ADAPTED TEXT

Journal of Physics: Conference Series

This content was downloaded from IP address 86.32.34.6 on 23/10/2022 at 07:34

A systematic review: Road infrastructure requirement for

Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs)

Yuyan Liu1,2, Miles Tight2, Quanxin Sun1 and Ruiyu Kang3

Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) use a variety of devices including radar, lidar, and
cameras to perceive their surroundings. However, current shortcomings in the perception process may
need to be overcome through well-prepared road infrastructure. Otherwise, the realization of a future
with increased mobility for disabled people, a reduction of road accidents caused by human error, and
the mitigation of pollution as well as congestion could remain but a distant aspiration. Currently, the
research into road infrastructure to support CAVs is still in its infancy. Even though some reports and
white papers containing ‘scattered views’ are slowly being released along with today’s CAVs testing
projects (e.g. TSC in the UK), the planning and guidance documents used by the highway authorities
have not taken CAVs into account yet. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to assess the requirement for
the existing road infrastructure to support CAVs.

1 Infrastructure considerations and improvements

Network Management Manual published by the Highway Agency defines five classes of road
infrastructure assets: 1) Communications; 2) Road pavement; 3) Structures; 4) Geotechnical and 5)
Drainage.

1.1. Traffic signs and road markings. CAVs require highly visible road edges, curves, speed limits,
and other signage to complete the locating, navigating, and parking tasks. However, the design
and condition of signs and markings (faded road markings, dirty or non-standard road signs) are
far from accommodating CAVs. In order to adopt CAVs, governments and organizations should
call for uniform road marking across EU members, or even suggest global standardization, and
also improve maintenance criteria and establish monitoring systems.

1.2. Incident and roadworks communications. Incidents and roadworks will change the road layout,
which require CAVs to interpret real-time changes, such as merging-lanes suggestions provided
by temporary signs and cones. Currently, two websites provide real-time information on traffic
accidents and roadworks in the UK (roadworks.org and www.waze.com). However, the lack of
accurate on-site layout imaging still makes it difficult for CAVs to distinguish real-time changes
from historical maps, thus making it hard to navigate. Two suggestions for the future: establish
uniform CAV-readable emergency signs, barriers or cones; establish digital roadside
communications to replace static facilities to provide real-time data.

1.3. Digital communications. The successful deployment of CAV requires not only vehicle-mounted
instruments, but also roadside digital infrastructure to meet various forms of connectivity
requirements for V2X (vehicle-to-everything) communication.
• Substantial amounts of sensors including in-roadway sensors (such as loop
detectors and magnetic detectors), and over-roadway sensors (cameras, radars,
ultrasonic, etc.). These sensors could help the road management center monitor traffic
demand and allocate transportation resources through I2V communication to achieve
smoother traffic flow.
1
 • Internet connectivity can be implemented either via mobile network (4G/5G)
or wifi-based facilities (ITS-G5). Some articles suggest fitting new roads and major
junctions with the fiber-optic-cable beforehand to make future implementation of
digital infrastructure easier.

1.4. Pavement structure. CAVs are more likely to operate continuously in the middle of the
carriageway by using Lane-Keeping-system (LKS), which will accelerate the rutting and other
pavement deteriorations (e.g. potholes, cracking). Therefore, the areas beneath the CAV operation
track need to be strengthened. In AV-dedicated lanes, higher stiffness and more deformation-
resistant materials (e.g. asphalt concrete) should be considered for the surface layer. The
maintenance frequency for the remaining pavement layers may also increase in the future.

1.5. Road surface. CAVs can adjust vehicle speed more predictively through V2V and V2I
communications to avoid sharp braking thus reducing the stopping distance design standard. The
requirement for the coefficient of friction (represented by the PSV and the texture depth) can
therefore be relaxed, so that less skid-resistant materials may be used in the future.

1.6. Parking. Multiple researchers have noticed that Automated-Valet-Parking (AVP) can significantly
reduce future parking demands, especially in the context of shared CAVs — shared cars can serve
different customers at different times, eliminating the needs for long-term parking. Once the
vehicles arrive at the parking lot, the AVP will enable them to park closer to each other to save
more space. Current carparks are not able to support self-parking, as most parking spaces are
made of concrete and are located underground where GPS signals are not strong, causing
difficulties in navigation. Some researchers suggest digitally fitting such areas with Bluetooth and
near field communications. However, it is still uncertain when the retrofitting of existing carparks
and the building of new ones will start. More flexible design approaches will be required to meet
the parking needs during the transition phase. One such example is a case study provided by an
architecture design firm from Boston, US. The top floor of the building is designed as an efficient
CAV-compatible parking area, whilst the remaining floors hold traditional parking spaces. As the
amount of CAV increases, the lower floors are expected to be converted into CAV parking or
even charging spaces, and the top floor then becomes a recreation area to avoid construction-waste

1.7. Service stations. Traditional service stations provide the drivers with places to stop, refresh, and
refuel. With the announced bans on purely petrol/diesel-powered vehicles and the goals of
replacing them with Electric Vehicles (EVs) it can be expected that future service stations are
likely to provide more chargers. A bolder idea would be to replace charging points with a more
efficient charging road. In fact, Sweden has the first electrified road where vehicles can charge
while driving.

1.8. Safe harbour area. Safe harbour area is essential for AVs, since the level 3 and 4 vehicles require
safe places to stop or restart in an emergency or when reaching the exit of an automated operation
area. The traditional safe harbour area in the UK is a hard shoulder along the motorway but a
number of these have recently been converted into running lanes. The former definition of safe
harbour referred to an emergency refuge area (ERA), see in figure4, which is 100m long and
located at intervals of 2.5km. These were sometimes misused by drivers leading to serious
consequences. In the future, the frequency and the design standard of safe-harbours needs to be
reconsidered to accommodate CAVs and may also need the introduction of regulations to avoid
misuse.

2
1.9. Roundabout. There are two opposite considerations about the future of roundabouts. At present,
roundabouts essentially reduce the severity of accidents by transforming dangerous side collisions
into passing-collisions. However, with the advent of AVs, signalized intersections may be safer
because of their more predictable elements. In terms of achieving smoother traffic flow,
roundabouts may be preferred due to shorter delays and queuing times. This benefit is predicted to
extend as the merging action is easier to achieve with the AV’s computer programmers.

1.10. Bridges. As the amount of CAV increases, the segregated infrastructures, including bridges,
tunnels, and underpasses will be needed to reduce conflict points between different traffic flows.
The current bridge designs, particularly long-span bridges, are not suitable for the ‘platooning’
needs of heavy trucks. Therefore, the inadequate design standard needs to be updated.

1.11. Geotechnical. Many researchers believe LKS could allow for tighter corners and narrower lanes,
which means that the existing road widths could accommodate extra lanes. Besides, reduced road
gradients with more cuts and fills, embankments and tunnels are also preferred to support
platooning, since vehicle speed can be more easily controlled on flat slopes.

1.12. Drainage. According to the Annual Assessment of Highways England’s performance, 69% of
road network drainage data in the UK is unknown. Since severe accumulation of surface water
may impede the CAV systems, improving the design and maintenance of drainage infrastructure
(e.g. culvert, channels, and gullies) should be a priority.

2. Upgrade standards for different scenarios

Instead of simply combining the upgrade aspects together to develop a retrofit plan for the uncertain
future, it is better to determine more targeted plans for different scenarios. A comprehensive review of
three different upgrade standards is given below, considering different CAV proportions on the road.

2.1. Maintenance. No matter how rapidly the CAVs evolves, it is better to update the infrastructure
through maintenance rather than making radical changes at an early stage. This is not only to meet
the needs of CAV development, but also to meet the safety requirements of conventional vehicles.
Maintenance work includes:
• Enhancing the standards and shortening the maintenance intervals of
communication facilities
• Increasing the frequency of pavement maintenance (e.g. grading, sealing and
patching)
• Expanding and improving the maintenance of drainage systems.

2.2. Segregation. As the automation level evolves and the market penetration of CAV increases, the
road may be shared by AVs of different levels, which requires not only the preservation of the
current facilities for lower-level AVs [13], but also the construction of additional infrastructure for
full AVs. However, the co-existing infrastructure will undoubtedly bring about road right issues,
which prompts further consideration of the expansion needs of the AV-segregated facilities
including:
 Dedicated routes with reinforced surface materials
 Safe harbour areas with devices that prevent head-on-collisions (e.g. central barriers)
 Other structures like shared-CAVs gathering stations, service stations or even charging roads.

2.3. Simplification. Some existing road infrastructure may become redundant when full automation is
introduced. Therefore, new standards for different classes of infrastructure are expected to be
developed to simplify road facilities.
3
 • Communications: Use simplified road markings in AV-specific areas; Replace
the static roadway-signs with digital in-vehicle devices or establish single
communication beacons to replace several traffic signals; Remove the speed cameras
since CAVs are programmed to obey traffic rules.
• Structures: Roundabouts and some crash countermeasures (e.g. speed bumps)
can be reduced; The layout of carparks can be unified into a more concise standard;
Service stations can be considered as proper safe harbour areas for faulty AVs.
• Road geometry: Simpler road geometry can make roads less confusing and
more attractive.

3. A general description of the upgrade plan for the transition phases

A three-phase transition plan is proposed. Each phase is assigned different road infrastructure upgrades
the status of each stakeholder is considered (manufacturers, road users, government).
The upgrade plan for transition phases.
No. Start CAVs Automation Manufacture Road users Government Upgrade
time proportion level (techniques) status (market) status (policy) status standard
1 Now <20% Level 0 Mature Dominant Release CAVs Main-
Level 1-2 Prove to be efficiency Early adopter testing tenance
standards

Level 3-4 Prove to be reliable Turn-out

Level 5 Testing Rarely seen

2 2030s 20~50% Level 0 Mature Gradually eliminate Road right Segregation

division
Level 1-2 Mature Dominant

Level 3-4 Prove to be efficiency Faithful adopter

Level 5 Prove to be reliable Turn-out

3 2050s >50% Level 0 Mature Nearly disappear Ownership Simplification

Level 1-2 Mature Gradually eliminate change;
Energy
substitution
Level 3-4 Mature Dominant

Level 5 Prove to be efficiency Faithful adopter

3.1.Phase 1. Phase 1 is essentially already underway, and should continue until sometime in the 2030s
when level 2 automation will be dominant. Current techniques are established, the market is dominant,
and all road policies are suitable for automation level 0, which is no driving automation. However,
researchers and vehicle OEMs are trying to prove the efficiency of Level 1-2 and reliability of Level
3-4, and testing Level 5. Therefore, the governments and highway agencies need to publish new road
standards to support the testing of AV technologies.
The current upgrade standard includes: 1) Maintaining the existing road infrastructure (including
certain types of communications facilities, pavement structure, and drainage systems) to ensure the
safe operation of conventional vehicles. 2) Building certain types of digital communication facilities
for vehicles with partial automation.

3.2.Phase 2. Phase 2 is the key and the most complicated stage. Although Level 2 vehicles account for
the majority of vehicles on the road, the market share of Level 3-4 vehicles can no longer be ignored.
4
In addition, Level 5 vehicles may become available on the market as well. This mixed-level operation
will certainly be a problem for road-rights campaigners. Therefore, new laws and regulations will be
required, for example, to regulate the liability in accidents that involve AVs.
Furthermore, the transportation sector needs to build some road facilities to reduce conflicts.
Investing in CAV-compatible parking lots and AV-segregated infrastructure like dedicated AV routes,
gatherings, and service stations. In addition, since lower-level vehicles are still available on the
market, the existing facilities such as road signs and traffic signals should not be abandoned at this
phase.

3.3. Phase 3. Phase 3 will not start until Level 3-4 vehicles take the majority of the market share and
the level 5 vehicles prove efficient and attracting customers. For phase 3, many researchers envisage
the ‘ideal future’ with full AVs. Also, during phase 3, the government could spare more attention to
social or environmental issues that generated from phase 2 (e.g. the increasing pollution). New
solutions can therefore be considered, such as ownership-model changes and the substitution of energy
options. Two highly possible products are unmanned buses and shared driverless taxis, which will take
a significant number of privately-owned vehicles off the road. EVs or other clean-energy-powered
vehicles will grow rapidly. Also, road infrastructure could and will become simpler, making the road
less complex and more attractive. For example, multiple road markings and traffic signals could be
replaced by a single digital communication beacon, very few or no parking spaces in the city center,
most service stations replaced by charging stations, etc.

4. Assessment of impacts of the upgrade plan

It is worth noting that there may be gaps or overlaps among the 3 phases, as it is not an outcome of
accurate prediction or calculations. However, a potential cost-benefit assessment is still needed to help
estimate the worthiness of the upgrade. Most upgrade points are shown as very cost-effective,
especially the “Setup digital roadside communications” and “Setup CAV-compatible parking lot”.
However, “Relaxed skid-resistance standards for road surface” seems to be less desirable.

5. Conclusion
Through a wide-ranging literature review and in-depth evidence synthesis, this paper proposes a 3-
phase road infrastructure upgrade plan in answer to the research question “How should the road
infrastructure be upgraded to accommodate and support CAVs?” Phase 1 mainly comprises
maintenance work, phase 2 involves the construction of CAV-segregation infrastructure, and phase 3
concerns a simplified design standard for constructing road infrastructure. Although the 3-phase plan
has limitations largely associated with the immaturity of the CAVs market and the lack of collectable
data, it should be regarded as a starting point, which can be used to stimulate further research in the
field of road facilities upgrades during the CAVs transition time.
Future considerations, however, could be more accurately proposed based on, say more
sophisticated data analysis. Appraising software (e.g. the HDM4) could be used for qualitative
assessment. A limitation of the research is that the 3-phase upgrade plan did not consider the effects
from different regions, countries or under different cultures. Future study could also create specific
plans by considering different city sizes, populations, policies and even energy allocation constraints.