EXPERT OPINION FORECAST OF CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY

Transcription

1 EXPERT OPINION FORECAST OF CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY Valerie Sathe Brugeman Project Manager, Center for Automotive Research 3005 Boardwalk, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI , Richard Wallace Director, Transportation Systems Analysis, Center for Automotive Research 3005 Boardwalk, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI , Joshua Cregger Industry Analyst, Center for Automotive Research 3005 Boardwalk, Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI , Matt Smith ITS Program Manager, Michigan Department of Transportation 425 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI , William Tansil Administrator, Asset Management Division, Michigan Department of Transportation 425 W. Ottawa St. Lansing, MI , ABSTRACT The automotive industry continues to transform from producing vehicles that are overwhelmingly mechanically-based to those that are increasingly rooted in electronic components and systems. This transformation is critical to traditional automotive regions such as the Midwest as they seek to maintain their leadership role in the global automotive sector. Connected vehicle technology development offers a growing high-tech industry, especially for states that already have a competitive advantage in this area. This paper presents the results of two surveys submitted to experts in the field of connected vehicle technology regarding development of connected vehicles over the next five to ten years. These surveys included representatives from both public and private sectors and covered topics including which technologies will be used, which applications will receive the most attention, autonomous vehicles, and NHTSA s 2013 Notice of Regulatory Intent. Key Words: Connected Vehicle, Survey, Vehicle Technology, Forecast, DSRC, NHTSA, Automated -1-

2 INTRODUCTION Road transportation continues to undergo significant technological transformations as wireless communication increasingly enables vehicles to communicate with each other and with the infrastructure. This has multiple benefits, including improved safety, mobility, personal convenience, and economic development. To make the most of this opportunity, public and private entities must collaborate to develop a system that actively engages the automotive, telecommunications, and consumer electronics industries. The challenge lies in building enough confidence on both the public and private sides of the issue to bring them together to cooperate and achieve an integrated outcome. One of the primary benefits of connected vehicle technology is the potential for vastly improved vehicle safety. Both vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication promise significant safety improvements. Assuming a Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC)-based safety system, vehicles continuously (ten times per second) broadcast a basic safety message that includes information such as vehicle speed, heading and location. This information is used by other equipped vehicles so that, cooperatively, crashes are avoided. In the V2I realm, safety is enhanced via broadcast of signal phase and timing (SPaT) information at signalized intersections, and this information is used for vehicle speed management and rerouting to reduce time vehicles spend idling at red lights and to improve traffic flow. Infrastructure can also enable driver warnings, traffic queue detection at controlled intersections, and active crash avoidance in red-light-running scenarios. In addition to safety benefits, connected vehicle technology also helps with traffic mobility. Vehicles already serve as traffic probes based on cellular data. DSRC-based V2I further supports this type of application by allowing vehicles to communicate information about travel speed to assist in the detection of congestion and incidents information that then can be shared with vehicles that are not yet in the traffic stream, permitting drivers to choose a different route. The connected vehicle is a central component of the public-private partnership in sustaining technological development in the automotive sector. Consumers are connected in almost every domain of life, from home to work, or any other location where there is access to cell phones and Wi-Fi communication. To inform the Department s connected vehicle activities, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) asked the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) to perform two Delphi studies to augment previous research done on connected vehicle technology and to provide insights into private- and public-sector views on the future of the technologies. This presents the methods used in the two studies along with their results and conclusions. DELPHI SURVEY PROCEDURE Although several more were asked to and agreed to participate, ultimately 12 respondents participated in the private-sector study (1) and 17 respondents participated in the public-sector study (2). Private-sector participants came from automakers, Tier 1 suppliers, and wireless communication suppliers, and public sector participants came from state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), local DOTs, and engineering and other firms that provide services to public-sector agencies. The participants were told that the process would be anonymous, and -2-

3 that their participation and their specific answers tied to their identity would not be shared with anyone outside the research team. Additionally, in lieu of compensation for participating in the study, respondents were given the raw (though still anonymized), unanalyzed results for each survey in which they participated. Participants were drawn from the following organizations: Private-Sector Study Public-Sector Study Connected Vehicle Trade Association DENSO Johnson Controls P3 Qualcomm Siemens Sprint Toyota Vector CANtech Visteon Volkswagen Wilson Consulting American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offices (AASHTO) Booz Allen Hamilton CalTrans HNTB Michigan Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation National Highway Transportation Safety Administration New York Department of Transportation Ohio Department of Transportation Parsons Brinkerhoff Road Commission for Oakland County SAIC Southeast Michigan Council of Governments Texas Department of Transportation Transport Canada The respondents, or panelists, were given two, iterative surveys to complete. The second survey, which was sent out several weeks after the first, used the responses to questions from the first survey to generate more directed questions. Before completing the second survey, the participants were able to see the results of the first survey. The questions included in the surveys addressed a broad range of topics, including communication technologies for various applications, possible governmental influence, the years in which various levels of DSRC deployment will be reached, and roadside infrastructure needed for a successful deployment. Other, more technology-specific, topics included when vehicles will have a certain component as standard equipment, how V2V and V2I systems compare, which transmission modes are most appropriate at roadside locations, which communication pipelines will best serve various applications, and how applications will be implemented on the vehicle. SURVEY RESULTS FROM DELPHI STUDIES The results of the surveys encompass a wide range of topics related to connected vehicle deployment in the coming years. Some questions were asked in both survey rounds while others were asked only in the first round or only in the second round. This section discusses the responses for questions asked in only one of the survey rounds as well as responses to questions asked in both rounds. For questions that were included in both survey rounds, the -3-

4 discussion below tends to focus on the second-round results, though the first-round often is used to extend the discussion. In addition, some questions were asked in both public-sector and private-sector surveys, while others were included in only one of the surveys. The appropriate respondent group will be identified when discussing each topic. Type of Communications Technology One common discussion in the connected vehicle realm concerns which types of technology are most fitting for different types of applications. Respondents in both private- and publicsector surveys reaffirmed the apparent consensus that Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) is needed for cooperative, active safety systems, while third-generation (3G) and fourth generation (4G) cellular communications tend to be thought of as appropriate for other applications. More than 80 percent of respondents in the private-sector study and 90 percent of respondents in the public-sector study think DSRC is needed for cooperative, active safety systems (see Figure 1). Respondents showed less agreement, however, regarding 3G or 4G cellular technologies and other applications. When it comes to whether 3G and 4G cellular technology can handle most other connected vehicle applications, about 58 percent of the private sector respondents agreed or strongly agreed, and 25 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. In the public sector study, 63 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while only 19 percent disagreed (see Figure 2). Public-sector responses from the first round were split regarding whether DSRC-based connected vehicle systems will support the required two-way communication systems to deliver traffic incident information and similar public warnings to the vehicle. When asked again in the second round, however, respondents were more definitive (73 percent) that they think DSRC will at least be capable of providing traffic incident information. Figure 1. DSRC and Cooperative, Active Safety Systems Source: CAR

5 Figure 2. 3G and 4G Cellular Technology and Connected Vehicle Applications Source: CAR 2012 Public-sector respondents see 3G and 4G cellular technology as the primary communication pipeline for probe data collection, fleet management, commercial and private applications, and asset management. DSRC is primarily thought of for in-vehicle warnings, and radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is thought best for tolls and electronic payments. As shown in Figure 3, the major disagreement among public-sector respondents is that DSRC and cellular technology will have an increased role in tolls and electronic payments by Most private-sector respondents expressed the view that embedded DSRC transceivers will be standard equipment on at least 10 percent of vehicles sold in the United States on or before 2020, and all believe it will be standard equipment by These respondents felt that DSRC transceivers, rather than other forms of communications technology, would be most likely to be standard equipment in new vehicles by By 2022, in addition to DSRC transceivers, other equipment was also considered likely to be standard, including GPS receivers, satellite radios, and Wi-Fi transceivers (see Figure 4). Embedded Equipment As connected vehicle technology evolves, many wonder whether certain types of equipment will primarily be built into the vehicle (in other words, automakers embed the equipment in vehicles as original equipment) or brought-in via mobile devices such as smartphones. Overall, private-sector respondents believe DSRC transceivers are the most likely type of equipment to be embedded in vehicles within the next ten years. -5-

6 Figure 3. Primary Communication Technology (Public-Sector) Source: CAR 2012 Figure 4. Component Technologies as Standard Equipment (Private-Sector) Source: CAR 2012 A strong majority of private-sector respondents indicated that mobility and personal convenience (through brought-in equipment) connected vehicle applications, as well as vehicle diagnostics (through built-in equipment), would be widely available by A slight majority reported that safety (through built-in equipment) and environmental (through brought-in equipment) applications would be widely available by By 2022, a strong -6-

7 majority of private-sector respondents think all applications will be widely available, and most, aside from mobility and personal convenience applications, will handled through builtin equipment (see Figure 5). Figure 5. Built-in vs. Brought-in Communication Hardware Forecast (Private-Sector) Source: CAR 2012 In the first round survey, private-sector respondents indicated that they think many connected vehicle applications related to personal convenience, mobility, and vehicle diagnostics would be built-in by Given that it is currently so easy to bring in mobile devices to perform these functions, the second survey asked respondents why they think the trend would reverse. Some of the most common answers were: Automakers are in control of the user-experience and data Embedded devices offer automakers customer relationship opportunities Vehicles must last longer therefore it is better for automakers to have them under control for long-term services It is easier to implement connected vehicle applications with embedded technology Embedded devices are easier for automakers to standardize and secure V2V vs. V2I Technology Another discussion in the connected vehicle realm is which is most valuable and realistic: V2V communication, where vehicles communicate directly with each other, or V2I communication, where vehicles communicate with roadside infrastructure. Most respondents in both private and public sectors indicated that V2V and V2I working cooperatively is the best system to maximize public good. Respondents were asked an open-ended question of whether a V2V-only system is possible and desirable. Of the public-sector respondents, 63 percent replied that yes, a V2V-only system is possible, but 88 percent indicated that such a system is not desirable. In the first round, slightly more than half of private-sector respondents agreed that a V2V-only system is possible, but thought it would be somewhat limited and a V2I system in addition to V2V would offer more functionality. Given this, a vast majority of respondents (92%) believe a -7-

8 connected vehicle system is possible using DSRC technology only for V2V applications and another technology for V2I applications. While many private-sector respondents suggested that V2V alone is valuable, others suggested that there is only limited value in V2V only, and that V2I is required to achieve full benefits. Early customers may not be willing to pay for a connected vehicle system that does not yet have enough users to be useful, which is a risk, especially in a V2V-only scenario. The reason that a V2V-only system is considered undesirable is because it cannot extend the same benefits as a combined V2V/V2I system. Some public-sector respondents stated that if V2I is not taken up by public sector, V2V-only could still be deployed by automakers. A V2I system will be difficult to deploy, since no single agency will control the entire infrastructure. In addition, given current funding constraints, unknown infrastructure performance, and onerous operational requirements, deployment of V2V-only seems to be the simplest approach, even if it is less beneficial than an integrated V2V/V2I approach. Some publicsector respondents indicated that some infrastructure may be needed for the security component of a DSRC-based V2V system, but others suggest that this could be done using another system such as cell phone networks or secure Wi-Fi connections. In the first-round survey, public-sector respondents were asked whether V2V or V2I communication will be more important for a variety of applications in 2017 and Openended responses indicated two additional applications to be covered; therefore, in the second round, those two applications specifically addressed. The combined responses are shown in Figure 6. The public-sector respondents clearly think V2I is more important for most applications, both in 2017 and The one exception to this is for safety applications, for which V2V is viewed as more important for both years. Figure 6. V2V and V2I Technology for Applications (Public-Sector) Source: CAR 2012 As Figure 7 shows, respondents believe more connected vehicle technology features will be implemented via V2I technology as time goes on. In 2017, the only features that about half of respondents thought would be implemented with V2I were road condition warnings and traveler information. Conversely, by 2022, the majority of respondents indicate that all -8-

9 features will be implemented via V2I technology. Thus, they see a gradual evolution toward greater reliance on V2I technology over time. Figure 7. V2I Technology Implementation (Public-Sector) Source: CAR 2012 Cost Estimates Adding connected vehicle technology will inevitably add costs to the vehicle. Private-sector respondents were asked how much various degrees of implementation would add to the base price of a vehicle, as well as including equipment as aftermarket. In both rounds, when asked how much it will cost vehicle manufacturers (in US$) to add a DSRC radio as embedded equipment, respondents gave a median response of $175 for 2017 and $75 for Regarding what connected vehicle technology will add to the base cost (in US$) of a new vehicle for the consumer, the median in both rounds was $350 for 2017 and $300 for As for the cost the consumer (in US$) to add DSRC as aftermarket equipment, the median for both rounds was $200 for 2017 and $75 for Regulatory Mandates One of the most impactful decisions on the horizon is whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will announce its intent to mandate V2V communication systems for safety applications in It is widely believed that, if they do, this will spur deployment of the technology, though it will take several years for the regulatory process to play out. Although NHTSA has announced that it will make a Notice of Regulatory Intent (NRI) about this in 2013, the direction of the notice is not known at this time, and the agency could potentially delay its decision. Regulatory Mandate of DSRC-based Equipment The majority of respondents (79 percent of private-sector and 77 percent of public-sector) think NHTSA s 2013 notice of regulatory intent will be affirmative (i.e., that it does intend to mandate V2V communication systems for safety applications). This bodes well for those in the industry who are working to make the technology more ubiquitous. -9-

10 The majority of round one private-sector responses indicated that if NHTSA announces it does intend to mandate V2V safety technology within five years, all new light vehicles will be required to have this technology as standard equipment. More specifically, more than 80 percent of private-sector respondents indicated the belief that all new vehicles sold in the U.S. will be required to have this technology as standard equipment (if NHTSA intends to mandate it) by 2020, and 100 percent think it will happen by The public-sector respondents agreed, with the majority (88 percent) indicating that it would be five or more years after NHTSA announces that intends to mandate V2V safety technology before all new vehicles will be required to have the technology as standard equipment. Regulatory Mandate of Aftermarket Retrofits Responses are somewhat mixed as to whether a mandate for aftermarket retrofits of V2V communication is necessary for significant safety benefits by The majority (58%) of private sector respondents think they are not necessary. Both private- and public-sector respondents indicated that, even if NHTSA announces it intends to mandate V2V safety technology, it is highly unlikely that NHTSA will also require existing vehicles to be retrofitted with an aftermarket V2V safety device. If, however, NHTSA does introduce an aftermarket mandate, exactly half of the private-sector respondents believe the vehicle aftermarket device will be for vehicle awareness (broadcast only), and half believe the device will not be connected to the vehicle s data bus. Despite this prevailing view among respondents, they strongly believe that not requiring vehicle retrofits of connected vehicle technology will cause degradation of system performance. The majority of public-sector respondents (71 percent)) expressed the view that this degradation would be significant, and the remaining respondents (29 percent) responded that it would be moderate. No public-sector respondent suggested that it would be slightly or not at all degrading to system performance. Public-sector respondents were asked the best ways to encourage drivers to voluntarily retrofit their vehicles should a NHTSA notice of regulatory intent be affirmative. Their answers indicate that they view consumer incentives as the best encouragement to make this happen. They also suggested that supplier incentives could be useful. Those with write-in responses primarily specified consumer incentives, though they often suggested features rather than direct monetary compensation (e.g., HOV lane access, free retrofits, insurance cost discounts, telematics/geo-location services, or other applications that users want). One respondent suggested a regulation which would mandate that vehicles to have basic safety messaging abilities as a requirement of registration renewal. If NHTSA announces that it does not intend to mandate V2V safety technology, answers from both sectors remain relatively mixed as to whether automakers will continue to pursue V2V technology for safety systems. Those who strongly believed that automakers will continue gave the following reasons for their belief: These technologies offer real safety benefits Europe is doing it and we will follow Political, marketing and technological benefits for automakers Can't sell cars if congestion is too bad Can provide functionality for tolling and other connected vehicle apps that will happen -10-

11 For those who said it was not at all likely, several commented that it is only valuable if there is mass adoption of the technology. Without it, automakers do not desire to add costs to vehicles. Regulatory Mandate of Applications Another big question for the industry is whether governmental entities will mandate certain types of technology and applications. In general, respondents from both sectors do not believe many connected vehicle applications will be mandated by Some respondents noted that, by 2022, some applications, especially those relating to intersections and higher-alert zones, could be mandated. When asked about a federal mandate for V2I applications, public-sector respondents initially agreed that no applications would be mandated by 2017, but responses were mixed about V2I applications for In the second round survey, these respondents came to a consensus that neither state nor federal mandates for V2I applications were likely by Private-sector respondents were asked about a potential mandate for the following connected vehicle applications: Intersection control violations Stop sign movement assist, violation warning, and highway/rail crossings Lane/road departure warning Curve speed/rollover warning Work-zone, school-zone, exit facility, icy bridges, low clearance warning Left-turn across path and lateral gap acceptance The majority of indicated that those applications were not likely to be mandated by 2017 (see Figure 8). Some respondents, however, did think that some of these applications could be mandated by Most respondents indicated that no other safety applications were likely to be mandated by 2022, though some suggested that the following applications could be mandated: Forward collision warnings Electronic emergency brake lights Road condition warnings Emergency vehicle, train, school bus stop warnings One respondent noted that there is no need for the government to mandate any applications, just which technology to use. Public-Sector Use of Connected Vehicle Technology The public sector faces some unique challenges and goals when it comes to connected vehicle technology. Not surprisingly, respondents indicated that the highest priority use of connected vehicle technology for the public sector is crash avoidance. Traffic management and then asset management were also rated as important public-sector uses of connected vehicle technology. -11-

12 Figure 8. Forecast for Mandated Connected Vehicle Applications (Private-Sector) Source: CAR 2012 Data Sharing First-round responses were mixed as to whether public-sector respondents thought automakers would share vehicle sensor data with public agencies to support public applications and services, such as asset management and road weather information. In the second round, respondents were asked which approaches might encourage automakers to share these data. They suggested a public/private partnership would be the most effective method to encourage data sharing, followed by a mandate. In general, public-sector respondents expressed the view that DOTs will have to pay for data. Respondent answers suggest that a data quantity-based fee is the most likely scenario to obtain probe data from aggregators and resellers; however, 20 percent of respondents also saw the potential for a flat service fee, and 20 percent thought there may be no charge. Other written-in responses included the possibility for a flat fee for basic data with incremental increases for additional information, that users will likely buy information rather than data, and that the price will be based on quantity and frequency. Roadside Infrastructure Connected vehicle technology infrastructure along the roadside is of particular importance to the public sector as DOTs will likely be responsible for installing it. Public-sector respondents think DSRC is most likely for urban intersections, and cellular technology is most likely for urban highways. Responses were less concrete for the transmission mode at toll roads, though a slight majority indicated that it will be RFID. A slight majority of public-sector respondents, 53 percent, believe that Bluetooth technology deployed along the roadside would be somewhat useful for collecting traffic probe -12-

13 information. But in general, there is not much certainty that the technology would be a benefit. In the first round, public sector respondents were asked to describe the characteristics (e.g., extent, location, etc.) of the DSRC infrastructure that they think are necessary to make invehicle installation of DSRC worthwhile. Several items were mentioned, but the most common responses dealt with intersection safety, safety at select non-intersection areas, such as curves and road construction, and network security. When asked about these three items in the second round, intersection safety was deemed most important, followed by network security and then safety at select non-intersection areas. Traffic Management Systems In the first round, public-sector respondents were asked the extent to which they agree with the following statement: Further development of the following traffic management systems is essential to a successful national deployment of connected vehicle technology. Roadside and/or embedded highway sensors Roadside video cameras Traffic management centers Networked traffic signal systems Electronic toll collection systems There was general agreement that Traffic Management Centers (TMCs) and Networked Traffic Signal Systems are essential to national deployment, but roadside sensors and videos are not. In the second round survey, respondents were asked the extent to which they agree that, despite V2I, TMCs and Networked Traffic Signal Systems are essential to a successful national deployment of connected vehicle technology. The majority of respondents indicated that both are necessary to achieve the national deployment goal. Challenges to Broad Adoption Several potential challenges impede broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. To a large extent, public- and private-sector respondents agreed on the key challenges to broad adoption of the technology. Those from both sectors view funding for roadside infrastructure as one of the biggest challenges to the broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. Both view driver distraction as an important challenge. In addition, industry panelists view equipment costs as a challenge, and public-sector panelists see data security as important. Convergence of Connected and Automated Vehicle Systems The majority of private-sector respondents (85 percent) expect to see significant integration of sensor systems (e.g., camera, radar, LiDAR) and connected vehicle communication systems by This integration, or convergence, of sensors and connected vehicle technology is an initial step towards autonomous vehicle technology, which will allow vehicles to operate without driver involvement and instead use sensors (and potentially V2V and V2I applications) to navigate their surroundings (3). -13-

14 Because automated technology does not necessarily rely upon other vehicles being equipped with similar communication devices, there is much research happening in this arena. Google, for example, has a fully autonomous vehicle that drives on roadways as part of a testing effort, albeit with a human driver present in the vehicle to take control if needed. The privatesector survey asked respondents for their thoughts on automated vehicles as compared to connected vehicles, and the majority said that while automated vehicles have some benefits, the biggest public benefit would come from vehicles with both automated and connected systems. Most respondents suggested that automated vehicle technology can support advanced safety systems at least partially. A few commented that an automated vehicle would not be able to do everything that a connected vehicle would be able to do. Some respondents felt that automated vehicle technology is limited in that it is both too expensive and not advanced enough for real world driving. The vast majority (93 percent) of private-sector respondents say the concept of vehicles that cannot crash requires both autonomous and connected vehicle technology. They indicated that the following safety features would likely be implemented through a combination of both autonomous and connected vehicle technology by 2022: Road-condition warning Emergency electronic brake light Forward collision warning Pre-crash warning Emergency vehicle approaching warning Intersection crash avoidance CONCLUSIONS This report provides an analysis of expert opinions from the both sides (industry and government) of the connected vehicle technology equation. Respondents received two, iterative surveys addressing what they see as the future of connected vehicle technology, including topics such as communication technologies for various applications, possible governmental influence, the years in which various levels of DSRC deployment will be reached, and roadside infrastructure needed for a successful deployment. Other, more technology-specific, topics included when vehicles will have a certain component as standard equipment, how V2V and V2I systems compare, which transmission modes are most appropriate for roadside locations, which communication pipelines will best serve various applications, and how applications will be implemented on the vehicle. The public and private sectors largely agreed on most issues addressed. DSRC is thought of as best for cooperative, active safety systems, while 3G and 4G technologies are seen as best for a variety of other applications, such as those relating to infotainment. Respondents also had a good deal of agreement that DSRC will become standard vehicle equipment by In 2022, GPS receivers, satellite radios, and Wi-Fi transceivers also are likely to be included as standard equipment, according to the respondents. Mobility and personal convenience applications as brought-in equipment are forecasted to be widely available on new vehicles by 2017, and all applications will be widely available by The majority think the applications will be built-in by that point. -14-

15 Most respondents feel that while a V2V-only system is possible and valuable, but respondents view a complimentary V2I system as necessary to maximize full public benefits of connected vehicle technology. V2I systems are seen as easier to implement due to the high cost of deploying infrastructure; therefore, a concerted effort will be needed to ensure appropriate V2I systems are also in place. Respondents also think a V2V system is possible using DSRC technology, but that another communication technology (such as cellular technology) could be used for V2I systems, potentially reducing the need for new infrastructure. The estimated costs to manufacturers for embedding DSRC, the overall added costs to base vehicle price to the consumers, and adding DSRC as aftermarket equipment are all higher in 2017 and then drop significantly by The forecasted additional cost of the technology to consumers is $350 in 2017 and $300 in Both sectors believe that the NHTSA 2013 Notice of Regulatory Intent on V2V safety systems for vehicles will be in the affirmative, though the public sector is more confident in this opinion. If it is in the affirmative, this may help alleviate some of the biggest challenges both sectors see to the broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. If NHTSA announces that it does intend to mandate V2V safety, all private sector respondents believe that by 2022 all new vehicles sold in the United States will be required to have V2V communication equipment as standard equipment. Public-sector respondents suggested that it will take five or more years before all new vehicles will be required to have the safety technology. Respondents are less confident about a mandate for aftermarket retrofits, but indicated that, if there is a mandate, the device will likely be broadcast-only and will not be connected to the vehicle s data bus. If NHTSA elects not to mandate a V2V safety system, then respondents hold mixed views on whether automakers will continue to pursue V2V technology for safety systems. Respondents suggested that not requiring retrofits will significantly degrade overall system performance, as until there is fleet turnover, most vehicles on the road will not have the safety technology. Offering some type of consumer incentive is seen as the best way to encourage drivers to retrofit their own vehicles with the technology. Respondents do not expect other federal or state-level mandates on V2I applications. The highest priority use of connected vehicle technology for the public sector is to avoid vehicle crashes. Given that one of the public sectors main charges is to enhance safety, this is not surprising. Public-sector respondents are unsure whether automakers would share sensor data with agencies, but feel that a public/private partnership would be the best way to encourage this sharing. DSRC will be the likely transmission mode for infrastructure used in urban intersections, and correspondingly, intersection safety is seen as the highest necessity to make in-vehicle installation of DSRC worthwhile. Cellular technology is the more likely transmission mode for urban highways. According to respondents, for a successful national deployment, both Traffic Management Centers and Networked Traffic Signal Systems are essential. Both private- and public-sector respondents identified funding for infrastructure as the biggest challenge to the broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. The two sectors also both identified the potential for driver distraction as another major challenge for connected vehicle technology deployment. -15-

16 Autonomous technology is seen by industry experts as beneficial, because it can be implemented independently, but lacking in that it is quite expensive and not as broadly beneficial as connected vehicle technology. Respondents see benefits in implementing both connected and autonomous technology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is based on research conducted by the Transportation Systems Analysis (TSA) Group at CAR. The authors would like to thank MDOT for its financial support of this work as well as for providing guidance and feedback. We would additionally like to thank the many private- and public-sector survey respondents for participating in this research effort; a full list of these participants can be found within the Delphi Survey Procedure section of this paper. REFERENCES (1) Valerie Brugeman, Richard Wallace, and Joshua Cregger, Connected Vehicle Technology Industry Delphi Study, Center for Automotive Research, Report Prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation, September Available at (2) Valerie Brugeman, Richard Wallace, and Joshua Cregger, Connected Vehicle Technology Local Government Delphi Study, Center for Automotive Research, Report Prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation, September Available at (3) Gary Silberg, Richard Wallace, et al., Self-Driving Cars: The Next Revolution, KPMG and Center for Automotive Research, August 2012, p Available at