Field infrastructure footprint analysis
Download 157.83 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 2.8.1.Infrastructure Data Business Models
- 2.8.2.RSU Management and Access Requirements
- 2.8.3.Cross Border Identified Certificate Administration
- 2.8.4.Deployment Goals and Strategy
- Appendix A. Acronyms
2.8.Policy/Governance GapsPolicy/Governance gasp relate to areas that are not necessarily subject to technology or implementation shortcomings, but instead arise from issues associated with organizational structure and rules, or represent complex organizational or legal interdependencies. Policy and governance gaps may be filled by identifying and describing organizational roles, responsibilities and processes by creating the needed organizations (if they do not already exist), and by developing the legal and management structures to address these non-technical issues. 2.8.1.Infrastructure Data Business ModelsGap : Business Models for Connected Vehicle Data Have Not Been Developed or Validated Gap : No Obvious Incentive for Data Providers to Provide Data beyond Any Mandate There are a variety of existing businesses established around traffic data over the past 20 years. Some of these have been more successful than others. Currently these businesses focus almost exclusively on traffic travel time and incident data, together with a few other commercial data elements such as location-based fuel prices. These businesses exist today with no connected vehicle system. It is unclear if these businesses can or will collect the types of data that would be of most benefit to AASHTO members. Assuming that the connected vehicle system can produce other useful data and provide useful applications for AASHTO members, there is a need to a) identify that data, b) understand how the connected vehicle system business models fit into the existing road data market, and c) identify, at least conceptually, what sort of value chains and business arrangements are most likely to work, given the value chain participants (vehicle makers, vehicle users, wireless carriers or DSRC deployers, data collectors and aggregators and data users). These value chains are likely to be indirect, since those paying for collection hardware and/or communications may not be the same parties that directly benefit from the collection of this data. Understanding the benefit relationships, and being able to articulate the value proposition is a critical element of justifying deployment expenditures and assuring that the overall market can support the system. Currently these motivations and relationships are assumed, but have not been sufficiently defined to test if these assumptions are valid. Recommendation: Develop a conceptual business model that illustrates the end-to-end value chain (who provides what and what they get back in return) for vehicle data. This model would then illustrate the motivations for each party to participate in the value chain. This model would include models for the manufacture and deployment of connected vehicle equipment, and models for the ongoing operations and maintenance of that equipment. These models should clearly identify both explicit exchanges of tangible value elements (e.g., money for goods and services) as well as monetized implicit exchanges of intangible value elements (e.g., “soft factors” such as reduced risk, avoided losses or costs, etc.) to provide a comprehensive description of which parties are expected to do what in the connected vehicle economic ecosystem, and what each of those parties can expect to receive from the system. Using this framework together with existing cost-benefit analyses it will then be possible to identify areas where the costs and benefits are unbalanced (in value or in time) for any given party, and the model or the system can be adjusted to compensate for this. 2.8.2.RSU Management and Access RequirementsGap : RSU Management Access and Security Requirements Not Defined Currently the requirements for physical and logical access control for RSUs (and OBUs) are not defined. This may be a policy issue that is at the discretion of the implementing jurisdiction. However, since vehicle users are likely to encounter RSUs deployed by a wide variety of jurisdictions, such policies should include provisions for authenticating the sources of information, and securing the channels over which this information is provided. Lacking this, each implementing organization would need to define and implement these aspects independently. Recommendation: Study and develop policy recommendation to determine if a uniform policy is necessary. If so, develop policy and requirements and identify where this policy should reside (e.g. MUTCD, AASHTO Green Book, or other equivalent). 2.8.3.Cross Border Identified Certificate AdministrationGap : No Established International Passenger Vehicle Certificate Information Exchange Platform OBEs are issued certificates on a periodic basis over the air and from the back-office systems responsible for distribution of such certificates. These certificates are used to validate their presence on the network and enable V2V as well as V2I communications between other authorized devices and users. RSEs also require security certificates in order to validate communications from authorized vehicle equipment and maintain valid secure connection with back-office systems. For the proposed IBC applications, agencies responsible for operations will need to identify the OBEs registered in another country when those vehicles cross the border. For example, when Canadian registered vehicles are waiting to cross back into Canada from the US, RSEs installed on the US side will have to identify OBEs registered in Canada. This will require Canadian provinces to share certificate information with the US. This will require a policy decision and agencies may face public concerns regarding privacy issues. Registration information for commercial vehicles is already shared between the US and Mexico and the US and Canada at the federal level. Prior to a commercial vehicle’s entry at a border they submit an electronic manifest to customs agencies. These manifests contain detailed information on drivers and owners of those vehicles, including their operating authority. In the US, CBP would have to share a portion of these electronic manifests with state agencies operating the proposed application. Similarly, in Canada, CBSA will have to do the same with provincial agencies operating the proposed application. In Mexico, the situation is slightly different since the federal government operates and maintains all aspects of IBCs that may include federal roadways connecting with IBCs. On the other hand, privately operated vehicles are not required to submit electronic manifests to customs agencies prior to their arrival at the border. In addition, registration information of personal vehicles is not shared with agencies from neighboring countries. However, individuals participating in trusted traveler programs such as SENTRI and NEXUS do register their vehicles with customs agencies. However, such vehicles constitute a very small portion of the overall population of vehicles crossing the border. Recommendation: Establish bi-national vehicle certificate information exchanges. 2.8.4.Deployment Goals and StrategyGap : No Consensus on Public and Private Sector Roles in Deployment There appear to be multiple competing visions of how the Connected Vehicle system may be deployed. At one extreme some stakeholders argue for and promote a hybrid organic approach involving an undefined mix of public and private activities. At the other extreme, a few stakeholders argue that the system should be entirely publicly funded and defined through a top down process. Neither of these visions is supported by concrete strategies that include the concurrence of those who would be required to deploy the system or provide the funds. For example, it is suggested that the connected vehicle system represents a commercial opportunity, yet few commercial entities have articulated their interest in this opportunity. Analysis of a commercial implementation raises questions about the feasibility of a commercial entity providing applications to serve the public good unless the government pays for these services. The long running discussion of this issue has slowed progress toward deployment, and may continue to do so. Recommendation: Develop a set of basic governance principles for the connected vehicle system(s), and focus industry and government efforts on those approaches that are consistent with the principles. Appendix A. Acronyms
Directory: documents documents -> Concept stage documents -> Concept stage documents -> The great global switch-off documents -> Nonprofit grant application documents -> The Truth about the Rwandan Genocide documents -> Annual InStructional unit plan documents -> Chaos equipment included Download 157.83 Kb. Share with your friends:
|