Abstract

This paper is based on a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) project, Mobility as a Service for Linking Europe"br" (MAASiFiE), conducted for the Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR). MaaS is an emerging"br" concept aiming to offer user-oriented, multimodal transport services on a one-stop-shop principle utilizing"br" digitalization and mobile applications. This paper presents the main result of the project: the European MaaS"br" Roadmap 2025 defining short- (1-3 years) and medium-term (4-9 years) actions and transitions needed to reach"br" the vision formed in the project. The Roadmap is divided into four functional perspectives: drivers, markets, MaaS"br" services and enablers. Furthermore, each perspective presents the results using the following classification:"br" Academy and R&D, Business, Infrastructure & built environment, Policy & regulation, Technology & data, and"br" Social & culture. This paper concentrates on Policy & regulation aspects, as well as on the role of National Road"br" Administrations (NRAs) in MaaS development.

Abstract

ITS Applications have in recent years assisted in reducing the number of fatalities in Europe. However, Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) have not benefited as much as vehicle users. The EU-sponsored VRUITS project assesses the safety and mobility impacts of ITS applications for VRUs, assesses the impacts of current and upcoming ITS applications on the safety and mobility of VRUs, identifies how the usability and efficiency of ITS applications can be improved, and recommends which actions have to be taken at a policy level to improve ITS"br/"safety and mobility. This paper describes the results of the first phase of the project, in which the critical scenarios for VRUs are identified starting from accident data analysis, and following a user needs based on focus groups and expert interviews. From this basis, the most promising ITS applications for VRUs are selected according to their potential to address the specific needs of VRUs.

Abstract

The European Union is highly dependent on seaports for trade with the rest of the world and within its Internal"br" Market. Approximately, 75% of goods imported and exported and 37% of exchanges within the Union transited"br" through seaports in 2013. To manage this amount of cargo in ports, smooth operations are required. The"br" performance of ports is currently evaluated by using different types of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). How"br" the indicators are described is dependent on the stakeholders and their organizational interest."br" Ports, and the transport sector as a whole, are undergoing drastic changes. To cite a few, demand increases, ship"br" capacity enlargements, shipping line mergers and alliances lead to more concentrated flows and increase of traffic"br" in certain hub ports detrimental to medium size ones, other aspects such new requirements regarding environment"br" protection and security are also relevant. At the same time, ports are usually located in the middle of existing"br" neighborhoods, which limits possibilities to enlarge their area whilst stress is placed to improve the port-city"br" interrelation. Therefore, there is a need to invest in port infrastructure, but expansion or renovation of a port is"br" extremely difficult. The required investments are big and the planning horizon is long. Hence, if the designed"br" structures turn out to be unsuitable due to changes in needs, it is rather expensive to make changes."br" Planning tools have developed remarkably during the past 10 years. Different types of planning tools are used in"br" seaport and terminal design to model the completeness. Modelling generates digital representations of physical"br" and functional characteristics of a terminal area, buildings and other infrastructures. With the help of model-based"br" approaches and with suitable KPIs, it is easier to understand and evaluate the effects of certain design solutions"br" for terminal operations in a larger context. By using modelling tools, it is also possible to compare different design"br" options to outline how certain choices in terminal design influences on the completeness."br" There is a need to define the objectives of good terminal prior to plan the terminal and its operations. A good"br" terminal would satisfy the stakeholders’ expectations in best possible ways in the given preconditions. The"br" achievement of objectives can be evaluated by using suitable indicators. However, the indicators used to plan and"br" model terminal operations may differ from indicators used to evaluate the performance of current ports and"br" terminals. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the indicators required for terminal planning and compare them"br" with existing KPIs used for measuring the performance of ports and terminals.

Abstract

NordicWay has implemented a cooperative safety-related traffic information system based on hybrid"br" communication using a mainly cellular network. In this paper, we present NordicWay’s Finnish Coop project"br" evaluation results on driver behaviour impacts and user acceptance of the system. The evaluation was based on a"br" field test involving more than a thousand test users from May 2016 to April 2017. The results showed the high"br" acceptance by the users. The system was the first source of information in many occasions and the implications it"br" had on driver behaviour were positive (increased attention, speed reduction, less overtaking, etc.). As a main"br" conclusion, the results indicate that a cooperative safety-related traffic information system in mobile phones has"br" positive impacts on driver behaviour. The results also show that road users would be willing to use this kind of"br" system. Almost all users who had longer experience with the system would have been willing to continue using"br" the application.

Abstract

Members of the Trilateral Working Group on Automation in Road Transportation (ART WG) have been working"br" to address the complexity of impacts caused by automated driving. They are setting up a high-level impact"br" assessment framework to coordinate the impact assessments performed in the field of automated driving. The"br" paper presents this framework. It gives recommendations for classifying automation implementations and"br" determining impact areas to be assessed. It also presents the impact mechanisms through which automated driving"br" is expected to impact our life, covering both direct and indirect impacts. In addition, recommendations are provided"br" for experimental procedure, simulation approach and data sharing.