods have their limitations. Sometimes the goals of a project are not
clear; on the other hand, many benefits are difficult to assign a monetary value to, which makes
economic analysis challenging. Both approaches are complementary and should be used
either together, or each method should be used when the proper prerequisites, as described
in the above subchapters, are fulfilled.

13
Regardless of the approaches to be used, the following issues should be considered in the
evaluation process (Peng et al. 2000):

Affected Groups: The groups affected by deployed ITS services are a critical factor. Despite
the effect of those services on the main users, the evaluation framework should investigate
the distribution of the impacts to other groups such as various user groups, non-users, public
agency operators and private entities (Lomax et al. 2000, Peng et al. 2000, Turner and
Stockton 1999).

Evaluation Time Frame: In the process of ITS evaluation the time frame of occurrence is of
major importance, because through the time frame categories (short-medium-long term
benefits and impacts) there is a clear picture of the users’ benefits (Turner and Stockton 1999,
Lomax et al. 2000, Peng et al. 2000).

Specific measures and parameters: The use of specific measures and parameters enables
the benefits of ITS to be identified. The measures mentioned below are commonly used to
quantify ITS impacts (Peng et al. 2000):

1. Safety: Some measures of the number of incidents, crashes and fatalities.

2. Reduction of delay and travel time: The measure of delays and travel time reliability.
3. Cost reduction: A measure of productivity and reduced operating costs from ITS
services.
4. Throughput: A measure of passengers or people within a specific unit of time who
traverse a portion of the road network.
5. Customer satisfaction: The extent to which passengers and other consumers who rely
on transport services feel satisfied. While satisfaction is an abstract term, the quality
of a service is often measured by the number of people who continue to use it, as well
as comments on customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
6. Environmental benefits: A measure of impacts on emissions and other environmental
factors.

An overview of impacts and relevant stakeholders and methods is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of impact areas and related stakeholders and methods.

Impact Stakeholder Methods

1. Safety Society Statistics

2. Reduction of delay Travellers Simulation

4. Throughput Road operators Measurements

5. Customer Travellers Questionnaire

satisfaction

6. Environmental Society Statistics, overall values

benefits

14
 3.4. Criteria for an effective ITS (and C-ITS) evaluation
methodology
The most important criteria which need to be met for the use of an effective ITS and C-ITS
evaluation methodology (Newman-Askins et al. 2003, Econation) are:

1. The evaluation should be transparent and allow for simple updating of impact
parameters.
2. The methodology should provide an accurate output, as well as being objective without
any positive or negative bias.
3. The methodology should allow comparison of results of evaluation of ITS and
conventional transport projects.
4. The evaluation should include rigorous sensitivity testing and not apply false precision
to the estimated impacts.
5. The methodology should consider the combined effect of implementing various
combinations of ITS.
6. The methodology must be developed to avoid double counting of benefits.
7. The base and project cases studied in the evaluation must be based on the same
operational conditions.

Moreover, in all evaluation processes, both internal and external costs should be taken into
account. This has a direct implementation in ITS and C-ITS evaluation, as they have impacts
not only on their focus environment but also on their external environment.

3.5. Data collection for impact assessment of ITS and C-ITS

Because of the need to collect and process traffic-related data, traditional on-road sensors
were installed, and collecting methods have been evolving in order to collect, compute,
process and transmit traffic data.

Those systems are referred to as conventional in-situ technologies and they are either
intrusive or non-intrusive. Despite the necessity to install such systems, experts concluded
that they were not sufficient because of their limited coverage and high implementation and
maintenance costs (Lopes et al. 2010).

In recent years, several alternatives technologies have emerged that are based on sensor
technology and its applications to transport engineering (Lopes et al. 2010).

Traffic data collection is categorised into three methods (Leduc 2008, Lopes et al. 2010,
Turner et al. 1998):
1. Conventional in-site (in-situ) data collection technologies
2. Mobile traffic probes (floating car data and ITS probe vehicle techniques)
3. Wide-area data collection technology.

In the following subchapters only in-situ technologies and mobile traffic probes are discussed,
as they are more relevant to the object of this Deliverable.

15
Regarding network coverage, data collection methods can be adjusted to current needs; the
area can be limited to a particular site or stretched (fixed road segments or trips defined by
identifying sensors) (Lopes et al. 2010).

Each of these methods has different technical and operational characteristics (Lopes et al.
2010) and is described briefly below.

3.5.1. Conventional in-situ/in-site technologies – sensor network

technologies

In-situ technologies refer to traffic data derived from roadside detectors. Generally, they fall
into two categories: intrusive and non-intrusive (Leduc 2008, Lopes et al. 2010).

In technical terms, intrusive and non-intrusive methods differ in the placement of the
infrastructure needed for data collection. Intrusive methods have a data recorder and sensor
along the roadside; non-intrusive methods use remote observations (Leduc 2008, Lopes et al.
2010).

The most important in-situ technologies (Leduc 2008, Lopes et al. 2010) are listed in Table 2.

Table 2. In-situ technologies for data collection

In-situ technologies
Intrusive methods Non-intrusive methods
Manual counts
Pneumatic road tubes
Passive and active infra-red
Passive magnetic
Piezoelectric sensors
Microwave radar
Ultrasonic and Passive acoustic
Magnetic loops
Video image detection

*For further technical details please check the relevant reference (Leduc 2008)

3.5.2. Mobile traffic probes

This category refers to the collection of transport-related data “by locating and recognizing
vehicles at multiple points in a network”. The use of mobile traffic probes requires the actual
or virtual existence of detectors on the road network. Installed sensors can provide detailed
information regarding travel paths; this capability leads to information related to route choice
analysis and O-D estimation (Lopes et al. 2010).

There are two categories of mobile traffic probes (Lopes et al. 2010, Turner et al. 1998):
Floating car data (FCD) and ITS probe vehicle techniques.

Floating Car Data (FCD)

FCD refers to real-time traffic data collection by locating vehicles through the use of GPS
(Leduc 2008, Lopes et al. 2010). Data derived are the vehicle’s location, speed and direction

16
of travel. The data sets produced are sent anonymously to a central processing centre, where
the data is processed and can then be redistributed to drivers on the road (Leduc 2008).

There are two categories of FCD (Leduc 2008, Lopes et al. 2010):

 GPS-based FCD
 Cellular-based FCD systems (e.g. CDMA, GSM, UMTS and GPRS networks)

*For further technical details, please check the relevant references.

ITS probe vehicle techniques

According to Turner et al. (1998), “The probe vehicle techniques are ITS applications designed
primarily for collecting data in real-time.” Their primary application is the collection of data for
specific purposes (e.g. real-time traffic operations monitoring) (Turner et al. 1998).

However, the main use of these techniques is for collection of travel time data. Since the probe
vehicles are used for travel time data collection, they are sometimes referred to as “passive”
probe vehicles (Turner et al. 1998).

In the case of ITS probe vehicle techniques, probe vehicles are sampled at fixed locations by
electronic transponders (Turner et al. 1998).

There are five main types of ITS probe vehicle data collection services. These services are
suitable for large-scale data collection efforts but typically have a high implementation cost
(Turner et al. 1998).

The most commonly used ITS probe vehicle technologies (Lopes et al. 2010, Turner et al.
1998) are:

 Signpost-Based Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL): Probe vehicles communicate

with transmitters mounted on existing signpost structures. This technique is mostly
used by transit agencies.
 Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI): Probe vehicles are equipped with electronic
tags, which communicate with roadside transceivers to identify unique vehicles.
Collected data is travel times between the said transceivers.
 Global Positioning System (GPS): Probe vehicles are equipped with GPS receivers
and two-way communication to receive signals from earth-orbiting satellites. The
positional information is transmitted to a control centre to display the real-time position
of the probe vehicles. Travel time information is then determined by using the collected
data.
 Ground-Based Radio Navigation: This system is similar to the global positioning
system (GPS). Communication between probe vehicles and a radio tower
infrastructure leads to the collection of data.
 Cellular Geo-location: This technology has the ability to collect travel time data by
tracking cellular telephone call transmissions.

17
In conclusion, two main categories of systems and technologies exist for collection of traffic
data. The technologies are conventional in-situ technologies and mobile traffic probes. Mobile
traffic probes are further sub-categorised into FCD technologies and ITS probe vehicle
techniques. Conventional systems were the first to be used, but their weaknesses led to the
development of mobile traffic probes that collect mobility-related data by locating the vehicles
in the network through the use of new technologies.

These technologies allow for high quality and trusted traffic-related and mobility-related data
to be collected. There is also the ability for further analysis of the collected data and for the
transmission of the generated information to users of the transport infrastructure through V2X
technologies, and especially though Infrastructure-to-Vehicle (I2V) technologies.

3.6. The FESTA Handbook

The FESTA handbook is the result of a project aimed at supporting Field Operational Tests
(FOTs) by providing a handbook of good practices. The handbook was developed under the
7th Framework Programme with the purpose of offering a common methodology for the
performance of FOTs in Europe.

The handbook describes the entire process of planning, preparing, executing, analysing and
reporting a FOT. FOTs are the most common type of tests for evaluating the performance of
ITS when deployed at large scale. A FOT is defined in the handbook as “A study undertaken
to evaluate a function, or functions, under normal operating conditions in road traffic
environments typically encountered by the participants using study design so as to identify
real-world effects and benefits.” (FESTA Handbook 2016).

Nevertheless, the handbook is not applicable in all Technical Readiness Levels (TRLs). The
pre-deployment phase (pilots) and the deployment phase, which are nearer to the market and
in a high TRL, are not covered by FOTs, so they are not examined under the FESTA Handbook
(Figure 1).

18
 Figure 1. Funding schemes and their relation to the TRL (adapted from SEE-ITS D5.1.).

The FESTA handbook also provides information about aspects that differ across the European
Union’s member states (FESTA 2016). Figure 2 outlines the process proposed in the
handbook.

Figure 2. Methodology for evaluating a FOT (adapted from FESTA 2016).

19
 4. Impacts of ITS and C-ITS services
This chapter discusses the main impacts of various ITS and C-ITS systems. The systems
were selected from among the iMobility priority systems (iMobility Effects Database) and C-
ITS Platform’s Day 1 services (C-ITS Platform 2016).

Identification of specific impacts of the systems may be difficult and their extent challenging to
assess, because it is hard to pinpoint the exact area of influence that an ITS or C-ITS service
has. For example, how does one identify precisely the total length of a road network that is
affected by the operation of an ITS? Another example is ITS that focus on minimising the
environmental impacts of transport; how does one know what exact area the system has an
impact on in order to calculate the environmental KPIs (e.g. CO2 emissions etc.)? Another
significant issue is lack of data. The data collection and processing needed for the provision
of some ITS and C-ITS services have privacy aspects that limit the potential of evaluation
methodologies, and therefore no solid results can be produced (Iordanopoulos 2017).

The impacts of these services, gleaned from various studies and analyses of earlier literature,
are also available on the iMobility Effects Database.

4.1. Impacts of ITS

Table 3 summarises the thirteen selected ITS services and their impacts.

In terms of safety, almost all the services have positive effects, with the percentage drop in
crashes (fatal or not) and injuries varying from 1.5 to 30%. The only system with no
estimates of its effects on safety is eco-driving coaching. Also, in order for some services to
achieve the maximum positive effects (such as speed alert), full fleet penetration of the
service is required. Very few specific estimations are available for effects on efficiency or
congestion. The environmental effects of the iMobility Effects Database priority ITS services
are positive and, in the cases where exact estimates are available, vary from 0.5 to 11% less
CO2 emissions and fuel consumption.

The results in Table 3 were derived using different methods from the existing variety. The
most appropriate method was selected each time based on the characteristics of the
services. Further information and details about the methods used in the impact assessment
of each are provided in the iMobility Effects database.

20
 Table 3. Selected ITS systems: description and summary of impacts (adapted from iMobility Effects Database).

System Description Safety Efficiency/ Mobility Environment

eCall eCall stands for European in-vehicle Improve Improve Improve
emergency call system. The system  FIN: 4–8% less fatalities, UK: 1% less fatalities  FIN: 0.02–0.05% less vehicle  FIN: 0.04–0.10% less CO2, PM
sends information about the (Franscsics et al. 2009) hours in congestion (Franscsics et and NOx (Franscsics et al. 2009)
accident vehicle (e.g. location) and  EU25: 3.6–7.3% less fatalities (Wilmink et al. al. 2009)
opens a voice connection between 2008)
the vehicle’s occupants and the  NL: 1–2% less fatalities (Donkers & Sholten
public safety answering point. 2008)
 UK: 3% less fatalities (McClure & Graham 2006)

Real-Time Traffic RTTI systems inform the user about
Information (RTTI) traffic (congestion) and weather
conditions through in-vehicle and
nomadic devices.
Improve  Cancellation or change in time of
 FIN: 5–8% reduction in injury accident risk departure for 1.5% of trips (Kattan
(Rämä et al. 2003) et al. 2013)
 23–45% of drivers changed their
travel plans or routes (Tarry &
Pyne 2003)

Dynamic Traffic DTM systems are used to manage Improve Improve

Management (DTM) traffic during disturbances caused
by incidents, congestion and/or
adverse weather. The systems are
operated automatically, semi-
automatically or manually from
traffic control centres based on fixed
monitoring systems or mobile
sensors on location.
 FIN: 10% less injury accidents due to VMS
(Rämä 2001)
 DE: 9–36% less injury accident risk (Siegener et
al. 2000)
 10–15% less accidents due to ramp control
(Perrett and Stevens 1996)
 Reduction in rear-end injury accidents but
increase in rear-end property damage accidents
(Elvik et al. 1997)
 13–14 km/h reduction in average speed on
motorways during bad road conditions (Lind
2007)
 2–3 km/h increase in average speed on two-
 12–17% less travel time due to
ramp metering (Bhouri et al.
2013)
 14% less travel time due to hard
shoulder running (Bhouri et al.
2012)
 5–15% less travel time due to
variable speed limits (Lind and
Lindkvist 2009)

21
System Description
Speed Alert The system alerts the driver with
audio, visual and/or haptic feedback
when the speed exceeds the locally
valid speed limit. The speed limit
information is either received from
transponders in speed limit signs or
from a digital road map, requiring
reliable positioning information.
Dynamic Navigation Dynamic navigation utilises current
Systems traffic event and transport network
status data for adjusting the routing
process in electronic navigation
systems.
Safety Efficiency/ Mobility Environment
lane motorways (Loot et al. 2012)
Improve  3.4–5.8% reduction of CO2 (Lai
 1.22 km/h reduction in average speed et al. 2012)
(Stephan et al. 2014)  6% reduction of CO2 on
 0.75–2.33 km/h reduction in average speed motorways (Carslaw et al. 2009)
(Malta et al. 2012)  14% reduction in fuel
 13–18% reduction in serious injury accidents consumption (Andersson 2009)
(Ghadiri et al. 2013)
 25–30% reduction in serious injury accidents
(Lai et al. 2012)
 2.1–10.7% reduction in fatal accidents and
1.7–8.7% reduction in serious injury accidents
(Heinig et al. 2007a&b)
 18% reduction of fatal accidents and 10%
reduction of injury accidents (Carsten &
Fowkes 2000)
 SE: 10% less injury accidents (Várhelyi 1997)
 Reduction in share of vehicles exceeding the
speed limit (Andersson 2009, Guo et al. 2013,
Lahrmann et al. 2012, Malta et al. 2012, van
der Pas et al. 2014, Reagan et al. 2013,
Spyropoulou et al. 2014, Stephan et al. 2014,
Stigson et al. 2013)
Improve Improve Improve
 5.4–21.5% reduction in intersection incidents  EU27: 0.4% reduction of  EU27: 2.1% reduction in fuel
(Malta et al. 2012) congestion (Klunder et al. 2009) consumption and CO2 emissions
 16% reduction in kilometres (Klunder et al. 2009)
travelled (Vonk et al. 2007)  One route: 9% fuel saving for
 One route: 6% reduction in travel time-priority route (Kono et al.
time for taking faster and shorter 2008)
route (Cerbe et al. 2009)  One route: 21% fuel saving for
22
System Description
Local Danger LDW systems are used to warn
Warnings (LDW) drivers about incidents, congestion
and adverse weather. The systems
are operated automatically, semi-
automatically or manually from
traffic control centres based on fixed
monitoring systems or mobile
sensors on location.
Adaptive Headlights The system consists of
electromechanical controlled
headlights to ensure optimum
illumination of the lane in bends.
The headlight is directed into the
bend as soon as the vehicle begins
cornering.
Eco-diving Eco-driving assistance assists and
Assistance encourages the driver to eco-driving
by providing information about
current fuel consumption, energy
use efficiency and appropriate gear
selection, taking into account
engine and transmission efficiency,
vehicle speed and rate of
acceleration etc.
Safety Efficiency/ Mobility Environment
taking faster and shorter route
(Cerbe et al. 2009)
Improve
 5% reduction in driving speed, 2.1–10.7%
reduction in fatalities, 1.7–8.7% reduction in
fatal accidents and 0.7–3.6% reduction in
serious injury accidents (Heinig et al. 2007a&b)
 28–37% reduction in proportion of drivers in
queues with headways of less than 1.5 s (Rämä
et al. 1996)
Improve
 4.7–9% reduction in property damage and 9.9–
16.8% in bodily injury liability insurance claims
(Highway Loss Data Institute 2012 a&b)
Improve Improve
 Reduction in mean headways and time spent  6.8% less fuel consumption for
driving with headway under 1.5 s (combined buses (Strömberg & Karlsson
with FCW and LDW) (Birell et al. 2014) 2004 & 2013)
 3.7% less fuel consumption
(combined with FCW and LDW)
(Birell et al. 2014)
 3.8% less fuel consumption for
buses (Innamaa & Penttinen
2014)
 7.6% less fuel consumption (Vagg
et al. 2013)
 2.2% less fuel consumption
23
System Description
Eco-diving Eco-driving coaching provides the
Coaching driver information on gear change,
acceleration behaviour and driving
speed for operating the vehicle in
an energy-efficient manner. The
system utilises external information
such as road geometry, mandatory
stops and status of traffic lights.
Blind Spot On both sides of a vehicle there are
Monitoring normally some blind spots when
using the rear-view mirror. Different
systems can either provide better
vision of the blind spot area or
supplemental information regarding
an obstacle being there, e.g. with
warning signals.
Lane Departure Warning is given to the driver to
Warning avoid leaving the lane
unintentionally. Warnings provided
to the driver can be acoustic, visual
or haptic.
Safety
 Potential to slightly increase travel
Improve:
 3.6% reduction in in bodily injury liability
insurance claims (Highway Loss Data Institute
2012 a&b)
 Potential to prevent the number of accidents
(Jermakian 2011, Kingsley 2009)
Improve
 Reduction in mean headways and time spent
driving with headway under 1.5 s (combined
with FCW and eco-driving) (Birell et al. 2014)
 AU: 7% reduction in fatalities (Anderson et al.
2011)
 17–19% reduction in single vehicle road
departure crashes and 17–23% of rollover
crashes for trucks (Orban et al. 2006)
 Potential to prevent the number of injuries
Efficiency/ Mobility Environment
(Tulusan et al. 2012)
 3–11% less CO2 emissions
 4.16–5.68% reduction in CO2
emissions (Norris et al. 2010)
 7–10% less fuel consumption and
CO2 emissions (Vermeulen 2006)
 15.9–18.4% potential for reduced
time (Staubach et al. 2014) fuel consumption (Staubach et al.
2014)
Improve:
 3.7% reduction in fuel
consumption (combined with
FCW and eco-driving) (Birell et al.
2014)
 EU: 0.008% reduction in CO2
emissions (Klunder et al. 2009)
24
System Description
Obstacle and The system detects obstacles and
Collision Warning emits warnings when a collision is
(incl. ACC) imminent. Current solutions with
limited performance are a separate
feature of Adaptive Cruise Control
systems, which use information
obtained from radar sensors or
video image processing to give
visual and acoustic warnings.
Emergency Braking Based on radar (short and long
range), LIDAR and/or camera
vision, emergency braking provides
support in situations with a high risk
Safety Efficiency/ Mobility Environment
(Klunder et al. 2009, Robinson et al. 2011) and
truck-related crashes (Kingsley 2009, Korse
2003)
Improve  16% increase in time headways Improve
 Reduction in brake reaction time (Benmimoun et on motorways (ACC)  3.7% reduction in fuel
al. 2013a, Ruscio et al. 2015) (Benmimoun et al. 2013a&b) consumption (combined with LDW
 Reduction in mean headways and time spent and eco-driving) (Birell et al.
driving with headway under 1.5 s (combined 2014)
with LDW and eco-driving) (Birell et al. 2014)  2.77% reduction in fuel
 EU27: reduction in injury accidents: 2.2–5.8 on consumption (Benmimoun et al.
motorways, 0.47–0.65% on rural roads and 2013a&b)
0.14% in urban environments (Malta et al. 2012)  0.5–5% reduction in CO2
 28% reduction in rear-end crashes (Lehmer et emissions (ACC) (Klunder at al.
al. 2007) 2009)
 7% less fatal accidents and 4% less injury  3% reduction in fuel consumption
accidents (Anderson et al. 2011) (Reinhardt and Kompfner 2007)
 NL: 8% reduction in accidents (Reinhardt &
Kompfner 2007)
 14.3% less property damage liability insurance
claims (Highway Loss Data Institute 2012b)
 Potential to prevent the number of accidents
(Jermakian 2011, Kingsley 2009, Najm et al.
2006, Schittenhelm 2009)
Improve
 38% less rear-end accidents (Fildes et al. 2015)
 FR: 1.3% less fatal accidents and 3.8% less
serious injury accidents (Chauvel et al. 2013)
25
System Description
of head-to-tail collision, in order to
avoid the collision or reduce the
collision speed and total crash
energy.
Safety Efficiency/ Mobility Environment
 EU25: 7% reduction in fatalities and injuries
(Wilmink et al. 2008)
 7.8% reduction in fatalities and injuries (Cuny et
al. 2008)
 8% less rear-end collisions (Breuer et al. 2007)
 28% reduction in rear-end crashes (Lehmer et
al. 2007)
 Potential to prevent the number of accidents
(Avery and Weekes 200, US DOT 2014)
26
 4.2. Impacts of C-ITS
Table 4 describes the 14 selected C-ITS systems and summarises their impacts. In terms of
safety, almost all of the services have been assessed to have positive effects, and the
percentage drop in crashes (fatal or not) and injuries varies from 0.1 to 7.8%. The
environmental effects of the described C-ITS services are positive (but small) and, in the cases
where exact estimates are available, vary from 0.005 to 3.5% less CO2 emissions and fuel
consumption. As in the previous chapter, the results below were also derived using various
methods from an existing variety, the most appropriate one being chosen each time based on
the characteristics of the services. The table provides a synopsis of the impacts of Day 1 C-
ITS (Asselin-Miller et al. 2016, eSafety Forum 2010, Kulmala et al. 2012, Malone et al. 2014)
as presented in the C-ITS Platform (C-ITS Platform).

For some of the presented C-ITS services there is information about the willingness to use the
system and to pay for it, and the usefulness of the system. More specifically:
 For the Traffic Jam Ahead Warning service, the willingness to use the system is 79%;
 For the Shockwave Damping service, the willingness to pay for the system is 50% and
the usefulness of the system is 86%;
 For the Weather Conditions service, the usefulness of the system is 76% (Malone et
al. 2014).

27
 Table 4. Selected C-ITS systems: description and summary of impacts (adapted from iMobility Effects Database).

System Description Safety Efficiency/Mobility Environment

Hazardous Location Warning

The system aims at preventing rear-end Improve

collisions by informing drivers of hard  EU28, year 2030: 2.7% reduction in fatalities and 2.5%
Emergency braking by vehicles ahead. Using this reduction in injuries (Malone et al. 2014)
Electronic information, drivers will be better
Brake Light prepared for slow traffic ahead and will
be able to adjust their speed
accordingly.

This system aims to give an early Improve

Emergency
warning of approaching emergency
Vehicle
vehicles, prior to the siren or light bar  EU28, year 2030: 0.8% reduction in fatalities and injuries
Approaching (Malone et al. 2014)
being audible or visible.

The system intends to warn Improve

Slow or approaching drivers about slow or  EU28, year 2030: 1.1% reduction in fatalities and 0.7%
Stationary stationary/broken down vehicle(s) reduction in injuries (Malone et al. 2014)
Vehicles ahead, which may be acting as  EU25 (100% penetration): 4.5% reduction in fatalities and 2.8%
obstacles in the road. reduction in injuries (Wilmink et al. 2008)

Improve No impact (Malone et al.

The system alerts the driver about an
Traffic Jam
upcoming tail end of a traffic jam at
Ahead
speed—for example if it is hidden
Warning
behind a hilltop or curve.
2014)
 EU28, year 2030: 1.7% reduction in fatalities and 2.5%
reduction in injuries (Malone et al. 2014)
 100% penetration: 2.4% reduction in fatalities and 2.8%
reduction in injuries (Kulmala et al. 2012)

The system gives an advance warning Improve Improve

Hazardous of upcoming hazardous locations on the  EU25, year 2030: 4.2% reduction in fatalities and 3.1%  2–10% less congestion
Location road. Examples include a sharp bend, reduction in injuries (Kulmala et al. 2008) (eSafety Forum 2010)
Notification steep hill, pothole, obstacle, or slippery  100% penetration: 4.1% reduction in fatalities and 3.1%
road surface. reduction in injuries (Kulmala et al. 2012)

28
System Description
The system enables road operators to
Road Works
communicate information about
Warning
roadworks and restrictions to drivers.
The system provides accurate and up-
to-date local weather information.
Drivers are informed about dangerous
Weather
weather conditions ahead, especially
Conditions
where the danger is difficult to perceive
visually, such as black ice or strong
gusts of wind.
Signage applications
The system informs drivers of relevant
In-Vehicle road signs in the vehicle’s vicinity,
Signage alerting drivers to signs that they may
have missed or may not be able to see.
The system displays continuous speed
limit information or targeted warnings in
In-Vehicle
the vicinity of road signs, or if the driver
Speed Limits
exceeds or drives below the speed
limit.
Safety Efficiency/Mobility Environment
 2–10% less fatalities and injuries (eSafety Forum 2010)
Improve
 EU28, year 2030: 1.9% reduction in fatalities and 1.5%
reduction in injuries (Malone et al. 2014)
Improve  EU25, year 2030: 0.01% Improve
increase in time spent on
 EU28, year 2030: 3.4% reduction in fatalities and injuries  EU25, year 2030: 0.005%
the road (Kulmala et al.
(Malone et al. 2014) less fuel consumption and
2008)
 EU25, year 2030: 4.2% reduction in fatalities and 3.1% 0.01–0.02% less emissions
reduction in injuries (Kulmala et al. 2008) (Kulmala et al. 2008)
 EU25 (100% penetration): 4.5% reduction in fatalities and 2.8%
reduction in injuries (Wilmink et al. 2008)
 2–4% less fatalities and injuries (eSafety Forum 2010)
 16.5% reduction in fatalities and 8.5% reduction in injuries
(Kulmala et al. 2012)
 16.4% less fatalities and 8.6% less injuries (SAFESPOT 2010)
Improve
 EU28, year 2030: 1.04% reduction in fatalities and 0.46%
reduction in injuries (Malone et al. 2014)
Improve: Improve:
 EU28, year 2030: 6.9% reduction in fatalities and 3.9%  2.3–3.5% reduction in fuel
reduction in injuries (Malone et al. 2014) consumption and
 EU25, year 2030: 7.2% reduction in fatalities and 4.8% -0.5…+4.2% change in
reduction in injuries (Kulmala et al. 2008) emissions (Asselin-Miller et
 EU25 (100% penetration): 8.7% reduction in fatalities and 6.2% al. 2016)
reduction in injuries (Wilmink et al. 2008)
29
System Description
Probe Vehicle The system collects and collates
Data vehicle data, which can then be used
for a variety of applications. For
example, road operators may use the
data to improve traffic management.
Shockwave The system aims to smoothen the flow
Damping of traffic by damping traffic shock
waves.
Green Light The system provides speed advice to
Optimal Speed drivers approaching traffic lights,
Advisory reducing the likelihood that they will
have to stop at a red light, and reducing
the number of sudden acceleration or
braking incidents.
Signal The primary objective of this service is
Violation/ to reduce the number and severity of
Intersection collisions at signalised intersections.
Safety
Safety Efficiency/Mobility Environment
 2–10% less fatalities and injuries (eSafety Forum 2010)
 7.1% less fatalities and 4.9% less injuries (SAFESPOT 2010)
 1.4% reduction in vehicle speed (Asselin-Miller et al. 2016)
Improve: Improve:
 2.4% reduction in fatalities and 2.8% reduction in injuries  0.006% less fuel
(Kulmala et al. 2012) consumption and 0.001–
0.003% less emissions
(Asselin-Miller et al. 2016)
Improve: Improve:
 EU25, year 2030 (dynamic speed adaptation): 7.8% reduction in  EU25, year 2030 (dynamic
fatalities and 5.0% reduction in injuries (Kulmala et al. 2008) speed adaptation): 0.005%
less fuel consumption and
0.1% less emissions
(Kulmala et al. 2008)
Improve: Improve:
 EU28, year 2030: 0.1% reduction in fatalities and 0.1–0.3%  EU28, year 2030: 0.1–0.7%
reduction in injuries (Malone et al. 2014) less fuel consumption and
0.0–0.8% less emissions
(Malone et al. 2014)
Improve:
 EU25, year 2030: 3.7% reduction in fatalities and 6.9%
reduction in injuries (Kulmala et al. 2008)
 EU25 (100% penetration): 3.9% reduction in fatalities and 7.3%
reduction in injuries (Wilmink et al. 2008)
 0.7–3.1% less fatalities and 2.2–4.8% less injuries (SAFESPOT
2010)
30
System Description Safety Efficiency/Mobility Environment

Traffic Signal The system allows drivers of priority - Improve Improve:

Priority vehicles (for example emergency  9.2% reduction in travel  8.3% less fuel consumption
Request by vehicles, public transport, HGVs) to be time for buses (Asselin- and 8.0–8.3% less
Designated given priority at signalised junctions. Miller et al. 2016) emissions (Asselin-Miller et
Vehicles al. 2016)

31
 5. Discussion and conclusions
This topic study addressed the impact assessment and impacts of ITS and C-ITS services,
starting with a general overview of the evaluation and impact assessment process. Common
methods and frameworks are important to allow for comparisons and meta-analyses of
different studies. The FESTA handbook provides a framework for assessing FOTs.

The evaluation can apply either a goal-oriented approach or economic analysis approach or
a combination of both. Whichever is chosen, the evaluation should consider the following
aspects: targeted groups, evaluation time frame and measures. In addition to the target group,
the service also affects e.g. non-users and public agency operators. The evaluation time frame
is important for using the correct expected penetration rates. The impacts should be defined
through commonly used measures such as number of incidents and fatalities for the safety
impacts.

Data collection for impact assessments can be done in three different ways: by using detectors
installed on the roadside, by using mobile traffic probes and by using wide-area data collection.

The second objective of the topic study was to present the impacts of different ITS and C-ITS
services. The ITS services include: eCall, RTTI, extended environmental monitoring, dynamic
traffic management, speed alert, dynamic navigation systems, eco-driving assistance, lane
keeping support, obstacle and collision warning and emergency braking. They were chosen
because they have been recognised as iMobility priority systems (iMobility Effects Database)
and because there are estimates available of their impacts. The systems with the most
promising impact on safety were lane departure warning, speed alert, eCall and dynamic traffic
management. Regarding the impacts on emissions and the environment, eco-driving
assistance has been assessed to reduce CO2 emissions by 3–11%.

The C-ITS services consisted of Day 1 applications which have been identified as priority C-
ITS applications (C-ITS Platform 2016). The C-ITS services included hazardous location
notifications: emergency brake light, emergency vehicle approaching, slow or stationary
vehicle(s), traffic jam ahead warning, hazardous location notification, road works warning,
weather conditions and signage applications: in-vehicle signage, in-vehicle speed limits, probe
vehicle data, shockwave damping, green light optimal speed advisory, signal
violation/intersection safety and traffic signal priority request by designated vehicles. Due to
the still immature nature of the technologies, the impacts of the services have in general been
assessed through impact assessments of ITS. For services providing information of
hazardous location or conditions, the reduction in fatalities and injuries has been estimated to
be between 0% and 5%.

32
 6. References
Adell, E., Varhelyi, A. and Fontana, M.D. (2011). The effects of a driver assistance system for
safe speed and safe distance - A real-life field study. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 19,
Issue 1, pp. 145-155.

Anderson, R.W.G., Hutchinson, T.P., Linke, B and Ponte G. (2011). Analysis of crash data to
estimate the benefits of emerging vehicle technology. CASR Report CASR094, April 2011.
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Queensland, Australia.

Andersson, S. (2009). Pilot project ISA in the city of Göteborg. Proceedings of the 16th World
Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services; 21-25 September 2009, Stockholm,
Sweden.

Asselin-Miller, N., Biedka, M., Gibson, G., Kirsch, F., Hill, N., White, B. and Uddin, K. (2016).
Study on the Deployment of C-ITS in Europe: Final Report. Available:
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2016-c-its-deployment-study-final-
report.pdf [cited 13/6/2017]

Avery, M. and Weekes, A. (2009). Autonomous braking systems and their potential effect on
whiplash injury reduction. Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV) - International Congress Center Stuttgart,
Germany, June 15-18, 2009.

Benmimoun, M., Zlocki, A. and Eckstein, L. (2013a). Behavioral changes and user acceptance
of adaptive cruise control (ACC) and forward collision warning (FCW): key findings within a
European naturalistic field operational test. Proceedings of the 23rd Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles Conference, Seoul, Korea, 27-30 May 2013.

Benmimoun, M., Pütz, A., Zlocki, A. and Eckstein, L. (2013b). euroFOT: Field Operational Test
and Impact Assessment of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: Final Results. Proceedings
of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress in Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering,
2013, Vol. 197, pp. 537-547.

Bhouri, N., Haj-Salem, H. and Kauppila, J. (2013). Isolated versus coordinated ramp metering:
Field evaluation results of travel time reliability and traffic impact. Transportation Research
Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 28, March 2013, pp. 155-167.

Bhouri, N., Aron, M. and Kauppila, J. (2012). Relevance of Travel Time Reliability Indicators:
A Managed Lanes Case Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 54 (2012),
pp. 450-459.

Birrell, S.A., Fowkes, M. and Jennings, P.A. (2014). Effect of Using an In-Vehicle Smart
Driving Aid on Real-World Driver Performance. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, Vol. 15, Issue 4, pp. 1801-1810.

33
Breuer, J.J., Faulhaber, A., Frank, P. and Gleissner S. (2007). Real world safety benefits of
brake assistance systems. Proceedings of the 20th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV) in Lyon, France, June 18-21, 2007.

Bristow, A.L., Pearman, A.D. and Shires, J.D. (2007). An assessment of advanced transport
telematics evaluation procedures. Transport Reviews, Vol. 17, Issue 3, pp. 177-205.

Carslaw, D.C., Goodman, P.S., Lai, F.C.H. and Carsten, O.M. (2009). Comprehensive
analysis of the carbon impacts of vehicle intelligent speed control. Atmospheric Environment,
Vol. 44, Issue 23, pp. 2674-2680.

Carsten, O. and Fowkes, M. (2000). External Vehicle Speed Control, Executive summary of
Project Results. University of Leeds and the Motor Industry Research Association.

Cerbe, T.M., Kuhnert, A. and Strube, S. (2009). Fuel saving potential of car navigation
systems. Proceedings of the 16th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems and
Services; 21-25 September 2009, Stockholm, Sweden.

Chauvel, C., Page, Y., Fildes, B. and Lahausse, J. (2013). Automatic Emergency Braking for
Pedestrians Effective Target Population and Expected Safety Benefit. Proceedings of the 23rd
Econation. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Seoul, Korea, 27-30 May 2013.
Available: https://econation.co.nz/external-costs/ [cited 05/03/2018]

C-ITS Platform. 2016. C-ITS Platform. Final report. Available:

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/its/doc/c-its-platform-final-report-
january-2016.pdf

C-Roads Platform – Working Group 2 Technical Aspects, Taskforce 3 Infrastructure

Communication. 2017. C-ITS Infrastructure Functions and Specifications.

Cuny, S., Page, Y. and Zangmeister, T. 2008. Evaluation of the safety benefits of existing
Safety Functions. TRACE Deliverable D4.2.2.

Donkers, E. and Scholten, J. 2008. E-call en Verkeersveiligheidskansen, DEEL 4: De

verwachte directe en indirecte effecten van e-call in Nederland. Rijkswaterstaat, Rotterdam,
Netherlands.

EC. DIRECTIVE 2010/40/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the
field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport.

Elvik, R., Borger Mysen, A. and Vaa, T. 1997. Trafikksikkerhetshåndbok (Traffic Safety
Manual). Transportøkonomisk Institutt, Oslo. 704 p. ISBN 82-480-0027-3. ISSN 0802-0175.

34
eSafetyForum. (2010). Final Report and Recommendations of the Intelligent Infrastructure
Working Group v1.0

FESTA Handbook Version 6, Revised by FOT-NET, 2016.

Fildes, B., Keall, M., Bos, N., Lie, A., Page, Y., Pastor, C., Pennisi, L., Rizzi, M., Thomas, P.
and Tingvall, C. 2015. Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-
world rear-end crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 81, pp. 24-29.

Francsics, J., Anjum, O., Hopkin, J., Stevens, A., Lindenbach, A., Joost, M., Nuijten, M.,
Sihvola, N., Kulmala, R., Öörni, R., Nokkala, M., Schettino, M., Patrascu, I., Bangsgaard, J.
and van Wees, K. 2009. Impact assessment on the introduction of the eCall service in all new
type-approved vehicles in Europe, including liability/legal issues.

Ghadiri, S.M.R., Prasetijo, J., Sadullah, A.F., Hoseinpour, M. and Sahranavard, S. 2013.
Intelligent speed adaptation: Preliminary results of on-road study in Penang, Malaysia. IATSS
Research, Vol. 36., 2013, pp. 106-114.

Guo, W., Blythe, P.T., Edwards, S., Pavkova, K. and Brennan, D. 2013. Effect of intelligent
speed adaptation technology on older drivers' driving performance. IET Intelligent Transport
Systems, Vol. 9, Issue 3, pp. 353-350.

Heinig, K., Kutzner, R., T’Siobbel, S., Mittaz, M., Varchmin, A., Vogt, W., Hecht, C. and
Löwenau J. 2007a. Driver Warning System Assessment of Safety Impact. Deliverable
D12.92.2 of MAPS&ADAS, a PReVENT project (Preventive and Active Safety Applications).

Heinig, K. and Friedrich, B. 2007b. Effects of Map-based in Vehicle Information Systems on

Traffic Safety. Proceedings of the 14th World Congress on ITS, 9-13 October 2007, Beijing,
Peoples' Republic of China.

Highway Loss Data Institute. 2012. Volvo collision avoidance features: initial results. Highway
loss data institute: Bulletin Vol. 29, No. 5: April 2012.

Highway Loss Data Institute. 2012. Mercedes-Benz collision avoidance features: initial results.
Highway loss data institute: Bulletin Vol. 29, No. 7: April 2012.

Hills, D. and Junge, K. “Guidance for transport impact evaluations. Choosing an evaluation
approach to achieve better attribution”, Developed by the Tavistock Institute in consultation
with AECOM, 2010.

Innamaa, S. and Penttinen, M. 2014. Impacts of a green-driving application in city buses on

fuel consumption, speeding and passenger comfort. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol. 8,
Issue 5, August 2014, p. 435-444.

Iordanopoulos, P. 2017. ITS Observatory Working Note 1/2017 – Key Performance Indicators.

35
iMobility Effects Database. http://www.imobility-effects-database.org/applications.html [cited
05/03/2018]

Jermakian, J.S. 2011. Crash avoidance potential of four passenger vehicle technologies.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 43, Issue 3, pp. 732-740.

Kaparias, I., Bell, M.G.H., Eden, N., Gal-Tzur, A., Komar, O., Prato, C.G., Tartakovsky, L.,
Aronov, B., Zvirin, Y., Gerstenberger, M., Tsakarestos, A., Nocera, S. and Busch, F. “Key
Performance Indicators for traffic management and Intelligent Transport Systems”,
Deliverable 3.5, CONDUITS, Coordination Of Network Descriptors for Urban Intelligent
Transport Systems, 2011.

Kattan, L., de Barros, A.G. and Saleemi, H. 2013. Travel behavior changes and responses to
advanced traveler information in prolonged and large-scale network disruptions: A case study
of west LRT line construction in the city of Calgary. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 21, November 2013, pp. 90-102.

Kingsley, K.J. 2009. Evaluating crash avoidance countermeasures using data from
FMCS's/NHTSA's large truck accident causation study. Proceedings of the 21st International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV) - International
Congress Center Stuttgart, Germany, June 15-18, 2009.

Klunder, G.A., Malone, K., Mak, J., Wilmink, I.R., Schirokoff, A., Sihvola, N., Holmén, C.,
Berger, A., de Lange, R., Roeterdink, W. and Kosmatopoulos, E. 2009. Impact of Information
and Communication Technologies on Energy Efficiency in Road Transport - Final Report. TNO
report for the European Commission.

Kono, T., Fushiki, T., Asada, K. and Nakano, K. 2008. Fuel consumption analysis and
prediction model for "eco" route search. Proceedings of the 15th World Congress on Intelligent
Transport Systems and Services and ITS America's Annual Meeting; November 16-20, 2008,
New York, New York, USA.

Korse, M. 2003. Results of the trial with the Lane Departure Warning Assistant-system.
Rijkswaterstaat 11 September 2003.

Kulmala, R. Luoma, J., Lähesmaa, J., Pajunen-Muhonen, H., Pesonen, H., Ristola, T. and
Rämä, P. “Guidelines for the evaluation of ITS projects”, Ministry of Transport and
Communications, 2002.

Kulmala, R., Leviäkangas, P., Sihvola, N., Rämä, P., Francics, J., Hardman, E., Ball, S., Smith,
B., McCrae, I., Barlow, T. and Stevens, A. (2008). CODIA Co-Operative systems Deployment
Impact Assessment. CODIA Deliverable 5: Final Study. Dec 28, 2007.

Kulmala, R., Geißler, T., Schindhelm, R., Feijen, M., De Kievit, M., Goossens-Visser, L., Alkim,

36
T., De Vries, B., Sihvola, N., Nemtanu, F., Ricci, F., Zurlinden, H., Jandrisits, M., Kernstock,
W. and Scheider, T. 2012. EasyWay, Business case and benefit-cost assessment of EasyWay
priority cooperative services, WP4.1 Business case development, WP4.2 Cost/Benefit
Analysis.

Kulmala, R. and Öörni, R. 2012. Implementation road map. Deliverable D3.1 of iMobility
Support project, ERTICO, Brussels, Belgium.

Lahrmann, H., Agerholm, N., Tradisauskas, N., Berthelsen, K.K. and Harms, L. 2012. Pay as
You Speed, ISA with incentives for not speeding: results and interpretation of speed data.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 48, pp. 17-28.

Lai, F., Carsten, O. and Tate, F. 2012. How much benefit does Intelligent Speed Adaptation
deliver? - Analysis of its potential contribution to safety and environment. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, Vol. 48, pp. 63-72.

Leduc, G. “Road Traffic Data: Collection Methods and Applications”, Working Papers on
Energy, Transport and Climate Change, European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2008.

Lehmer, M.J., Brown, V., Carnell, R., Christiaen, A-C., McMillan, N., Orban, J., Stark, G.,
Miller, R. and Rini, N.A. 2007. Volvo trucks field operational test: evaluation of advanced safety
systems for heavy trucks. Proceedings of the 20th International Technical Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference (ESV) in Lyon, France, June 18-21, 2007.

Lind, G. and Lindkvist, A. 2009. Traffic controlled variable speed limits, Sweden. TEMPO
Evaluation expert group, European Commission - DG TREN.

Lind, G. 2007. Effects of traffic and weather controlled variable speed limits in Sweden.
Proceedings of the 6th European Congress and Exhibition on Intelligent Transport Systems
and Services, 18-20 June 2007, Aalborg, Denmark.

Loot, M., van Engelenburg, B. and van Veluwen, A. 2012. Experiments with (Dynamic)
Speed Limit 130 km/h in The Netherlands. Proceedings of the 19th ITS World Congress,
Vienna, Austria, 22-26 October 2012.

Lomax et al. 2000. Evaluating intelligent transportation system impacts: A framework for
broader analysis. Report No. TTI/ITS RCE-00/02. Texas Transportation Institute.

Lopes, J., Bento, J., Huang, E., Antoniou, C. and Ben Akiva, M. Traffic and mobility data
collection for real-time applications, 13th International IEEE Annual Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems Madeira Island, Portugal, September 19-22, 2010, IEEE, 2010. 216-
223, 2010.

Malone, K., Hogema, J., Innamaa, S., Hausberger, S., Dippold, M., van Noort, M., de Feijter,

37
E., Rämä, P., Aittoniemi, E., Benz, T., Enigk, H., Giosan, I., Gotschol, C., Gustafsson, D.,
Heinig, I., Katsaros, K., Neef, D., Ojeda, L., Schindhelm, R., Sütterlin, C. and Visintainer, F.
2014. Deliverable D11.4 Impact assessment and user perception of cooperative systems,
European Commission. 274 + 50 p. DRIVE C2X Deliverables.

Malta, L., Aust, M.L., Faber, F., Metz, B., Saint Pierre, P., Benmimoun, M. and Schäfer, R.
2012. Final results: Impacts on traffic safety. EuroFOT Deliverable D6.4.

McClure, D. and Graham, A. 2006. eCall - The Case for Deployment in the UK, Final report.

Mehta, T., Mahmassani, H.S. and Bhat, C. “Immediately Applicable Methods for Evaluating
Environmental Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)”, Center for Transportation
Research, The University of Texas at Austin for the Texas Department of Transportation,
Research and Technology Implementation Office, 2001.

Najm, W., Stearns, M., Howarth, H., Koopmann, J. and Hitz, J. 2006. Evaluation of an
Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance System, Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, USA.

Newman-Askins, R., Ferreira L. and Bunker, J. “Intelligent Transport Systems Evaluation:

From Theory to Practice”, In Jaeger, Vicki, Eds. Proceedings 21st ARRB and 11th REAAA
Conference, Cairns. 2003.

Norris, J., Walker, H., Stones, P. and Davies, R. 2010. Assessing the Efficacy of Gear Shift
Indicators. Final report to the Department of Transport, UK.

Orban, J., Hadden, J., Stark, G. and Brown, V. 2006. Evaluation of the Mack Intelligent Vehicle
Initiative Field Operational Test, Final Report.

Peng, Z.R., Beimborn, E. and Neluheni, M. “A Framework for the Evaluation of the Benefits of
Intelligent Transportation Systems”, Centre for Urban Transportation Studies, University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee for The Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2000.

Perrett, K.E. and Stevens, A. 1996. Review of the potential benefits of Road Transport
Telematics. Transport Research Laboratory, TRL Report 220.

Reinhardt, W. and Kompfner, P. 2007. ICT for Clean & Efficient Mobility Final Report Draft,
v6.0, 12-12-2007

Robinson, B., Hulshow, W., Cookson, R., Cuerden, R., Hutchins, R. and Delmonte E. 2011.
Cost benefit evaluation of advanced primary safety systems: Final report. Published Project
Report PPR586. Transport Research Laboratory, Leeds, UK.

Ruscio, D., Ciceria, M.R. and Biassoni, F. (2015). How does a collision warning system shape
driver's brake response time? The influence of expectancy and automation complacency on

38
real-life emergency braking. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 77, pp. 72-81.

Rämä, P., Kummala, J., Schirokoff, A. and Hiljanen, H. (2003). Road traffic information.
Preliminary study. Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland. FITS Publications
21/2003.

Rämä, P., Kulmala, R. and Heinonen, M. (1996). Muuttuvien kelivaroitusmerkkien vaikutus

ajonopeuksiin, aikaväleihin ja kuljettajien käsityksiin (The effect of variable road condition
warning signs). Helsinki. Finnish National Road Administration. Finnra reports 1/1996.

Rämä, P. 2001. Effects of weather-controlled variable message signing on driver behaviour

Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Publications 447.

SAFESPOT. (2010). SP6 – BLADE – Business models, Legal Aspects, and DEployment.
Report on socio-economic, market and financial assessment.

Schittenhelm, H. (2009). The vision of accident free driving – how efficient are we actually in
avoiding or mitigating longitudinal real world accidents. 21st International Technical
Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, 2009.

Siegener, W., Träger, K., Martin, K. and Beck, T. (2000). Accident occurrence in the area of
route information and management systems, allowing particularly for traffic load. IVT
Ingenieurbüro für Verkehrstechnik GmbH. BAST.

Spyropoulou, I.K., Karlaftis, M.G. and Reed, N. (2014). Intelligent Speed Adaptation and
driving speed: Effects of different system HMI functionalities. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 24, pp.39-49.

Staubach, M., Schebitz, N., Köster, F. and Kuck, D. 2012. Evaluation of an eco-driving support
system. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 27, Part A,
pp.11-21

Stephan, K.L., Young, K.L., Newstead, S.V., Lenné, M.G., Cavallo, A., Duck, N., Imberger, K.
and Healy, D. (2014). The effectiveness of an advisory Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)
system for Victorian repeat speeders. Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and
Education Conference, 12-14 November 2014, Melbourne, Australia

Stigson, H., Hagberg, J., Kullgren, A. and Krafft, M. (2013). A one year pay-as-you-speed trial
with economic incentives for not speeding. Proceedings of the 23rd Enhanced Safety of
Vehicles Conference (ESV), Seoul, Korea, 27-30 May 2013

Strömberg, H.H. and Karlsson, M. (2014). Eco-driving in a public transport context.

Experiences from a field trial. Transport Research Arena (TRA) 5th Conference: Transport
Solutions from Research to Deployment.

39
Strömberg, H.K. and Karlsson, M. (2013). Comparative effects of eco-driving initiatives aimed
at urban bus drivers - Results from a field trial. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, Vol. 22, July 2013, pp. 28-33.

Tarry, S., Turvey, S. and Kulmala, R. (2012). EasyWay Project Evaluation Framework”,
Version 4.0, 2012.

Tarry, S. and Pyne, M. (2003). UK – TMC Service evaluation 1998-2001. The European
Commission, Directorate General Energy and Transport, TEMPO Programme.

Tulusan, J., Staake, T. and Fleisch, E. (2012). Providing eco-driving feedback to corporate car
drivers: what impact does a smartphone application have on their fuel efficiency? Proceedings
of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 212-215.

Turner, S.M., Eisele, W.L., Benz, R.J. and Holdener, D.J. (1998). Travel Time Data Collection
Handbook”, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University System for the Federal
Highway Administration, Office of Highway Information Management, 1998.

Turner, S.M. and Stockton, W.R. (1999) A Proposed ITS Evaluation Framework for Texas”,
Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University System, 1999.

US DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2014). Automatic

Emergency Braking System (AEB) Research Report. NHTSA, US DOT.

Vagg, C., Brace, C.J., Hari, D., Akehurst, S., Poxon, J. and Ash, L. (2013). Development and
Field Trial of a Driver Assistance System to Encourage Eco-Driving in Light Commercial
Vehicle Fleets. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 14, Issue 2, pp.
796-805.

van der Pas, J.W.G.M., Kessels, J., Veroude, B.D.G. and van Wee, B. (2014). Intelligent
speed assistance for serious speeders: The results of the Dutch Speedlock trial. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 72, pp. 78-94.

Várhelyi, A. (1997). Dynamic speed adaptation in adverse conditions. Proceedings, 4th World
Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, 21-24 October, Berlin, Germany. ITS America,
ERTICO & VERTIS.

Vermeulen, R.J. (2006). The effects of a range of measures to reduce the tail pipe emissions
and/or the fuel consumption of modern passenger cars on petrol and diesel. TNO report
ISRPT-033-DTS-2006-01695.

Vonk, T., van Rooijen, T., Hogema, J. and Feenstra P. (2007). Do navigation systems improve
traffic safety? TNO Report 2007-D-R0048/B.

Wilmink, I. Janssen, W., Jonkers, E., Malone, K., van Noort, M., Klunder, G., Rämä, P.,

40
Sihvola, N., Kulmala, R., Schirokoff, A., Lind, G., Benz, T., Peters, H. and Schönebeck, S.
(2008). Socio-economic Impact Assessment of Stand-alone and Co-operative Intelligent
Vehicle Safety Systems (IVSS) in Europe, Impact assessment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety
Systems. eIMPACT Deliverable D4.

41