Evaluation Outcome Report Finland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evaluation Outcome Report Finland NordicWay Version: 1.0 Date: 21 December 2017 The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein Document Information Authors Name Organisation Satu Innamaa VTT Sami Koskinen VTT Kimmo Kauvo VTT Distribution Date Version Dissemination 18.04.2017 0.1 IK, AS, RK 22.06.2017 0.2 IK, AS, RK, NordicWay Evaluation Lead 18.08.2017 0.3 IK, AS, RK, NordicWay Evaluation Lead 10.11.2017 0.4 NordicWay sharepoint site 01.12.2017 0.5 NordicWay sharepoint site 07.12.2017 0.6 NordicWay sharepoint site 09.12.2017 0.7 To language revision 21.12.2017 1.0 Final The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein Preface NordicWay was a corridor stretching from Finland to Sweden, Denmark and Norway on which cooperative services were deployed using a cellular network. ‘NordicWay Coop’ was a project deploying road safety-related minimum universal traffic information services for the Finnish part of the corridor. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd. was contracted by the Finnish Transport Agency and the Finnish Transport Safety Agency to evaluate the service. The task was to assess the technical feasibility, readiness for wide-scale implementation, and impacts of the service. At VTT, Principal Scientist Satu Innamaa was responsible for the impact assessment, supported by Pirkko Rämä, Merja Penttinen, Anne Silla, Harri Peltola, Fanny Malin, Pekka Leviäkangas, Henri Sintonen and Uuri Toivonen. Senior Scientist Kimmo Kauvo was responsible for the technical assessment, which he completed together with Senior Scientist Sami Koskinen. Koskinen was responsible for the data management. The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein TABLE OF CONTENTS Document Information 2 Preface 4 1. Summary 9 2. Description of the problem 11 3. Description of the C-ITS implementation 12 4. Program theory 16 4.1. Cooperative hazardous location warning 16 4.2. Cooperative weather and slippery road warning 18 4.3. Probe vehicle data 20 5. Evaluation design 22 5.1. Evaluation approach 22 5.1. Field tests 22 5.1.1. TEST AREA 22 5.1.2. TEST USERS 23 5.1.3. USE OF THE SERVICE 25 5.2. Data 29 5.2.1. SERVER DATA 29 5.2.2. MOBILE DEVICE DATA 29 5.2.1. BASELINE DATA 29 The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein 5.2.2. EVENT SUMMARY PROCESSING 31 5.3. Method for the technical evaluation 32 5.4. Method for the impact assessment 33 5.4.1. IMPACT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 33 5.4.2. DRIVER BEHAVIOUR IMPACTS 33 5.4.2.1. OVERALL METHODOLOGY 33 5.4.2.2. EVENT-BASED ANALYSIS 34 5.4.1. USER ACCEPTANCE 40 5.4.1.1. FIRST IMPRESSION QUESTIONNAIRE 40 5.4.1.2. FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE 43 5.4.2. EFFECTIVENESS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 44 5.4.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS 45 6. Evaluation results 47 6.1. Technical performance and quality assessment 47 6.1.1. RELIABILITY OF COMMUNICATION 47 6.1.1.1. CONFIRMATION DELAY 47 6.1.1. COMMUNICATION LATENCIES 49 6.1.1.1. LATENCIES BETWEEN SERVICE PROVIDER AND NATIONAL ACCESS POINT 49 6.1.2. CONFIRMATION BY OTHER USERS 50 6.1.3. CONFIRMATION BY OFFICIAL SOURCES 50 6.1.4. CONFIRMATION OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTRE ORIGINATED INFORMATION BY USERS 51 6.1.1. EVENT LOCATION ACCURACY BASED ON SELF-INITIATED WARNINGS 51 6.1.2. EIP+ QUALITY PARAMETERS 53 6.2. Impact assessment 57 6.2.1. BENEFITS AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION 57 6.2.2. IMPACTS ON DRIVER BEHAVIOUR 58 6.2.2.1. ACCIDENT WARNING 61 The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein 6.2.2.2. ROADWORKS WARNING 64 6.2.2.3. OBSTACLE ON THE ROAD WARNING 67 6.2.2.4. POOR VISIBILITY WARNING 69 6.2.3. DRIVING ERRORS 72 6.2.4. IMPACT ON DRIVING COMFORT 72 6.2.5. BENEFITS FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTRE 73 6.2.5.1. NOVELTY INFORMATION OF ROAD USER INPUT 73 6.2.5.2. RELIABILITY OF ROAD USER INPUT 73 6.2.5.3. BENEFITS OF SERVICE USE 73 6.2.5.4. WARNING TYPES 74 6.2.5.5. SERVICE COVERAGE 74 6.2.5.6. DISRUPTIVE USERS 74 6.3. Socio-economic assessment 75 6.3.1. BENEFITS 75 6.3.1.1. SAFETY BENEFITS 75 6.3.1.2. TRAVEL TIME BENEFITS 83 6.3.2. COSTS 84 6.3.2.1. ADDITIONAL COSTS OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTRE WORK AND SYSTEMS 84 6.3.2.2. SERVICE FEE 84 6.3.2.3. OTHER COSTS 84 6.3.3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTIVENESS 84 6.4. User acceptance 86 6.4.1. USER SATISFACTION 86 6.4.2. ADDITIONAL VALUE OF THE SERVICE 89 6.4.3. PRIORITY OF WARNING TYPES 89 6.4.4. WILLINGNESS TO HAVE 90 6.4.1. USE OF SERVICE (PRODUCTION PHASE) 91 6.5. Financial performance and business models 92 7. Impact of the service 95 The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein 8. Transferability of the results 96 8.1. Lessons learned 96 8.1.1. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE SERVICE 96 8.1.2. LATENCIES 96 8.1.3. APPLICATION DESIGN 97 8.1.3.1. ROAD USER APPLICATION 97 8.1.3.2. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CENTRE HMI RELATED SUGGESTIONS 97 8.2. Definition of the next deployment phase 98 References 99 Appendic A. English translations of the questionnaires The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein 1. Summary The ‘NordicWay Coop’ pilot in Finland included the provision of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information services. It was evaluated during a one-year field test with the HERE DTI application in mobile devices used by ordinary road users. The purpose of the Coop project was to assess the technical feasibility of the system and the information it provides as part of a cooperative traffic information system and readiness for wide-scale implementation, as well as its commercial potential and ecosystem model. Another purpose was to gain knowledge on cooperative services as a channel for safety-related information, and their impacts on driver behaviour and traffic management. A socio-economic assessment completed the evaluation. The expected impact mechanism for the service was that when the driver receives a cooperative warning of a hazardous situation or condition ahead, (s)he is aware of it earlier than without the warning (before seeing or detecting the actual situation or condition) and is thus better prepared. This is manifested in increased alertness, less multitasking and a smoother approach. Additionally, the traffic management centre not only receives information on hazardous situations or conditions that would not otherwise be detected by their traditional incident detection systems/mechanisms or road weather models, they also get it sooner. This is believed to result in better informed road users (improved travel quality), fewer primary and secondary accidents, less time spent in congestion, a slight drop in emissions, and increased road network performance/efficiency. The results showed that the cooperative system for providing safety-related traffic information through a cellular network is a technically feasible concept. The latencies of the system were short enough (median latency 0.3 seconds for mobile-server-mobile communication) for a driver information system, and the system architecture ensured cross-border interoperability. The HERE DTI application used in the field test followed the requirements by Car Connectivity Consortium and ESoP (European Statement of Principles) guidelines for applications used while driving. The service of receiving warnings and being able to warn others about hazardous situations on the road was well accepted by road users. They felt that it provided information that other services did not, and that the information was more detailed or better targeted. The drivers also reported that information on hazardous locations ahead affected their driving behaviour; concomitant changes in speed were observed in GPS data analysis. The direct safety impact on target roads was greatest for warnings of slipperiness and animals & people on the road, followed by warnings of roadworks and exceptional weather. Warnings of obstacles on the road, accidents or poor visibility were assessed to be least effective due to the small number of ‘target accidents’. In addition, over- reliance on the system being able to warn of hazards was considered to cause a slight increase in speed, also affecting safety. The overall assessment of the safety impact of the service for 2019 was a 0.00–0.09% reduction in injury accidents and a 0.00– 0.08% drop in fatal accidents on motorways in Southern Finland. For 2030 the The sole responsibility of this publication lies with the author. The European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein estimated impact was a 0.8–4.6% reduction in injury and non-injury accidents and a 0.6–4.0% drop in fatal accidents on all main roads.