> **ATIS Practices in**
>
> **Europe and North America**

# A Report on Comparative Analysis

> ***October 31, 2002***

## Kan Chen

######## **Contract No. DTFH61-96-C-00077**

#### Battelle Subcontract No. 167383

### Battelle -- ITS Program Assessment Support Task Order 7738 

> **ATIS Practices in Europe and North America**

### *A Report on Comparative Analysis*

> Kan Chen
>
> Introduction and Summary 4
>
> Cross-Atlantic Inputs 4
>
> Questionnaire and Responses 5
>
> Results of Comparative Analysis 6
>
> Similarities 7
>
> Differences 9
>
> Misunderstandings 9
>
> Web-enabled Discussion 11
>
> Additional Work 15
>
> INFOstructure Discussion 16
>
> Privately Run ATIS Services 17
>
> The 9^th^ ITS World Congress 18
>
> Conclusions 18
>
> Appendix A Summary of US ATIS Update Report 22
>
> Appendix B European Comments on US ATIS Update Report 23
>
> Appendix C Canadian Comments on US ATIS Update Report 38
>
> Appendix D ATIS issues Identified in a Canadian Workshop 40
>
> Appendix E Executive Summary of the Data Sharing Report 41
>
> Appendix F Composite Questionnaire Responses 43
>
> Appendix G Summary of Questionnaire Responses 68
>
> Appendix H Questionnaire for Privately Run ATIS Services 71
>
> Appendix I Presentations at the 9^th^ ITS World Congress 74
>
> Appendix J Participants in ATIS Exchanges 95
>
> Appendix K ATIS Group Messages 96
>
> **ATIS Practices in Europe and North America**

### *A Report on Comparative Analysis*

####### 

####### Kan Chen

##### **Introduction and Summary**

This is the final report related to the ATLANTIC ([A]{.underline}
[T]{.underline}hematic [L]{.underline}ong-term [A]{.underline}pproach to
[N]{.underline}etworking for the [T]{.underline}elematics and
[I]{.underline}TS [C]{.underline}ommunity) Project subtask of comparing
current practices of advanced traveler information systems (ATIS),
including business models, that have been tried in recent years in
countries on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean -- the three communities
of ITS experts in Europe, Canada, and US. The subtask began with the
distribution of the report on "ATIS U.S. Business Models Review"
(frequently referred to as the US ATIS Update Report) to all the ATIS
group members within the ATLANTIC Project[^1]. Written comments from
Europe and Canada were obtained and distributed to the same group
members via e-mail. In order to seek further discussion and to search
for consensus, a questionnaire was composed mainly on the basis of these
comments and distributed to the ATIS group members. Thirteen responses
from fifteen experts have been received, combined and analyzed. To seek
further understanding and consensus, follow-up discussions on selected
issues were conducted on the ATLANTIC website. The significant results
as well as the methodology for the comparative analysis constitute the
core of this report.

To demonstrate the value of the ATLANTIC Project in the pilot year of US
participation, additional work beyond comparative analysis was done by
the ATIS group, including discussion on the US initiative on
INFOstructure, collecting information about mostly privately run ATIS
services, and organization of a special session for the 9^th^ ITS World
Congress held in Chicago to describe the entire ATLANTIC Project as well
as its ATIS portion. Summaries of these work elements can be found in
the latter part of this report. The concluding section reflects on the
methodology and the use of electronic communications for international
exchanges for research and education. Since much of the ATIS group
interaction during the pilot year has been through e-mail, all the 12
group e-mail messages are attached as the last appendix for the record.

##### **Cross-Atlantic Comments on US ATIS Update Report**

The ATIS subtask of the ATLANTIC Project, established in September 2001,
was blessed at the beginning by the availability of the US ATIS Update
Report, entitled "ATIS U.S. Business Models Review" prepared for US
Department of Transportation, ITS Joint Program Office, by Rick Schuman
and Eli Sherer, PBS&J, November 2001. This excellent report, including
detailed information about ten ATIS public-private partnerships in the
US, provides information of direct relevance to the subtask. A summary
of this US ATIS Update Report may be found in Appendix A.

The corresponding report on ATIS business models available from Europe
(the WELL-TIMED Study[^2]) is now dated, and new European ATIS case
studies are still being undertaken. There is no equivalent report for
Canada available for comparative analysis. In order to get interactions
started among the three ITS communities, comments on the US report were
sought from European and Canadian ATIS group members. The European
comments (by John Austin, Janet Walker and John Miles) may be found in
Appendix B; and the Canadian comments (by Paul Frigon, with input from
Bill Johnson) may be found in Appendix C.

######### Questionnaire and Responses

Although the European and Canadian comments were circulated to all the
US participants for their responses, only a co-author of the US ATIS
Update Report provided a relatively brief response. It was felt that the
European comments were too wide-ranging for any volunteer to respond in
a focused and specific manner. Therefore the questionnaire shown in
Appendix F, consisting of a number of candidate statements and questions
was constructed, primarily on the basis of the European and Canadian
comments, for a survey among all the ATIS participants. The preparation
of the survey questionnaire also took into consideration the list of
ATIS issues of interest to Canada identified in a special workshop
involving Canadian experts participating in the ATLANTIC Project (see
Appendix D) and some of the ideas and findings in the report on "Sharing
Data for Public Information: Practices and Policies of Public Agencies,"
co-authored by Zimmerman, Raman, Mallet and Roberts for the ITS Joint
Program Office in January 2002. The Executive Summary of the Zimmerman
report, also known as the US Data Sharing Report, may be found in
Appendix E in this report.

The objective of the survey was to determine whether a consensus could
be developed on (1) the similarities among ATIS practices (including
business models) on both sides of the Atlantic; (2) the differences
between these practices; and (3) the priority of unresolved ATIS issues
that should be further discussed among all the ATIS group members. Each
of the first two categories was broken down into "bite-size" candidate
statements that a knowledgeable ATIS expert could express her/his degree
of agreement or disagreement, with the option of expanding each answer
with text. The third category consists of five unresolved issues to be
prioritized for electronic discussion on the ATLANTIC website.

The questionnaire turned out to be very useful in getting the desired
group participation, although it is worth noting that comparatively few
of the respondents have first-hand experience of the ATIS scene in both
North America and Europe. Fifteen experts from all three ITS communities
have provided 13 responses, one of which represented joint inputs from
three European experts. The 15 respondents' names and organizations,
grouped under the three international communities, are listed below:

##### Canada

> Paul Frigon (PSR Group)
>
> Bill Johnson (Consultant)

##### Europe

> Lesley Atkinson (Ankerbold)\*
>
> John Austin (Austin Analytics)\*
>
> John Miles (Ankerbold)
>
> Marc Wolfram (Rupprecht Consult)\*
>
> \[\*Responded with a single combined input\]

##### US

> Richard Bishop (Bishop Consultant)
>
> Kan Chen (University of Michigan)

John Cox (TANN)

> Joel Markowitz (MTC)
>
> Pierre Pretorius (Kimley-Horn)
>
> Bob Rupert (FHWA)
>
> Rick Schuman (PBS&J)
>
> Larry Sweeney (Tele-Atlas/ETAK)
>
> Carol Zimmerman (Battelle)

Appendix F also tabulates the composite responses without attributing
specific answers/questions to individual respondents. However, with the
code names of R1 for the first respondent, R2 for the second respondent,
etc., the reader can gain a better understanding, if deemed desirable,
by finding out how the same respondent answers the various statements
and questions.

######### Results of Comparative Analysis[^3]

The 13 inputs have been compared with some straightforward statistical
analysis. (The joint input from Austin, Atkinson and Wolfram has been
counted as one vote.) For statements about similarities and differences
(in categories A and B) between Europe and North America, the following
weights were assigned:

Strongly agree (aa) = 100

Somewhat agree (a) = 50

Neutral (n) = 0

Somewhat disagree = -50

Strongly disagree = -100

For the relative importance of the 5 unresolved ATIS issues (in category
C), the following weights were assigned:

Priority 1 = 100

Priority 2 = 75

Priority 3 = 50

Priority 4 = 25

Priority 5 = 0

The results of the statistical analysis are tabulated in Appendix G (in
bold italics). For the statements in categories A and B, the number at
the end of each statement indicates the collective level of agreement
with that statement. For example, any number above 0 would mean that the
group collectively agrees more than disagrees with the statement. Any
number close to 50 would mean that the group generally agrees with the
statement, with some qualifications. In category C, the numbers for the
5 unresolved issues are relative; the larger the number the higher the
priority assigned by the group members collectively to that issue. Some
of the responses also nominated additional issues for further discussion
over the ATLANTIC website.

A quick scan of all the numbers in Appendix G indicates that the
"average" numbers for the statements in category A are higher than those
in category B. Thus, taken as a whole, the 15 ATIS participants agree
more with the statements related similarities than with those related to
differences between Europe and North America.

The numbers within the brackets are standard deviations. As most of the
standard deviations are fairly large, it shows that there is substantial
diversity of opinion among the group members for almost all the
statements, which is, of itself, an interesting finding.

##### **Similarities**

Based on the statements with general agreements among the participants
(those scoring higher than 30 average in category A of the questionnaire
returns), one can point out the following four similarities between
Europe and North America, with some qualifications:

**Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information
value chain for delivery of ATIS services*. ****The information value
chain (or information supply chain) for ATIS describes a complete system
from data collection, data fusion, to data distribution. All the links
in the system must be operative for ATIS service delivery. Service
quality to end-users is only as good as the weakest link in the
information supply chain.*

**Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been
proven to be viable.** *In fact, the broadcast of traffic information
supported by advertisement has proven to be viable for years. It is a
very viable revenue producing method. Perhaps the next question should
be about market development, not about viable advertising revenue. In
the US, the Metro Networks model of selling airtime to advertisers
during radio traffic reports has been a success. However, given the
conglomeration of services that has occurred over the past few years
(i.e., Westwood One incorporating Shadow, Metro Networks, and Smart
Routes), it could be questioned how viable the [competitive]{.underline}
broadcast market really is. In Europe broadcast travel information on
local radio has been used as a way of building local interest, audience
loyalty and direct involvement with the broadcasting stations (e.g.
volunteer "jam busters among the listeners, who call in with traffic
reports.) It should be noted that ATIS is beyond traffic broadcast. ATIS
will require a quantum change in data gathering methods, from
qualitative "reportage" to quantified data-rich sources. Other models,
such as advertising on websites, have not been very successful or
profitable. For example, advertising on the SmarTraveler cable TV
service was not successful in the US.*

**The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are the
same in both continents.** *In both continents, the public objectives
also include encouraging/enabling mode shift to transit or shared ride.
While the basic objectives are in principle the same, the balance is
different such as to make the effective objectives different. Between
Europe and North America, the relative levels of importance for these
different public objectives vary considerably, as much within the two
regions as between the regions. For example, information on inter-modal
transport for freight and personal mobility features is much stronger as
a policy goal in Europe. While traffic management techniques such as
variable speed limits (which use ATIS) have proven acceptable in Europe
and successful in evoking driver responses, many ATIS applications in
North America provide motorists with "peace of the mind" -- information
that is not intended to evoke a response or an action, but rather
information just to explain.*

**Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of
specific information services they wish to provide.** *This is certainly
true for information services free at the point of use and offered as a
public service, such as Traveler Advisory Telephone Systems, Government
Access Channel Traffic TV Systems, and Government Websites. It is also
true for some public transportation information systems but not
necessarily true for commercial, personalized subscription services and
for wireless services to mobile and portable devices. There may be
certain services (e.g., subscription-based services) that the public
sector would offer [only if]{.underline} partnered with another firm
that would assume fiscal responsibility for the service. These types of
services may be akin to "bells and whistles" in that they would not be
deemed essential public services, but could still be very effective in
meeting public policy goals. Thus, there may be some services that the
private sector can provide, especially for niche markets such as
commercial vehicles or business travelers. The public sector would have
an interest in seeing these markets served but public support may not be
required. In this case, public sector agencies might consider
underwriting the costs of providing the framework necessary to enable
those services to be provided, or proceed in partnership with the
private sector, as in the Travel Information Highway (TIH) in the UK,
which is planned to support a range of different services provided by
different firms/agencies.*

##### **Differences**

Based on the statements with general agreements among the participants
(those scoring higher than 30 average in category B of the questionnaire
returns), one can point out only a couple of differences between Europe
and North America, with qualifications:

**Compared to Europe, North American ATIS services put much greater
emphasis on integration of traffic information across jurisdictions than
across modes (e.g., between mass transit and automobile traffic).**
*This is generally true but would depend on the market area and the
traveler segment. In some areas where only one mode is used, personal
car or public transit, the user of one mode has no desire for
information on the other mode. In areas or market segments where
multi-modal travel is used, then having information across modes is
important. In North America, as in Europe, there seems to be much
interest in going multi-modal, and inter-modal door-to-door trip
planning is being promoted heavily in some parts of Europe in response
to increasing road congestion.*

**The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North
America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and
demography.** *Among these, the land-use and demography factors are more
important than the cultural factors. Land use patterns, as well as the
availability of alternate modes, help to drive a commuter's transport
mode preference, hence the overwhelming popularity of the personal
vehicle as the mode of choice in North America. Differing public
financing methods (e.g., fuel and other user taxes) also contribute to
differences between Europe and North America, perhaps contributing to
the increased availability and use of mass transit in Europe. North
Americans spend much less as a percentage on taxes than Europeans do.
Governmental organization is also a key difference. Governmental policy
goals emphasizing personal mobility and the movement of freight in
Europe are also important differences, as is the level of transport
infrastructure (highway and rail capacity) relative to the transport
demand. Finally, environmental objectives are important in some
corridors, for example trans-alpine routes, and historic cities. Equally
important are differences in government roles in ATIS and European
governments' ownership of traffic information and radio stations. Some
European governments are providing free RDS-TMC (Radio Data System --
Traffic Message Channel) broadcasts of traffic data. Elsewhere it has
been left to the private sector to develop services that use the RDS-TMC
carrier, using their own sources (e.g., probe vehicles).*

**[Misunderstandings]{.underline}**

Some of the statements in categories A and B have [negative]{.underline}
"average" numbers, indicating that the ATIS group as a whole disagrees
more than agrees with these statements. This implies that either the
group thinks the particular comments from Europe and/or Canada are wrong
or that the author of this paper has misinterpreted the comments from
which the following statements were elicited.

**The trend of ATIS data collection in both continents is toward
increased reliance on floating vehicle data.** *This statement is not
quite right.* *While there has been an increase in discussions and
research on the use of floating vehicle data, there are only a few
examples of actual practice in relying on such data for ATIS in both
continents. Simple, fixed-point data collection is still the most common
practice. There is evidence in Europe that floating vehicle data is
becoming more common, but problems still exist of communications costs,
data reliability and quality (spatial coverage, time sampling, and
understanding the causal factors behind any abnormality). It also
depends on what one considers as floating vehicle data. In the UK,
point-to-point license-plate tracking is used by Trafficmaster to derive
journey times, but is not truly floating vehicle data. Floating car data
based on the radio taxi fleet has been used in metropolitan Paris. A UK
company, ITIS, has formal arrangements with the operators of a national
truck fleet and a long-distance express coach fleet to gather journey
time data in real time across Britain, and for historical data across
mainland Europe. Other European companies are experimenting with
floating vehicle data to determine how it can complement traditional
traffic data collection methods. Aside for that, floating vehicle data
has yet to be proven as viable. On the other hand, estimated time of
arrival may become more common but not necessarily based on floating
vehicle data. There is certainly an increased interest in trying to mine
whatever data and information sources may be out there to enhance
infrastructure-based sensor systems, and exploring non-intrusive methods
of gauging system performance. Perhaps an alternative way to look at
this statement would be a decreased reliance on any single form of
collecting data as a way of improving data richness and quality, and as
a way of developing competing (and therefore more cost-effective)
methods of traffic data collection.*

**Private ATIS companies (e.g., Trafficmaster) in Europe are closer than
their North American counterparts to being financially independent of
public subsidies.** *This statement may err on the side of
over-generalization. Trafficmaster is a relatively unique case that
should not be generalized to represent all private ATIS companies in
Europe. Trafficmaster has survived 12 years without public subsidy, but
its share price, like many high-technology stocks, has gone through a
difficult patch recently. Other European countries also have private
sector information services covering data fusion, with information
publishers serving a variety of end user services (Webraska -- France;
Mizar -- Italy; TMC4U -- Netherlands; Tegaron -- Germany). However,
these private companies in Europe continue to depend heavily on public
information sources, where these are of sufficient quality and
reliability. While Trafficmaster has a longer history of providing
information directly to end users, North American firms such as Metro
Networks (now part of Westwood One) have a long history of providing
traveler information to broadcasters and never receiving subsidies from
public agencies. It is significant that the business model for
Trafficmaster depends heavily on the revenues generated by sales of
equipment and follow-up services to car manufacturers who are providing
"free" 2-year subscriptions to the car buyer.*

**Formal agreements (mostly in the form of Memo of Understanding) are
prerequisite for ATIS public-private partnerships but are frequently not
necessary in North America.** *This is a misleading statement. Since
most "partnerships" in North America are really just modifications of
contracts, the contracting instrument replaces the MOU. Many North
American ITS projects have required MOUs but often the formal "standing"
of the MOU is not clear among the affected parties. Some form of formal
agreements is required in North America although the specific form may
vary a great deal.*

**North American consumers are more reluctant than European consumers to
pay for traffic information due to the more deeply-rooted car culture in
North America.** *Many North American group members disagree with this
statement. If anything, the car culture in North America may cause an
increased willingness to pay, [if]{.underline} there were recognizable
value in the information. Since traffic information is usually a "news"
item that is at best informative and at worst historical, the consumer
has seen little value in the information -- how could it improve his/her
quality of life, or at least improve the quality of the current trip? As
it becomes possible for information to be more personalized, consumers
will pay premiums for this now-focused information; and traveler
information should become a part of that packaged information. Until we
have a pervasive ATIS that delivers personalized information, the jury
is still out on whether consumers will pay. In other words, willingness
to pay is more related to the perceived value of traffic information
than to any cultural factors. Like anyone else in the world, North
Americans would be more likely to pay for information if it is good and
better than what we already get for free. The fact that radio stations
give out information for free in urban areas is the main barrier to
fee-based services.*

##### **Web-enabled Discussion**

Based on the results the questionnaire returns to category C, the
collective opinion of the ATIS group members suggests the first three
issues (a to c, each with a score higher than 50) in the following list
of nine issues for further electronic discussion. The next group of four
issues (d to g) on the list was suggested from the respondents to be
added for discussion in category C. The last two issues (h and i) on the
list were derived from two statements in categories A and B for which
there was little agreement (average score below 30) and high diversity
of opinion (standard deviation over 60). The hope was that further
discussion might lead to some convergence of opinion.

a\. How do we distinguish the success and failure of a business model
from the success and failure of its implementation? (In other words,
should we abandon a business model just because its implementation has
failed?)

b.  Where should the line be drawn between free public information and
    paid private information in any country or region?

c.  What should the public agencies do in their traffic sensor
    investments in view of the uncertain rate of development and
    implementation in floating car usage?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
d.  What are the benefits to a public sector agency, if any, in
    encouraging the development of value-added services?

e.  The TCC project in England suggests a two-tiered market for
    information services: "public" information and commercial services,
    but where is the line between "public" and "commercial" information?
    \[This is akin to, and may be combined with, the second issue "b"
    listed above.\]

f.  What balance should be struck between multi-modal and road-based
    travel information?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
g.  How can the management of travel information for the urban network
    be integrated with inter-urban travel choices? (Is this of more
    significance for the European conurbations than in North America?)

h.  Should public sector look for private sector revenue sharing to
    support ITS investment?

i.  Is an enabling policy framework needed for public/private
    partnerships in ATIS?

The availability of time and competent leaders was such that five out of
nine issues in the above list were chosen for electronic discussion
through the Traffic and Travel Information (TTI) Forum within the
ATLANTIC website. Partly due to the lack of complete user-friendliness
of the website, and partly due to the varying degree of familiarity with
web-enabled e-dialog among the ATIS members, the set of web-based
discussants and the set of email-based discussants were not identical
but had a significant overlap. The summaries of the electronic
discussions on the five issues are given below.

*Business Model Failure (issue "a") \-- Discussion Summary*

The interest in the topic of business model failure was quite low. Only
3 TTI registrants (from both Europe and US) have contributed inputs to
this discussion strand over a 2-week period (July 15 to August 1, 2002).

One discussant pointed out that, from a public sector point of view,
there is not really a business model. The public sector will play a
small role in ATIS by providing the public some free public information.
From a private sector point of view, it is up to a given company to
decide if it can make a business case for a given product or service.

It's difficult to distinguish the failure of a business model from its
implementation. One would think that the choice of a business model
would be more fundamental than its implementation so that, given time, a
good business model would lead to good business success. On the other
hand, a truly successful business model should be robust enough to
withstand short-term growing pains and adapt to business environment.
Private sector companies will probably abandon the application of a
business model quickly if it fails. However, they may try to achieve
success in another region if the circumstances are different, but they
will certainly refine the model to get over the problem that caused its
first application to fail. A useful question would be: what are the best
set of market conditions known today that will accelerate ATIS
deployment?

*Floating Car Data (issue "c") -- Discussion Summary*

The interest in the topic of floating car data (FCD) was quite high. The
8 TTI registrants who contributed inputs to this discussion strand over
a period of a month (July 15 to August 16, 2002) came from both Europe
and US, both public and private sectors.

It is apparent that, while FCD has its challenges in coming to maturity,
there are some very promising synergies with fleet approaches (ITIS) and
insurance billing based on driving pattern and behavior.

There are several \"nuts to be cracked,\" and it appears that some of
the cracking is already in process:

a)  the design and necessary new approaches for integration of FCD into
    public sector traffic management processes can be happening now
    (maybe already is) with information provided by fleets. If well
    designed, this should generalize when there are more data sources
    from regular cars;

b)  communications pipe to/from passenger cars -- this is happening with
    telematics (mostly inbound) and also (for inbound and outbound) the
    new insurance billing approach, as well as also for real-time
    vehicle diagnostics (being implemented by the automobile OEMs);

c)  necessary data resident in vehicle on traffic conditions -- already
    there if GPS navigation systems are in car;

d)  standards -- ISO TC204 WG16.3 is focused on defining a data
    dictionary and reference model for Probe Vehicle Communications;

e)  ubiquity -- roadside detectors can surely handle the roads with the
    most dense traffic flows, which is the first priority for ATIS
    consumers. To have ubiquitous coverage of all roads is a lesser
    priority and its importance varies from traveler to traveler
    depending on local conditions. So the impetus to get traffic
    information from non-major roads is not as strong. However, as
    safety-related FCD applications come into play, the interest in
    major and non-major roads is equal, as a slippery spot in either
    case is just as dangerous. So, as safety (and security) applications
    become more feasible, this will accelerate the traffic applications
    as well.

The end state of FCD will be defined principally by the degree to which
OEMs will equip new cars with FCD equipment. OEMs could uniquely collect
data that non-OEM telematics suppliers cannot collect (since the non-OEM
companies cannot as affordably put special equipment in thousands of
cars), and therefore gain a marketplace advantage.

We have seen some OEMs having begun to launch their telematics products.
However, they will have to see how soon and how strongly the market
responds before they will jump with both feet into telematics (including
related FCD equipment) to help sell and differentiate their vehicles.

*Revenue Sharing (issue "h") -- Discussion Summary*

The interest in the topic of revenue sharing was rather high. The 7 TTI
registrants who contributed inputs to this discussion strand over a
period of a month (July 15 to August 16, 2002) came from both Europe and
US, both public and private sectors.

The consensus appears to be that, in an ATIS public/private partnership,
the first consideration should be on sharing of functions rather than
sharing of revenue. The sharing of functions can be considered most
effectively in terms of the ATIS information supply chain. Along that
chain, the roles and responsibilities can then be defined in business
terms, specifying how each partner will fund and perform its functions,
within the legal and regulatory restrictions that vary from place to
place. The latter explains why revenue sharing is more feasible in one
country than another. It would be helpful also to consider the basic
complementarities between public and private sectors. For example, the
public sector is probably better able to leverage low cost capital,
whereas the private sector is better geared to handling and dealing with
revenue. However, the economic reality in ATIS today is such that very
few of the private partners have enough revenue to share with their
public partners.

*Boundary between Public and Private Information (issues "b" & "e")*

## The interest in this issue was extremely high, drawing vivid comments from 12 discussants representing all three communities (Europe, Canada, and US) over a 2-week period (July 31 to August 16, 2002). The summary of their inputs follows:

## 

## [Provision of free public information]{.underline}

Commentators suggested that the difference between policy goals in
Europe and the US makes it difficult to set hard and fast universal
rules, because local, regional and national government policy goals on
personal mobility and the movement of freight are so variable. It seems
unlikely that a fixed level of minimum service can apply to all public
agencies with different policy goals, tasks and resources.

The "public benefit" rule was the most widely and strongly supported --
that public authorities should provide that information for free that is
relevant to reach their public goal(s). This implies that public
authorities need clear goals to define what information is being
delivered to the public and why. However policy objectives may actually
compete -- e.g environmental protection versus strategic route
management.

Suggested core policy requirements were:

a)  Increasing safety -- by advance warning of road or transit users,
    informing control rooms, coordinating rescue/accident recovery

b)  Promoting sustainable development -- by promoting public transport
    intermodality

c)  Alleviating traffic congestion or its consequences on users

With these requirements in mind, there is always likely to be a base
level of free public information in support of: traffic management,
crisis and emergency management, bad weather, and public safety and
security and transportation network operations (road closures, etc.).

In Europe, congestion is prevalent in urban areas and the suggestion is
that there is a general desire to promote collective transport as an
alternative to individual travel at the level of national policy. That
implies that there is a certain minimum level of information that is
accepted as being provided for free. However, others felt that because
congestion is so prevalent in urban areas this is a rather weak
criterion to define situations in which the public authority might wish
to pay for ATIS services.

There was no agreement on whether or not kiosk services for collective
transport services can be charged for and, if so, whether this might
alienate customers from public transport. One view is that public
transport information should be an integral part of marketing public
transport, thus the situation is different from road traffic where
nobody has to go out of his/her way to sell private car transport.

## [Services provided by the market]{.underline}

Current experience in both Europe and the US suggests that the size of
the market for commercially operated ATIS information systems is still
uncertain. Presumably this is because the utility of the information to
individual users is not at present widely perceived nor sufficiently
valued.

It is suggested that there will always be a percentage of the market
that will pay for information that is also available for free through
other channels. This is due to the perceived level of quality or
convenience being greater from the individual's point of view --
timeliness, accuracy and relevance being well established metrics for
information quality. Others will use lowest price as the main
distinction and will perhaps put up with less good information as a
result.

Four factors have been identified which could form the criteria for an
ATIS market -- very high regional congestion, high quality and coverage
of traffic information, the pattern of the road network (with
alternative routes), and the characteristics of the individual users.
These criteria can apply to collective public services but they apply
equally well to anticipate the value of personalized ATIS services
targeted at the individual user.

######### Additional Work

The ITS movement has been worldwide since its beginning in the 1980s.
There had been many international exchanges as well as marketing
activities in the ITS arena before the ATLANTIC Project was established.
Naturally there were questions raised as to what value ATLANTIC could
add to the existing international activities in the US ITS circle. Thus,
within the ATIS subtask, additional work was done, beyond its core
mission to perform comparative analysis, to explore how ATLANTIC might
add value to the on-going activities, between the ITS World Congresses
as well as during the 9^th^ ITS World Congress held in Chicago. This
section will report on some of these additional work elements.

**[INFOstructure Discussion]{.underline}**

The discussion was initiated as a result of the USDOT\'s declared
interest in developing the INFOstructure to help meet the information
needs for operating the surface transportation system. Extensive
consultation within the US was being conducted within ITS America and
through a number of special sessions and workshops sponsored by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB). The additional work element within
the ATLANTIC/ ATIS group was to solicit international inputs (from
Europe and Canada) to the INFOstructure discussion.

The proposed national roadway information infrastructure \"The Roadway
INFOstructure\" is intended to have a pivotal role in:

-   Meeting public expectations for 21st century transportation

-   Addressing transportation-related homeland security needs

-   Addressing the growing problem of congestion

-   Supporting improved response to weather events

-   Facilitating national and regional traveler information

To facilitate the discussion the following questions were posed:

-   How the Roadway INFOstructure should be developed and operated

-   Data ownership and privacy

-   Addressing ITS data needs through the INFOstructure

-   Addressing transportation security needs through the INFOstructure

-   Performance and information security requirements

-   Technical, institutional, and policy challenges

Several responses/comments were received related to:

-   Concern about mixing security objectives with other objectives
    (congestion, weather, etc.), because the decision theories are
    distinctly different (playing against adversaries versus playing
    against nature) and should be approached differently.

-   Taking advantage of the heightened interest in safety and security
    to accelerate efforts to really define the business processes we
    support in converting public expenditure on transportation into
    value.

-   Comparing the analogies between the UK TCC (US\$250 million) project
    and the US INFOstructure initiative. The value of the TCC approach
    lies in its avoiding to going straight for one particular design
    solution without first considering in depth what the project is
    trying to achieve and the trade-offs between performance, risk and
    price.

-   Recommendation that one needs measures of cost-benefit and
    cost-effectiveness to guide public investment decisions.

-   In Ontario, Canada two levels of surveillance have been developed --
    a full system and a light infrastructure system for less busy
    sections of highway. There is a need to keep "light infrastructure"
    equipment in storage to be deployed on short notice in areas where
    they are needed.

-   Examples of private data sources in UK:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Point-to-point vehicle license-plate tracking is used by
    TrafficMaster to derive landmark A -\> landmark B journey times.
    Automatic Number-plate Readers are used to time the vehicle at
    points A and B.

-   Another UK company, IT IS, has contracts with the operators of a
    national truck fleet and a long-distance express coach fleet to
    gather \"floating car\" journey time data in real time across
    Britain (and historical data across mainland Europe).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The public benefit and utility of the INFOstructure facility should
    be reasonably high compared with the costs of providing that
    facility.

The above questions and proceedings have been presented by the
discussion leader Pierre Pretorius during a special session at the 9^th^
ITS World Congress in Chicago.

**[Privately Run ATIS Services]{.underline}**

The US ATIS Update Report included ten case studies, all of which were
public/private partnerships. The new European ATIS case studies still
being undertaken intended to include privately run ATIS services as well
as public/private partnerships. For the sake of future comparison, the
US ATIS group agreed to collect information about privately run ATIS
services in the US on a voluntary basis. Nine US privately run services
were nominated for such information collection. In order to facilitate
comparative analysis, to be conducted in the future if not within the
pilot year, a common questionnaire was developed jointly between the
European and US ATIS participants. Unfortunately, two of the US
privately run ATIS services (Comworxx and Wingcast) went of business or
were merged with other companies. Other nominated services did not come
forth with the information in the common format as originally promised.
At the end, thanks to John Cox who is a member of the ATIS group, TANN
was the only US privately run ATIS service that filled out the
questionnaire as shown in Appendix H. The problem with getting
information from other privately run services was probably a combination
of reluctance to reveal potentially proprietary information and the
extremely poor business climate in 2001-02, which had unanticipated and
tremendously negative impacts on the high-tech industry, including many
of the private firms in the ATIS business.

On the other hand, the European effort to use the common questionnaire
to collect information for ATIS case studies, under the e-Europe
Program, has continued under the direction of Siegfried Rupprecht. A
progress report on this European effort was given in Rupprecht's
presentation in a special session at the 9^th^ ITS World Congress in
Chicago. A composite report on the privately-run ATIS services in the US
was given in the same special session by Larry Sweeney as well, as will
be described in the next subsection.

**[The 9^th^ ITS World Congress]{.underline}**

Beginning around the middle of the pilot year, the ATIS group decided to
propose and plan for a special session on "Benchmarking ATIS Activities
in Europe and North America" for the 9^th^ ITS World Congress to be held
in Chicago with the following session description:

> *Presentations and panel discussion based on one-year interactions
> among key people in Europe, Canada, and USA related to research and
> deployment of advanced traveler information systems (ATIS). Topics
> include business models used in private initiatives and public/private
> partnerships, infostructure investments, and preparation for
> third-generation (3G) mobile telecommunications. (The one-year
> interactions have taken place within the ATLANTIC Project supported by
> European Commission, ITS Joint Program Office, and Canadian government
> agencies.)*

Planning for the special session helped the ATIS group to focus its
work. The original plan was based on the assumption that the description
of the entire ATLANTIC Project would be presented in another session in
the Chicago World Congress. When it became clear that there was no other
program space given to the ATLANTIC Project, the special session,
moderated by Bob Rupert, was rearranged to begin with presentations
about the entire Project (by John Miles) and the US participation in the
Project for the pilot yea (by Chelsea C. White, III). The subsequent
presentations described the results of the ATIS work elements, including
the ATIS comparative analysis (by Kan Chen), the European and Canadian
ATIS activities (by John Miles and Bill Johnson, respectively), interim
results of the European case studies (by Siegfried Rupprecht), the
INFOstructure discussion (by Pierre Pretorius), and the private sector
view (by Larry Sweeney). Slides for all the presentations may be found
in Appendix I.[^4]

######### Conclusions

The core objective of making a comparative analysis of ATIS practices,
including business models, between Europe and North America has been met
during the pilot year of US participation in the ATLANTIC Project. To
demonstrate how the ATLANTIC Project could add value to existing ATIS
activities, additional work has also been conducted on INFOstructure
discussion, collecting information about privately run ATIS services,
and organizing a special session on ATIS for the 9^th^ ITS World
Congress in Chicago. Toward the end of the ATIS subtask, 17 US experts
were involved in international exchange with a group of ATIS experts of
comparable size from Europe and Canada. Their names are listed below.

[US ATIS Participants]{.underline} (17)

Bishop, Dick Richard Bishop Consulting

Chen, Kan University of Michigan (Emeritus)

Cox, John TANN

Lappin, Jane Volpe Center

Markowitz, Joel Metropolitan Transportation Commission

McQueen, Bob PBS&J

Perley, Scott Mobility Technologies

Pretorius, Pierre Kimley-Horn

Pritchard, Bob TrafficCast

Roberts, D. Craig PBS&J

Rupert, Bob Federal Highway Administration

Schaffnit, Tom Schaffnit Consulting

Schuman, Richard S. PBS&J

Sherer, Eli PBS&J

Sweeney, Larry Tele Atlas

Wollenberg, Steve MobileAria

Zimmerman, Carol Battelle

##### Non-US ATIS Participants (19)

Allouche, Jean Francois Syndicat des Transports d'Ile de France

Atkinson, Lesley Ankerbold International (UK)

Austin, John Austin Analytics (UK)

Boelen, Alexander CMG (Netherlands)

Dolger, Reiner Regional Government of Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany)

Frigon, Paul PSR Group (Canada)

Harris, Richard FaberMaunsell Ltd (UK)

Hayward, Mike Carl Bro Group Ltd

Henriques, Carlota European participant

Johnson, Bill Consultant (Canada)

Kamnitzer, David IBI Group (Canada and UK)

Libbrecht, Robert ERTRALCO (Belgium)

Maes, Willy European Commission

Miles, John Ankerbold International (UK)

Perry, Mark WSP Group (Europe)

Rupprecht, Siegfried Rupprecht Consult (Germany)

Sinisalo, Kimmo Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (Finland)

Walker, Janet Ankerbold International (UK)

Wolfram, Marc Rupprecht Consult (Germany)

The results of comparative analysis indicate that there are more
similarities than differences between ATIS practices and business models
in Europe and North America. Among the more prominent
[similarities]{.underline} are:

> *Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information
> value chain for delivery of ATIS services.*
>
> *Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been
> proven to be viable.*
>
> *The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are the
> same in both continents.*
>
> *Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of
> specific information services they wish to provide.*

Among the more prominent [differences]{.underline} are:

> *Compared to Europe, North American ATIS services put much greater
> emphasis on integration of traffic information across jurisdictions
> than across modes (e.g., between mass transit and automobile
> traffic).*
>
> *The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North
> America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and
> demography.*

Each of the above statements needs to be qualified to avoid the risk of
oversimplification, as discussed in detail within the report.

One might argue that the accomplishments of the ATIS group cannot be
considered outstanding since the number of experts could have been
greater and their interactions through electronic communications could
have been deeper and more frequent -- especially if the web-enabled
dialog tools had been user-friendlier from the beginning of the pilot
year. However, the ATLANTIC website went through several stages of
improvement so that, at the later stage of the pilot year, the ATIS
group was able to take advantage of the e-dialog on the website to carry
out effectively the follow-up discussion on five of the remaining ATIS
issues. Overall, the ATIS group experience has demonstrated the
feasibility and desirability of developing and maintaining international
exchanges through electronic communications, and the results of the
comparative analysis have certainly added to the ATIS knowledge base.
The extra work of receiving European and Canadian comments on the US
initiative on INFOstructure, and the contribution by the ATIS group
(both its US and non-US members) to the 9^th^ ITS World Congress have
been valuable and appreciated.

The lessons learned through the ATIS group interaction experience are
also valuable. One lesson learned is that the methodology for electronic
discussions needs to be flexible, depending on the group members'
available time, interest in the topic, and their experience in various
modes of electronic communications. In the case of ATIS comparative
analysis, the following 8-step process was used as the methodology:

1.  Began with US ATIS Update Report

2.  Obtained comments from Canada & Europe

3.  Elicited statements on similarities and differences

4.  Conducted questionnaire survey

5.  Analyzed level of agreement and standard deviation on responses to
    each statement

6.  Summarized survey results for comments

7.  Conducted follow-up e-discussions on web

8.  Issue and distribute (this) final report

This methodology was not pre-determined but was adaptive to several
factors as time went on: (1) the existence of the US ATIS Update Report,
(2) the lack of response to general calls for responses to comments
received from Canada & Europe, (3) the initial lack of group members'
interest to participate in e-discussion on the not-so-user-friendly web
at the early stage, and (4) the need to coax all ATIS members to
register as users of the much improved ATLANTIC web at the later stage.
Several steps and sub-steps had to be improvised to meet the challenges.

The lessons learned from the ATIS group experience can be generalized in
terms of five essential factors for success in any future sustainable
international exchanges through electronic communications:

1.  Dedicated leadership

2.  Participants' experience in electronic discussions

3.  User-friendly web-enabled e-dialog tools

4.  Judicious combination of web-based e-dialog, e-mail, telephone
    discussions and face-to-face meetings

5.  Central funding for the secretariat (combination of leader,
    moderator and rapporteur functions)

Note that, for the pilot year of US participation in ATIS international
exchanges, the most important mode of electronic communications has been
group e-mail. For the record, the 12 group e-mail messages are shown in
Appendix K in this report.

The central funding for the US leadership of the ATIS group is expiring
at the end of October 2002. Fortunately, the funding for the Canadian
participation in the ATLANTIC Project has just begun. With the
understanding of both the European and Canadian leaders in the Project,
Bill Johnson and Paul Frigon of Canada will assume the North American
leadership of the ATIS group after October 2002. It is hoped that all
the current US ATIS members (and additional ones in the future) will
continue their voluntary participation in the international exchanges in
ATIS. The author of this report will certainly continue his
participation in the ATIS group on a voluntary basis. It is also hoped
that, with the expected overhaul of the ATLANTIC Project website, and
possible development of comparable websites in Canada, US and other
parts of the world, there will be an effective and global confederation
of websites to stimulate and facilitate future international exchanges
in research and education, including ATIS.

**Appendix A**

**Summary of US ATIS Update Report**

### Rick Schuman and Eli Sherer

**(ATIS U.S. Business Models Review)**

***Summary and Recommendations***

### November 2001

In summary, it appears that we can infer a number of items from the
literature review and the interviews:

-   *Public funding or facilities, especially with regard to data
    collection, is essential to a successful ATIS implementation.* Any
    initiative that increases the availability of quality data should be
    a national priority.

-   *The public sector may have the opportunity to sell its own wares,
    as long as the data being sold is of sufficient quality and is on a
    level that the private sector cannot gather similar data on their
    own.* However, the value of such data is likely to be relatively low
    at present and for the foreseeable future. Any region looking to
    obtain private sector revenue substantial enough to support its ITS
    investments is setting itself up for failure.

-   *Revenue generation from ATIS services, both wholesale and to the
    individual, has not proven successfully that this revenue can wholly
    support an ATIS service.* There may be new models and new ventures
    determined to prove this model viable, but they are unproven at this
    time.

-   *If there are specific traveler information services public agencies
    in a region or state wish to provide to their traveling public, they
    should be prepared to underwrite most or all of the cost.* While it
    may be possible to have such services provided for free as part of a
    partnership model, the experiences indicate that as often as not,
    these services do not evolve to the level of quality and use desired
    by the public sector unless they are either operated in-house or
    contracted on a "fee for service" basis.

Finally, the authors of this report recommend that ITS America's ATIS
Committee develop a process for regularly revisiting ATIS business
models on a regular basis. In particular, it would be highly beneficial
to the community if every region known to have an ATIS model is
documented an updated on a regular basis. As described earlier, 25 areas
were identified as targets for updates, but only 10 could be completed
as part of this study.

### 

### 

**Appendix B**

**European Comments on US ATIS Update Report**

### 

### John Austin, Janet Walker, and John Miles

### March 4, 2002

######### Introduction

This review of the document *ATIS U.S. Business Models Review*[^5] is
written from a European perspective and is provided for use by members
of the ATLANTIC forum (Telematics-based Traffic and Travel Information
(TTI) services). It aims to investigate what lessons can be drawn for
Europe from the US experience, and to offer examples of European
projects in this field to aid US practitioners[^6]. It is being placed
on the ATLANTIC website for use by members of this forum and is arranged
in the following sections.

1.  **Justification / Priorities for ATIS in the US**

2.  **Organizational / Governmental and Business Structural Factors and
    Impacts**

3.  **Socio-economic factors (Land-use planning / population spread /
    cultural determinants impacting on spending priorities)**

4.  **Business contract issues**

5.  **Data Collection issues**

6.  **Data Fusion issues**

7.  **Issues of Data Repackaging / Transforming**

8.  **Incorporation of Transit Data: Multimodal Travel Information and
    Integrated Multimodal Travel Information**

9.  **Customer Preferences and Priorities: Market for Data
    Dissemination**

10. **Consumer Attitudes / Evaluation and willingness to pay**

11. **Examples of cross-Atlantic companies offering ATIS services**

12. **Effect of Public Sector support on Business success**

13. **Policy Recommendations**

14. **Conclusions**

The report includes a number of hypertext links direct to documents on
the Web. These documents are not yet available on the ATLANTIC website
itself.

**1 Justification / Priorities for ATIS in the US**

The justification and priorities for ATIS in the US seem to differ
somewhat from those in Europe. This affects the mix of ATIS projects
receiving investment in the two areas.

In general terms, Europeans are not as reliant on the car as Americans.
In Europe there is widespread use and support of public transport and
multimodal public transport. The US does not have the level of modal
integration found in Europe. Indeed, we infer that continued,
coordinated investment in transit ITS applications is generally a low
political priority because to make it otherwise would challenge a
prevailing political and social consensus (see Section 3 below).

Another relevant factor is that many European cities are much older than
their US counterparts and consequently there is a stronger commitment in
Europe to protect cities from traffic-induced cultural damage.

So in Europe the emphasis on intermodality is clear, starting with [The
Citizens\'
Network[^7]](http://europa.eu.int/en/record/green/gp9601/ind_cit.htm),
which argued that car use actually contributes in many urban areas to a
loss of mobility, through more pollution, accidents and congestion. It
emphasized that R&D priorities (including those in the areas of ITS)
should be aligned with user needs and as part of that there had to be a
strategy for increasing the use of public passenger transport. Alongside
the publication of The Citizens\' Network was the European Commission\'s
[Transport
Intermodality](http://www.cordis.lu/transport/src/taskforce/home.html)
task force, which aimed to contribute to the development of technologies
and systems which improve intermodal transport operations. More
recently, the European Commission has just produced its White Paper
[\'European Transport policy for 2010: time to
decide\'[^8]](http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lb_en.html),
which states that "journeys have to be thought of as continuous, which
means land-use and town-planning policies will play a vital role. The
main, metro, train and bus stations should be geared towards exchanges
between the car and public transport, \...\...., and so encourage the
use of public transport, which causes less pollution."[^9] There is an
implicit recognition here that for many journeys it is not practical or
desirable to use the car for the complete length of a journey.

Increasing safety and allowing increases in speed are still very
important for Europe, and the former is particularly important for
raising the level of Europe\'s competitiveness. However, they are far
from being the only issues.

**2 Organizational / Governmental and Business Structural Factors and
Impacts**

## 

## **2.1 Europe**

Increasingly, traffic management in Europe is having to be carried out
at a European scale -- in France during peak holiday periods, about one
third of cars are foreign. Traffic on Europe's roads is increasingly
being managed by a growing number of national, regional and local
traffic centers whose operators speak more than 20 languages.
Cross-border traffic is growing faster than national traffic in many
cases, and interoperable data exchange is therefore a prerequisite for
almost all ITS services. Thus European systems need to become
compatible, transferable and interoperable -- this would make things
easier for consumers and also expand the market for services and
products.

Within Europe there is considerable diversity amongst countries in the
basic institutional and legal frameworks related to transport,
particularly in the roles of the road and police authorities and in the
involvement of the private sector. Setting a framework of rules and
guidance, and removing institutional barriers to new patterns of service
is seen as one of the key roles that the public sector has to assume,
given its concern with safety, protecting natural resources and securing
efficient mobility.

In order to stimulate the deployment of road transport telematics within
Europe the European Commission has recently launched a [\'Recommendation
on the development of a legal and business framework for the
participation of the private sector in deploying TTI services in
Europe\'](http://www.etsi.org/public-interest/Documents/policy documents/Transport/TTI_2001_551_EC.pdf).
It forms the principal reference for the description of the national
context and singular services, in particular concerning the following
key tasks for TTI service deployment: [^10]

-   Provide and disseminate a regulatory framework for TTI services

-   Adopt principles for the access to public traffic data, the exchange
    of public and private data and the interconnection of transport
    databases (inter-administrative)

-   Regulate the usage and requirements of proprietary traffic and
    travel data

-   Ensure observance of road infrastructure hierarchies and traffic
    management strategies

-   Create an enabling framework for public-private partnerships

-   Facilitate TTI services and reduce constraints

This recommendation encourages European countries to take a harmonized
approach to trans-European telematics-based traffic and travel
information services. It encourages the public sector to take full
advantage of data and information sources that are available through
public authorities in order to secure economy (and reliability) of
supply, which are necessary for the widespread deployment of TTI
services. Although there are widespread differences in approach between
countries, particularly regarding the level of public-private sector
involvement in telematics services, they all have the basic requirement
that the information chain must be complete in order to be able to
deliver the service.

Recognizing the need to stimulate the provision of high-quality travel
information across Europe, the European Union (EU) has also been
pro-active in integrating different approaches for the exchange of
traffic and travel data/information into an interoperable solution that
is known as the [DATEX-Net
specifications](http://www.cordis.lu/telematics/tap_transport/library/converge_dac2.2.html).
The relevant [Memorandum of
Understanding](http://www.tmcforum.com/technic/compendi/alertdes/document/finalmou.pdf)
provides the basis for cooperation between authorities on information
exchange, and between the private and public sectors.

## **2.2 US**

By contrast it appears that the present organization of the public
sector can pose significant barriers to the delivery of ATI services in
the US. The fact that both state and union have transport departments
can create a tension between federal and state priorities.
Responsibility for transport may be divided between a number of
politically separate agencies that are competing for public funds: this
can lead to an adversarial culture. Examples of the different types of
transportation agency below the level of the state include county
Department of Transport, City Department of Transport, separate highways
agencies for tolled and non-tolled roads, and multiple levels of transit
agency for regions and cities within those regions). However, in Europe
this structure is comparatively rare. Indeed where different agencies
exist they may be required by law to work together on certain tasks. In
the UK local metropolitan district highways agencies are required to
work with metropolitan transit authorities (PTAs: Passenger Transport
Authorities) to produce area five-year Local Transport Plans.

The difficulties in inter-agency cooperation necessary for ATIS
introduction in the US are implicitly recognized by the fact that
overcoming them is seen as a mark of success. For instance, the Georgia
Navigator website[^11] states that \"What sets Georgia\'s system apart
from other transportation management networks around the country is the
high level of inter-agency integration it has achieved\".

Another complication arises through geography, where several significant
urban areas (and therefore potential areas for ATIS) cross state lines.
Examples include New York / Newark (NY / NJ), greater Chicago (Illinois
/ Indiana), greater Washington (D.C / Maryland / Virginia), Kansas City
(Kansas / Missouri) and St Louis (Missouri / Illinois). In Europe the
crossing of state lines by travel-to-work areas is perhaps less common,
but the fact that cross-border travel is growing substantially has
increased the rationale and pressure for European-wide compatibility and
solutions.

Although the unification of traveler information services in the US
requires the cooperation of numerous organizations, there may be no
incentive or business case for cooperation, while sometimes there may be
an actual disincentive to cooperate. The implication of this is that
different data collection methods may be in operation. Another
consequence of the difficulties of inter-agency cooperation may be that
it can be easier to solve problems through technological solutions, made
possible as federal or other government funding becomes available,
rather than through ensuring inter-agency partnership.

The building of effective business relationships may also be constrained
by the motivation of public agencies that can be less to grow their
income in order to finance future investment than to preserve what has
been funded by tax dollars. This would particularly be the case if the
financial structure of the public authority allowed no link between
departmental revenue and benefit to that department. The report on the
ATI system in the Boston Metropolitan Area (in Appendix A of the US ATIS
update report) seems to support this view. However, a culture of
preservation and safeguarding what has already been spent could result
in a tendency to avoid innovation and to be wary of business
relationships with the private sector.

For the delivery of transit or multimodal ATI systems the use of
different data systems means that integration of information focuses
upon integrating multiple data sources for a single mode, rather than
the integration of information about multiple modes into a single
information source. Urban transit services rely heavily on public funds
and can therefore change significantly at quite short notice due to
changes in political control and changes in tax funding. Therefore it
may not seem worthwhile to produce integrated transit and road traffic
information.

# 3 Socio-economic Factors (Land-use planning / population spread / cultural determinants impacting on spending priorities)

There are several socio-economic factors which impact on the success and
characteristics of ATI systems and which are different as between the US
and Europe.

Firstly, in the US the car culture is firmly embedded. Because of
land-use patterns, ownership and access to a car is necessary in nearly
every part of the US, since transit is non-existent or very infrequent.
Also, normal travel distances tend to be much longer than in Europe,
and, partly as a result of both of these factors, car ownership and the
freedom that it gives is seen as a fundamental right.

Secondly, bus transit services are viewed as the transport mode of the
poor, whilst suburban rail transit services may be slow and sometimes
infrequent, particularly if the tracks are shared with freight services.
This therefore means that there are formidable social barriers to the
provision of public transport information and this makes it hard for
politicians to challenge the car culture by investing in ATI systems
that provide both transit and traffic information.

The older settlement pattern in Europe, and the lack of availability of
land for expansion means that, despite the personal freedom and benefits
that car travel brings, there is a growing recognition that
intermodality between private and public modes has to increase (see
Section 1 above).

# 4 Business Contract Issues

## 

## **4.1 Europe**

At the start of the information chain, many European countries are
developing business frameworks for the supply and use of public data and
information sources, contracts for deployment of privately operated
traffic monitoring equipment on the highway, and guidelines for the
design and installation of private traffic monitoring units.

In the Ile-de-France the "Agence de Presse" model has been developed.
The Agence de Presse acts as wholesaler of traffic information to
private sector providers such as Skipper and Mediamobile. Bilateral
contracts between each information producer and service operator define
the specifications to be respected and a moderate tariff.

### 4.1.1 Public-Private Partnership and Use of Private Finance: The Highways Agency Traffic Control Centre (TCC) Project -- UK

In England the Highways Agency is responsible for the maintenance and
operation of strategic highways. A new national traffic management and
information system has been procured through private finance and is due
to be operational by 2004. The TCC project objectives are achieved
through the promotion of information services, in part operated by the
concession-holder on behalf of the Agency, with payment on a
service-output basis, and in part data and information services supplied
on a fully commercial basis. Specific objectives of the project are to:

-   Improve Journey Time Reliability;

-   Reduce Disruption Caused by Major Incidents;

-   Provide Alternative Route Advice to Minimize the Effect of
    Congestion and Incidents;

-   Minimize Delays Due to Roadworks;

-   Influence Pre-trip Decisions on Route, Time and Mode by Providing
    Reliable and Accurate Information

A private finance contract was chosen because of the relative success of
PFI contracts in the UK road-building sector. The PFI contract provides
the opportunity for some risk transfer from the public to the private
sector, and also to develop services with a strong customer focus. The
TCC contract is intended to be a vehicle to exploit commercial value of
Highways Agency data and encourage growth of a market in Value-Added
Service Providers (VASPs).

A 10-year concession has been negotiated between the Agency and the TCC
consortium. What is especially interesting is the way the contract is
structured around service output requirements. This leaves the
consortium free to adopt any cost-effective system design that would
meet the specification.

The services are grouped into 5 main categories (see diagram), of which
Group A Collection of Network and Traffic Information and Group C
Provision of Public Information Services are central to the delivery of
information services. The second diagram shows the conceptual basis for
the information services.

![](media/image1.png){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="2.995833333333333in"}

![](media/image2.png){width="5.996527777777778in"
height="4.071527777777778in"}

Specific data collection requirements for the TCC to secure (on a
service charged basis) are:

-   Network Description

-   Roadworks Information

-   Planned Events

-   Unplanned Events

-   Traffic Monitoring

The public information services that the Agency requires are:

-   Information on VMS at the roadside

-   Internet and Telephone Service

-   Information via the Media (national and local radio stations, TV,
    press)

However, the TCC consortium also has the opportunity to service
commercial information services through contract "rights" to exploit the
TCC data, under certain conditions:

-   The contract sets down a requirement to make "raw" as well as
    "processed" data available;

-   The TCC has to operate a "level playing field" i.e. offer comparable
    contract terms to any Value-Added Service Provider who wants data
    services;

-   Charging has to be on a cost-oriented basis;

-   There is revenue sharing with the agency in the event of the TCC
    consortium; making excess profits from their commercial data
    services.

The wider issues raised by this project, for discussion in the ATLANTIC
forum, are:

-   Why should a public sector agency encourage the development of
    Value-Added Services?

-   What are the benefits of doing so?

-   Does the English TCC project provide a good model?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The TCC project suggests a two-tiered market for information
    services: "public" information and commercial services, but where is
    the line between "public" and "commercial" information?

-   Is more information always desirable?

-   What balance should be struck between multi-modal and road based
    information?

-   How can the management of travel information for the urban network
    be integrated with inter-urban travel choices? (Is this of more
    significance for the European conurbations than in North America?)

## **4.2 US**

According to the US ATIS Update Report there appears to be low
profitability for the private sector through participating in ATI
systems. It is conceivable that the amount of complexity involved in
negotiating agreements and in obtaining robust data means that the
private sector\'s business case for involvement is weak.

In Europe it seems that value-added comes through multiple deals with
agencies in different sectors (including intermodality, which is largely
not an issue in the US), and through establishment of a single data
source for the base traffic / real-time data to provide a one-stop shop.
In the US this appears not to be possible because there is not one
single-source of traffic data. Also if the right to drive freely is seen
as a \"fundamental human right\" then there will be a belief that
information to assist this should not be charged for. So consumers will
be reluctant to pay directly for travel information.

# 5 Data Collection Issues

In Europe there is a growing recognition that high quality data is an
essential prerequisite for the development of travel information
systems. Generally the recognized role of the public sector is to ensure
the provision of better information so that the traveling public can
make better informed choices about whether or not to travel, when to
travel, and which mode and route to take.

Within Europe most traffic information is collected by public road
authorities and their agents as an essential part of traffic management
and control. Some have invested heavily in traffic monitoring equipment,
installing loop detectors and other sensors. Increasingly probe vehicles
are being utilized to provide traffic data, often involving commercial
interests. In France and the Netherlands traffic monitoring on public
highways (not toll roads) is solely the responsibility of the owners and
operators of the road infrastructure. This is not the case in Germany
and the UK where agreements are in place for the private sector to
install independently operated detection and monitoring sites. For fixed
infrastructure-based data collection there are four alternative
organizational models in Europe:

-   An exclusively publicly funded and managed operation which is
    available to any service provider on equal terms (French "Agence de
    Presse" or Dutch National Traffic Information Centre); or

-   An arrangement with the private sector to operate
    infrastructure-based data collection but with an obligation to make
    it available to any service provider on equal terms (DDG Germany);
    or

-   A completely private and commercial operation where data collection
    is done by the private sector exclusively for its own operations
    (Toll road operators in France or Trafficmaster in the UK); or

-   A partnership between the public and private sectors brings together
    data sources from both sides.

# 6 Data Fusion Issues

Processing raw data to produce useful and marketable information is a
key step in the information chain. In some European countries (e.g.
France and the Netherlands) the business of processing information
content from public data sources is retained under public sector
control. Service providers may take these official feeds along with
their own independent data sources to develop the information content
for their products. In Germany the joint venture company DDG supplies
raw data to two competing service providers -- Tegaron and Mannesman
Autocom. The two partners therefore collaborate on data collection but
compete in the market on their information supply and product ranges.

In the UK Trafficmaster is entirely privately financed and has gradually
extended its span of operation. The Trafficmaster operation covers the
entire information chain, from data collection, through to information
dissemination to the end-users. The company has clear entitlements to
install its own traffic monitoring equipment on motorway overbridges
under the licenses granted by government. Control of the entire
information chain means that Trafficmaster can direct all aspects of its
operation including coverage (both in time and space), reliability and,
more importantly its own costs.

In the US, by contrast, it appears that there are many formats in which
traffic and transit data are currently collected and provided. Technical
protocols for data differ across organizations. Individual websites can
often not interrogate other web sites to provide integrated information
because the information is written in a different language or is written
in HTML. It seems to be recognized that the lack of data standards is a
key barrier to the integration of data.

In Europe the largely coordinated approach to traffic and travel data
appears to have resulted in the establishment of a robust value chain
and the identification by key players of profitable positioning points
within that value chain. For instance, Webraska, now an important
worldwide provider of location-based services and telematics software
solutions, was able to establish itself by opening new markets through
integrating mobility, Internet technology and navigation. The existence
of coordinated and compatible data relating to travel meant that there
was a profitable opportunity for car manufacturers to nurture their
relationship with their customers beyond vehicle purchase by providing
map-based traffic and travel information while on the move; and Webraska
was able to provide them with the means to do this. Because the raw data
exists in a suitable format, Webraska can supply its clients with
integrated, platform-ready datasets created from data on digital maps,
real-time traffic and public transport networks sourced from other
suppliers.

A limited parallel can be drawn between car traffic and travel
information services in the US and the Traveline public transport
(transit) information service in the UK. Both involve multiple data
sources, sometimes with data structures that may be difficult to
integrate or data definitions that involve compatibility problems.
However, the initiative for the Traveline service has come from central
government, national standards are being devised, larger
service-provider groupings are beginning to emerge, and increasingly
partnerships are being formalized (e.g. limited companies are being set
up to deliver regional services). Traveline is effectively a precursor
of Transport Direct (see Section 8A). And a number of UK data standards
and consistent databases are being devised, including
[TransXchange](http://www.transxchange.dtlr.gov.uk/) for transferring
transit data, [JourneyWeb](http://www.journeyweb.org/) for allowing one
transit travel-information enquiry system to interrogate another, and a
national database of bus stops. At a European level there is the
[Transmodel](http://www.transmodel.org/en/cadre1.html) data structure,
whilst [EU-Spirit](http://www.eu-spirit.org/) is an enquiry protocol
similar to the UK\'s JourneyWeb.

# 7 Issues of Data Repackaging / Transforming

In Paris, Mediamobile provides a commercial traffic information
service - Visionaute is a graphical display that provides travel time
estimates and route selection to motorists in Paris. Real-time
information is collected from various sources, and gathered and
broadcast to in-vehicle terminals, which then present the data according
to the trip selection made by the driver. The successful launch of these
services in part reflects the lengthy discussions that have taken place
between public and private partners to determine the legal and
contractual framework under which these services may operate. Much of
the data comes from a taxi company.

Several of the French autoroute companies are undertaking pilot trials
forecasting travel time to users. Some are using an expert system that
also simulates how congestion will build up.

RDS-TMC important is now becoming available in Europe. The first
commercial RDS-TMC service in the UK ([ITIS\'s Traffic Message
Channel](http://www.itis.uk.com/)) uses data from a growing variety of
reliable sources and this data is integrated with the car itself. ITIS
uses both data from the Trafficlink network of journalists and
helicopter sources and also "floating car data" obtained, through
exclusive deals, from the major scheduled inter-city bus ("coach")
operator National Express Ltd, (akin to Greyhound but with a much more
intensive service on some inter-city routes) and Eddie Stobart Ltd., a
major hauler company.

ITIS has developed a range of location-based services for delivery in
conjunction with an in-vehicle GPS/GSM data collection unit. One example
is TrafficWatch, a proactive traffic alert system that uses the
Telematics Unit to establish and track a customer\'s position. Users are
then informed via their mobile phone of any significant traffic problems
ahead of them as and when they occur. If the driver deviates from the
suggested route, the system is sophisticated enough to automatically
recalculate the journey using the new route, advising the driver of the
traffic conditions ahead on this route.

Such services can be branded for ITIS\'s own business customers.

[Trafficlink](http://www.trafficlink.co.uk/) is another provider of
travel information services, serving a relatively small, tightly
populated area (i.e. the UK) over which it is possible for journalists
to gather data. Trafficlink was launched in 1995 and now has over 60% of
the radio broadcasting market and also delivers to other industry
sectors. It has a large team of traffic analysts with extensive
experience in collating, interpreting and understanding transport data.
They use sources as diverse as the emergency services, road traffic
monitoring cameras and urban CCTV cameras, taxi, courier, utility and
public transport companies. With around 25 million weekly listeners to
their traffic bulletins on client radio stations, they also learn of a
considerable number of incidents from calls to their \"jamlines\".

In the UK traffic congestion is a problem in many areas at certain times
of the day. In the US it appears to be a problem only in certain areas
(cities). So in the UK global solutions can work as the country is small
enough for suppliers to be able to manage them.

[Trafficmaster](http://www.trafficmaster.co.uk/products.cfm?key=network)
is another UK-based service, covering over 8,000 miles of motorway and
trunk roads in England, Scotland and Wales. Trafficmaster\'s real-time
traffic information service is derived from data supplied by a network
of fixed infra-red sensors mounted on overbridges (motorways) and
Passive Target Flow Measurement "blue pole" cameras at the roadside
(trunk roads). Traffic information data is further augmented through
access to the RAC and several other incident databases, which supply
additional information where appropriate to each Trafficmaster service.
The Trafficmaster UK network is now claimed to be complete except for
minor additions or amendments as new roads are built or reconstructed.

# 8 Incorporation of Transit Data: Multimodal Travel Information and Integrated Multimodal Travel Information

In the UK, [Transport Direct](http://www.detr.gov.uk/itwp/transdirect)
is a recent Governmental initiative to provide a travel information
service that can present the public with the opportunity to compare
travel options across private and public transport modes.

Underpinning this work are UK initiatives like the [Travel Information
Highway](http://www.tih.org.uk/), which is a mechanism for the exchange
of travel data in near real-time for all forms of travel using a common
framework over the Internet. The TIH operates across jurisdictional
boundaries, protects the ownership and integrity of data, caters for
legacy systems, and uses open Internet protocols.

The [Traffic Control Centre (TCC)](http://wwwhighways.gov.uk/info/tcc)
Project will provide real-time information for most of the strategic
road network. This information will be integrated with information
collected from other Government initiatives looking at other transport
modes. The TCC Project is being funded as a Private Finance Initiative,
whereby the service provider is allowed to decide how best to carry out
the required services in order to meet the performance criteria set by
the Highways Agency. The TCC Company will be paid according to the
quality of the service outputs; it may also generate additional revenue
by providing real-time information to all interested parties on a
non-discriminatory commercial basis.

# 9 Customer Preferences and Priorities: Market for Data Dissemination

Travelers are not a homogenous group and there is an incompatibility
between the needs of the traveling public as a whole and the needs of
individual travelers. Often there is public ignorance of travel
information services, particularly amongst disadvantaged groups who
might most benefit from them (e.g. lack of Internet access). Information
service providers must be proactive in raising awareness e.g.
[TheTrainLine](http://www.thetrainline.com/) in the UK.

The European Webraska Askaroute system claims to offer to any European
Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) phone user, a service to find his
way anywhere in his own language, through obtaining information on any
mode. In the UK, [Kizoom](http://www.kizoom.com/home.html) produces
services to deliver personalized information over the mobile Internet
via WAP, SMS and other relevant protocols. Its first major success was a
personalized, mobile version of Railtrack's web-based national rail
timetable.

In Holland, Travelstar provides Dutch motorists real-time traffic and
transport information on the move using RDS-TMC technology and pocket
color PCs vital for map-based applications.

The EC PROMISE program has pioneered a convenient approach to the need
for continuous traveler support by developing a range of portable
personal travel assistant terminals -- mobile phones and hand-held PCs
-- which give easy and direct access to dynamic multi-modal travel and
traffic information throughout the entire journey, using wireless data
communications. Intended for deployment Europe-wide, PROMISE aims to
help business travelers and tourists.

# 10 Consumer Attitudes / Evaluation and Willingness to Pay

Information systems that do not confine themselves solely to travel
information are likely to extend the marketability of such systems --
e.g. adding tourist information etc.

The UK's Trafficmaster service is a good example of a commercial
information service. This demonstrates that motorists are prepared to
pay for personalized in-car travel services and systems. Revenue comes
from generating sufficient subscribers, and involves increasing market
penetration in line with increased investment in systems to provide
enhanced services. Trafficmaster has built its own infrastructure for
generating data and, in contrast to multi-modal services that rely on a
partnership across organizations in terms of the information chain,
Trafficmaster has full control. Partnership is more of an issue for
selling services.

Trafficmaster is now expanding in continental Europe. Following an open
offer in 1999, Trafficmaster raised £66million to fund its European
expansion strategy. A fixed-sensor traffic information network is now in
operation across the whole autobahn network in Germany, with France and
Italy to follow. Trafficmaster believes it is important that high
quality live traffic information is available across the main markets in
Europe as car manufacturers are demanding a pan-European solution for
in-car systems. Germany is central to the company's expansion strategy,
being the largest single car market and home of the engineering
operations of the major manufacturers and to reflect this Trafficmaster
has established a new operation in Germany at Hochheim am Main near
Frankfurt.

# 11 Examples of Cross-Atlantic Companies Offering ATIS Services

Trafficmaster has recently acquired Teletrac, Inc of Vista, California
and believes that this provides a strong platform for expansion in the
US market. Trafficmaster intends to integrate its own proprietary
technologies, including fixed and mobile (probe) sensors into Teletrac's
established wireless network, to enhance the latter\'s capabilities and
provide vehicle flow monitoring to supplement its existing services.

# 12 Effect of Public Sector Support on Business Success

Those US ATI systems that are most successful, as mentioned in Section
4.0 of the US ATIS Update Report, seem to share the characteristics of
clear data management systems strongly supported by the public sector
and a strong focus from the center on pushing through the project.
However, they are also characterized by significant public sector
financial expenditure and do not necessarily involve formal agreements.
The European experience is that formal agreements are usually a
prerequisite for avoiding heavy public-sector financial support.
Europe\'s experience is also that public-sector involvement in providing
the data-structure and data-availability frameworks and the policy
framework are all vital for profitable private-sector involvement.

# 13 Policy Recommendations

Business confidence is vital to the participation of the private sector
in ATI services and systems. It is suggested that this can be assisted
by the following policy features:

-   Clear, consistent objectives and policies pursued at an
    international level (or in the case of the US, at a federal level)
    over a lengthy period, which sets the framework for development of
    ATI systems.

-   Incentives for all relevant public agencies (at whatever level) to
    participate and collaborate: these may be financial or legal.

-   The development of common technological standards and protocols in
    those areas necessary to encourage private-sector participation and
    / or necessary to bring about data compatibility and
    transferability.

# 14 Conclusions

In general terms European agencies provide a greater amount and range of
Advanced Traveler information to road users than in the US, where ATIS
systems are often seen as an extension to traffic management systems.
European countries have a greater proportion of roads "wired" than the
US, although new technologies -- such as probe cars -- should help to
address this problem.

Viable service provision needs close cooperation with all service chain
providers, both private and public. Public authorities may need to
provide substantial capital investment required to establish the systems
and associated infrastructure. Subsequently private sector operators may
be in a position to operate the service on a commercial footing --
although with an integrated system this would involve more players and
possibly greater costs.

## **14.1 Why the lack of a self-sustaining business model in the US?**

ATIS systems in the US are usually extensions of traffic management
systems rather than a more embracing concept of an independent
information infrastructure. The development and roll out of "Information
Systems and Technologies (IST)" in Europe builds on the convergence of
information processing, communications and media technologies. The aim
is to promote excellence in the technologies that are crucial to the
Information Society, to accelerate their take-up and broaden their field
of application. IST has an indicative budget of 3,600 Million Euro, and
is managed by the [Information Society
DG](http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/information_society/index_en.htm) of
the [European Commission](http://europa.eu.int/comm/index_en.htm). Thus
advanced information systems in Europe may cover several modes, tourism,
multimedia booking and payment systems, parking availability as well as
the more usual traffic data.

In view of the increase in interregional travel concerning all means of
transport in Europe, large projects on multi-modal information and
traffic management systems for Trans-European networks have played a
major role inside the European Community. A more sustainable mobility is
a key factor in prospering societies. Transport networks of all modes
have reached their capacity limits in an increasing number of critical
links and during extended peak hours. Building new transport networks
takes years, a relevant capital expenditure and hard decisions for the
environment protection.

It is inferred that these issues are not so prominent in the US and that
therefore there is not the pressure or incentive to change the
organizational environment necessary to make ATI systems a success. The
cultural, land-use and demographic conditions are also different between
Europe and the US, and these differences are reflected in the degree to
which particular actions relevant for successful implementation of ATIS
are followed.

**Appendix C**

**Canadian Comments on US ATIS Update Report**

### Paul Frigon[^12]

### May 3, 2002

**General Comments**

I think we can concur with the general summary and recommendations of
the review:

1.  Public funding is essential, especially with regard to data
    collection.

2.  Public sector should not look for private sector revenue to support
    ITS investments.

3.  Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of
    specific information services they wish to provide.

4.  The ATIS Committee of ITSA should regularly review ATIS business
    models.

Some additional observations and factors for success include:

There is a wealth of information to be mined in the Site Reports
provided in Appendix A of the US report, and perhaps there still might
be benefit in summarizing the results in a table that includes, say:
city; business model type; physical data sources (loops, CCTV,
anecdotal); dissemination method (telephone, website, PDA etc.). Such a
summary could be used in future reviews.

There is little discussion on "business models" per se. There would be
benefit in attempting to classify the types of business models that
could be used, what has been tried, successes and failures and insights
as to what might emerge. However, this is moving into the realm of
private sector business strategies and may well be a "protected domain"!

The terminology in the Canadian and US ITS Architectures might be
utilized for consistency in reporting so that there would be no
confusion, for example, when speaking of Broadcast Services vs.
Interactive Services; or when differentiating between Traffic Management
Systems and Traveler Information Systems for another.

In fact, the ITS Architecture for both Canada and USA distinguishes
between Traffic Management Services, Traveler Information Services and
Public Transit Information Services. This is a POSITIVE in that it
divorces traffic management needs from traveler information needs (each
could require different quantities and quality of data). But it is also
a NEGATIVE in that it fragments the delivery of traveler or journey
information for multi-modal travel in an intra-urban and even
inter-urban environment.

As the European review (Austin, Walker and Miles, March 2002) points
out, European governments are moving towards information services aimed
at intermodality and public transit (as required by the dense urban land
use and population patterns). However, in the USA and Canada, where the
vast majority of land use is rural in nature, there are only selected
regional areas where densities facilitate intermodal travel patterns.
These regional areas include (among others) the North East USA, Southern
California and the Greater Toronto Area. In these areas, intermodality
and public transit is as important as it is in Europe. For example:
California, through its universities and transportation agencies, has a
long term investment in public transit research with PATH, a program
that, among other things, focuses on the intermodal nature of individual
trip planning. Perhaps the next review could include some of the public
transit information services that are in use in various North American
communities such as Vancouver, British Columbia in Canada and Houston,
Texas in the USA.

Future business model reviews could perhaps be more focused and include
attempts to distinguish between business models, contractual
arrangements, implementation factors and performance factors. As well,
the criteria for success could be established. It may be that some
business models that should have been investigated further were passed
over due to failure of their implementation rather than failure of the
business model itself.

Also, there should be emphasis on market requirements/expectations and
market segmentation -- although, once again, this enters the private
sector domain -- not very many private companies would be willing to
release their market research studies.

**Appendix D**

**List of ATIS Issues Identified in a Canadian ATLANTIC Workshop**

### 

### March 6, 2002

### 

A planning workshop was conducted on the Canadian ATLANTIC Project in
Montreal on March 6, 2002. The workshop included overview presentations
by project leaders from Europe, US, as well as Canada. Breakout groups
were organized to discuss (1) overall strategy and (2) specific priority
research topics for the Canadian node within the general structure of 8
Atlantic working groups: The breakout group for Telematics-based Traffic
and Travel Information (TTI) identified the following high-priority
issues for ATIS international exchange:

-   Accessibility requirements for presentation of transport text and
    graphical information in multimodal and multimedia communications --
    compatibility with US and European Union requirements

-   Pricing policies for bundled data including traffic and other
    information

-   Driver distraction caused by display of in-vehicle display of travel
    information

-   Whether to focus on hardware technology (i.e. delivery) or on
    software technology (i.e. intelligence) or both

**Appendix E**

**Summary of US Data Sharing Report**

### Carol Zimmerman, Mala Raman, William J. Mallet and Craig Roberts

**(Sharing Data for Public Information: Practices and Policies of Public
Agencies)**

***Executive Summary***

### January 2002

As the primary source of basic data on travel conditions, public
agencies through their data sharing practices can have a powerful effect
on deployment of 511 telephone numbers and other types of traveler
information services. This report documents the current state of the
practice, describing how the public and private sectors deal with data
ownership and sharing, and examines policies aimed at facilitating data
sharing and ultimately improving the quantity and quality of information
that reaches travelers.

The report is based on information collected from two sources. Surveys
were conducted with thirty-four public agencies and seven private firms.
The surveys consisted of interviews with representatives of public and
private sector entities that are active participants in data sharing.
The 30-minute interviews included a variety of questions about data
sharing practices, such as the types of information shared, recipients
of the data, and types of conditions placed on users of the data. The
surveys were complemented with a review of the literature about data
sharing practices related to traveler information and other types of
data.

Major findings of the research are highlighted below. It should be noted
that the use of the term \"data\" in the study encompasses digital,
video, and verbal forms of information.

-   Agencies have two major objectives in sharing their data with
    private sector and other public sector recipients: improving
    transportation operations through better interagency coordination
    and optimizing the use of the transportation system by providing
    information to travelers. Enhancing interagency coordination was the
    top-ranked motive for data sharing.

-   Even though their motives are different, public and private sectors
    are active participants in use of traveler information as a
    transportation management tool. Almost all agencies directly provide
    information to the public typically with VMS, HAR, kiosks, and
    interactive voice response telephones. Although agency data are a
    fundamental source, private providers generally need to enhance
    public data before they are marketable. The most common types of
    information provided are traffic and road conditions, incident
    information, and planned construction information. Transit data are
    generally less useful to private providers, and only a third of them
    report transit delay information.

-   Agencies who have data to share protect their interests by placing
    restrictions on access to data, but firms generally do not find
    these conditions to be onerous. Two or more conditions on access are
    common, the most frequent being acknowledgement of the agency as the
    source of the data when distributed to the public.

-   Formal policies on data sharing were reported by half the surveyed
    agencies and several more have plans to issue one. The principal
    advantage of a formal policy is that it provides a process for
    handling requests for agency data.

-   In addressing the costs associated with the data sharing process,
    agencies frequently employ two or more cost recovery mechanisms in
    data sharing relationships. Most frequently agencies require the
    receiving party to cover its own cost, such as hardware, software
    and communications cost to connect to agency data sources. The
    second most popular mechanism involves a private firm sharing its
    \"value-added\" information with the agency.

-   The two most controversial topics in the private sector\'s
    relationships with agencies regarding agency data are revenue
    sharing and exclusivity.

-   The idea of revenue sharing is optimistically viewed by many
    agencies, although in practice it has not had much success. The
    private sector tends to oppose revenue sharing either because of
    practical difficulties in administering it or because it violates
    the principle that public data should be available to all taxpayers
    for free.

-   Exclusivity is the model used by only about 15% of the surveyed
    agencies, which see its value in assigning to some other entity the
    burden of dissemination of agency data. Private firms are generally
    opposed to exclusive arrangements because they constitute
    monopolistic, anti-competitive franchises and because they violate
    the principle of right of access to data collected at taxpayer
    expense.

The data sharing policy of the National Weather Service (NWS) was
examined. The NWS minimizes the control it exercises on its data used by
others and does not seek to profit in the dissemination. The economic
benefits of the booming private sector weather information business are
seen as validation of the NWS policy. The data sharing practices of the
NWS could serve as a useful model for transportation agencies which
generate data in the course of performing their planning and operations
functions and, at the same time, share data with private entities to
create economic benefits.

**Appendix F**

**Composite Questionnaire Responses**

A. Similarities between Europe and North America

> *Please indicate whether you strongly agree (aa), somewhat agree (a),
> strongly disagree (dd), somewhat disagree (d), or neutral/no opinion
> (n) on each of the following statements. If you wish, you may expand
> your answers with texts. You may also add statements to this list.*
>
> *Example: If you somewhat agree with the following statement, but only
> with qualification, then you should put (a) after the statement and
> (optionally) add a comment.*
>
> "Public funding is essential for successful ATIS business models"
> *(a)*
>
> *Public funding is needed mostly for data collection but not for data
> distribution.*

1.  Public funding is essential, especially with regard to data
    collection. *( )*

> *R1 (aa)*
>
> *This seems to be true all around the world. Even with public funding
> for traffic data collection and making such data available to private
> firms, many ATIS businesses are still struggling financially.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *Although Public Funding is essential for some aspects of Data
> Collection, by itself it may well not succeed in achieving collection
> to the required standards. Responsibilities may need to be agreed, and
> in some cases legal contracts may need to exist to ensure that the
> agencies responsible carry out these responsibilities. Public funding
> is most important to finance the setting-up of frameworks to
> facilitate proper data collection (e.g. data standards, protocols and
> procedures).*
>
> *R3 (d)*
>
> *Public funding probably essential for the current generation of ATIS
> systems, but not for next generation.*
>
> *R4 (aa)*
>
> *No question. It is virtually the only game in town today, with a few
> exceptions.*
>
> *R5 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *Especially data for public safety.*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *Public funding for any aspect of TIS, not least data collection, must
> be justified in relation to the core business activities of the public
> authorities: eg traffic safety, traffic management, transport
> security, promoting modal interchange or promoting alternatives to the
> private car.*
>
> *With the spread of mobile communications, and investment in Automatic
> Vehicle location systems for fleet management purposes, private ATIS
> service providers have new opportunities for data collection
> independent of the public sector. But data sources that directly
> support public sector objectives may still have to be provided by
> public funding.*
>
> *Eventually (on a 10-20 year time horizon) there will be a market in
> ATIS data, with alternative sources offering different levels of
> quality, continuity, reliability, resolution (granularity in time and
> space), and price. This will happen primarily through the efforts of
> the private sector, although heavy investment by the public sector
> could inhibit private sector initiatives.*
>
> *In the long run it is possible to envisage the private sector doing
> all the ATIS data collection and fusion, selling data back to the
> public sector in support of public information services.*
>
> *Until this market in ATIS data develops, the short-term problem is to
> achieve effective data sharing arrangements between the public and
> private sectors.*
>
> *R9 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R11 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (a)*
>
> *But public funding for ATMS data collection is essential and ATMS
> data is useful for ATIS. However, public funding specifically for ATIS
> data collection is not essential.*
>
> *R13 (aa)*
>
> *For much of traffic data and for all of transit data I believe that
> data collection is not possible without some public funding. The
> market is not sufficient to support a totally private data collection
> effort, or at least have good quality data.*

2.  Public sector should not look for private sector revenue to support
    ITS investments. *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *First, private partners in ATIS business are not financially strong
> at this time to share revenue. Second, many public agencies are not
> allowed to share revenue. However, for those that do allow revenue
> sharing, there is no reason for these public agencies to ignore
> potential revenue sharing indefinitely.*
>
> *R2 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (aa)*
>
> *...to support public sector ITS investments. The private sector will
> invest heavily in private sector ITS investments.*
>
> *R5 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (aa)*
>
> *Especially if ITS investment is for a public purpose.*
>
> *R7 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R9 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (d)*
>
> *I would agree that the public sector should not [expect]{.underline}
> or [require]{.underline} private sector revenues to support ITS
> investments; but it never hurts to look for them and may even uncover
> some innovative practices the community might never otherwise
> realize.*
>
> *R11 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R14 (aa)*
>
> *The revenues are not sufficient to provide any meaningful amount to
> the public sector.*

3.  Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of
    specific information services they wish to provide. *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *This is generally true in the near term since private partners in
> ATIS business are not financially strong enough to share costs
> reliably and indefinitely.*
>
> *R2 (d)*
>
> *Rather, public sector agencies should underwrite the costs of
> providing the framework necessary to enable those services to be
> provided (as in the Travel Information Highway in the UK, which is
> planned to support a range of different services provided by different
> firms / agencies)*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (aa)*
>
> *Again, the public sector can also expect the private sector to invest
> in information services the private sector wishes to provide.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *as long as they have a strong idea of what services they wish to
> provide -- could be overlap with private sector.*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *... for public purposes.*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (d)*
>
> *This is a complex question. Some public sector funding (e.g., to
> provide and operate changeable message signs) seems inevitable. But
> Public-private partnerships with revenue sharing arrangements are also
> possible if there is synergy between the business plans of both
> parties. Much depends on the terms offered to the private sector and
> the extent to which there are exclusive contracts or more of a market
> in information services, which might also contribute to meeting public
> sector objectives.*
>
> *R9 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *In general, I agree with the statement, but I can envision some form
> of information service (e.g., subscription-based) that the public
> sector would only offer IF partnered with another firm that would
> assume fiscal responsibility for the service. These types of services
> may be akin to "bells and whistles" in that they would not be deemed
> essential services by the public sector, but could still be
> desirable.*
>
> *R11 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (a)*
>
> *True for free information services such as Traveler Advisory
> Telephone Systems, Government Access Channel Traffic TV Systems, and
> Government Web sites. Also true for Public Transportation information
> systems. Not necessarily true for commercial, personalized
> subscription services and for Wireless services to mobile and portable
> devices.*
>
> *R13 (d)*
>
> *There may be some services that the private sector can provide,
> especially for niche markets such as commercial vehicles or business
> travelers. The public sector would have an interest in seeing these
> markets served but public support may not be required.*

4.  Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been
    proven to be viable. *( )*

> *R1 (aa)*
>
> *This is certainly true in North America and, as far as I know, also
> true in Europe.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (d)*
>
> *Maybe viable for profit making but does not serve the full needs of
> the consumer.*
>
> *R4 (aa)*
>
> *The broadcast of information supported by advertisement has proven to
> be viable for years. It is a very viable revenue producing method. The
> question should be about market development, not about viable
> advertising revenue.*
>
> *R5 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *True for case of in-Metro car services in Montreal.*
>
> *R7 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (aa)*
>
> *Broadcast travel information on local radio is used as a way of
> building local interest, audience loyalty and direct involvement with
> the broadcasting stations.(e.g. volunteer "jam busters amongst the
> listeners, who call in with traffic reports.) But ATIS will require a
> step change in data gathering methods, from qualitative "reportage" to
> quantified data-rich sources.*
>
> *R9 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *"Viable" from the general public's perspective, but given the
> conglomeration of services that has occurred over the past few years
> (i.e., Westwood One incorporating Shadow, Metro Networks, and Smart
> Routes), it could be questioned how viable the
> [competitive]{.underline} broadcast market really is.*
>
> *R11 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (aa)*
>
> *Assuming that "broadcast" refers to live-voice traffic reports on
> broadcast AM and FM radio.*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *The Metro Networks model of selling airtime to advertisers during
> radio traffic reports has been a success. Other models, such as
> advertising on websites, have not been very successful or profitable.
> Advertising on the SmarTraveler cable TV service was not successful.*

5.  Fee-based and advertising-based ATIS services are not viable yet. *(
    )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *I have known a few cases of ATIS business failure due to
> over-dependence on such a business model.*
>
> *R2 (d)*
>
> *The user may be prepared to pay, but it depends on how the fee is
> structured and it depends on the added-value that the user perceives
> himself to be receiving*.
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (dd)*
>
> *Again the question should not be about advertising based services but
> about market development. ATIS service is not a business today no
> matter what the source of revenue. A given business model may not be a
> problem, it could well be various market conditions or market maturity
> that keeps ATIS services from being financially viable in the early
> stages of growth. ATIS services may need to be packaged with other
> business services to achieve the necessary economy of scale and give
> the service time to grow. (I don't want to get hung up on definitions,
> but this business services packaging could also be called a business
> model)*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *because the value has not yet been delivered (travel times and
> alternate routes) and the platforms are not yet sorted (PDA, DAB,
> PC-internet).*
>
> *R6 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (d)*
>
> *The emergence of Trafficmaster and ITIS as ATIS competitors in UK
> indicates that there is scope to develop a profitable business based
> on subscription services, serving niche markets. But their success
> depends on how far the prevailing traffic conditions are unpredictable
> and unreliable, as well as developing the right information product to
> suit the target market.*
>
> *R9 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R11 (n)*
>
> *Have not had an environment for a full-up test yet -- when we get a
> critical mass of data, then this can be determined.*
>
> *R12 (aa)*
>
> *Where ATIS services are bundled with other services, subscription-fee
> (USA and Europe) and transaction-fee services (Europe) appear viable,
> but have not yet withstood the test of time. Advertising-based
> services have so far proven to be not viable.*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *\--*

6.  Both Europe and North America need an enabling policy framework for
    public-private partnerships in ATIS. *( )*

> *R1 (aa)*
>
> *An enabling policy framework will provide the stability and risk
> mitigation that the private sector and public-private partnerships
> would need for sustaining operations.*
>
> *R2 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (dd)*
>
> *In my view there is not such thing as a public-private partnership in
> the corporate sense. The private sector is an at-risk for profit
> culture and the public sector is a no-risk public service culture. The
> public sector rarely if ever shares risk with the private sector. The
> informal partnership is that the public sector provides the highways
> the private sector provides the vehicles. Nothing is needed to enable
> the ATIS Partnership framework.*
>
> *R5 (n)*
>
> *not sure that an "enabling policy framework" might be too
> restrictive.*
>
> *R6 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (6)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (aa)*
>
> *The policy framework can be cast fairly loosely: for example a set of
> codes of practice for service content (eg in emergencies or security
> situations), recommended procurement methods; model contracts for data
> exchange.*
>
> *R9 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (n)*
>
> *\--*

7.  Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information
    value chain for delivery of ATIS services. *( )*

> *R1 (aa)*
>
> *The information value chain for ATIS describes a complete system. All
> the links in the system must be operative for ATIS service delivery.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (aa)*
>
> *Not sure what is meant by this question.*
>
> *R5 (n)*
>
> *not clear on what a "complete information value chain" is.*
>
> *R6 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (aa)*
>
> *Service quality to end-users is only as good as the weakest link in
> the information supply chain.*
>
> *R9 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R11 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *\--*

8.  The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are
    the same in both continents. *( )*

> *R1 (aa)*
>
> *It is also true all around the world, based on my observation of
> discussions within PIARC C16 Committee.*
>
> *R2 (d)*
>
> *Whilst these two basic objectives are duplicated in Europe, the
> balance is different and further objectives exist (such as making
> intermodality easier) such as to make the effective objectives
> different.*
>
> *R3 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (aa)*
>
> *I consider ATIS contributes to more efficient transportation system
> performance rather that managing the traffic. ATMS manages traffic.*
>
> *R5 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *Agree for N. America but can't comment for Europe.*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *In US, this also includes encouraging/enabling mode shift to transit
> or shared ride.*
>
> *R8 (d)*
>
> *No. See the answer to question 1. Information on inter-modal
> transport for freight and personal mobility features much more
> strongly as a policy goal in Europe. Also the authorities are involved
> in the promotion of collective transport modes (transit, bus) as
> alternatives to the private car.*
>
> *R9 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (d)*
>
> *While certainly safety and transportation systems management are
> important in both North America and Europe, I doubt the levels of
> importance are equal. And where traffic management techniques such as
> variable speed limits (which use ATIS) have proven acceptance in
> Europe, many ATIS applications in North America provide motorists with
> "peace of mind" -- information that is not intended to evoke a
> response or an action, but rather information just to explain.*
>
> *R11 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (n)*
>
> *I am not familiar enough with European objectives to know if this is
> true.*

9.  Criteria for travelers' willingness to pay are, in a descending
    order of priority: data quality, data coverage, bundling of
    different modes of travel information (automobile and transit),
    bundling of different kinds of information (weather, stocks, sports,
    news, and traffic), and bundling of different ITS services
    (security/rescue, ATIS, electronic payments, and wireless
    communications). *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *This is generally true although one could argue about the strict
> order of priority.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (d)*
>
> *You can't put a priority on the list. There are too many factors the
> play a role in willingness to pay. For example, convenience and
> reliability are extremely important. You can have high quality
> coverage but if it isn't available 24/7 without down time it isn't
> reliable. Reliability may be a quality attribute but I believe it very
> important for it to be a separate factor. Convenience, which could
> also be considered a quality attribute, is also important as a factor
> because means easy access - easy to use... not a quality that is very
> prevalent today. Another willingness to pay criteria is free
> competition. If it is free elsewhere the consumer won't pay.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *a good start but data quality and data coverage could be strongly
> linked.*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *What about data relevance for main benefit -- time reliability for
> the user? Is this covered in the list? Not sure about order.*
>
> *R7 (n)*
>
> *Don't know the source of this list, but back in the 2000 "Data Gap"
> workshop, we defined several dimensions of data "quality"
> ([not]{.underline} in any priority order): (1) data coverage
> (geographic, time, transportation system components (modes, routes),
> and data types), (2) depth of information (level of detail), (3) data
> accuracy, (4) timeliness of data, (5) data consistency and
> reliability, and (6) personalization. I can't easily rank your list,
> since it looks like "apples and oranges" that belong on different
> scales (content issues vs. marketing).*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *This is a subject for detailed market research. It depends so much on
> the target group, and their interest in and experience of ATIS.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *I do not think one can generalize a statement like this. There is
> much more involved.*
>
> *R10 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *I would have descending order be: bundling of information and
> services (wireless access, hands-free car phone, security/rescue,
> traffic, weather, stocks, sports, personal messaging, etc.),
> personalized traffic information, personalized routing information,
> coverage, quality, bundling of different modes information (auto and
> transit).*
>
> *R13 (n)*
>
> *That looks like a reasonable order, but I guess that would need to be
> based on empirical research. Also, I think that WTP is very low for
> traveler information. It is probably more a function of market
> segment, i.e. service or delivery drivers probably have a higher WTP
> than most commuters.*

10. The trend of ATIS services in both continents is toward travel time
    forecasts. *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *The trend toward forecasts represents a progression of ATIS
> sophistication.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Estimated time of arrival may become more common.*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (dd)*
>
> *I can't speak for Europe but I doubt it. It may be on everyone's wish
> list but it is very difficult to forecast accurate travel times since
> it is impossible to forecast the next traffic accident. The trend is
> toward slow market growth and multiple flavors of information. Further
> it is next to impossible to predict trends in a market that hasn't
> even started yet. Once there is a meaningful ATIS user base using a
> variety of products or flavors, we can then better judge the trend.*
>
> *R5 (aa)*
>
> *this is one of the true value added elements along with alternate
> routes......as well, a complete reporting (500 m resolution) of
> detailed road condition (especially in northern climates), weather
> condition and traffic speed would be worth paying for.*
>
> *R6 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (a)*
>
> *Estimated journey time (landmark A \> landmark B, as displayed on
> electronic message signs on the Paris Boulevard Peripherique freeway),
> "nearcasting" and estimated time of arrival (ETA) may also become more
> common.*
>
> *R9 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R11 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (n)*
>
> *\--*

11. The trend of ATIS data collection in both continents is toward
    increased reliance on floating vehicle data. *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *The trend is implied by the frequency, depth and breadth of
> discussions on the subject rather than by any actual practice, which
> seems to be restricted primarily to vehicle fleet tracking.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Estimated time of arrival may become more common.*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (d)*
>
> *This too may be on someone's wish list. There is certainly a growing
> trend in the talk. But until it is being used in the market, it is
> impossible to say there is a reliance on floating vehicle data. Other
> than a few demos, I know no main stream usage today.*
>
> *R5 (dd)*
>
> *a lot of interest is being generated but still has to prove itself -
> simple, fixed point data collection is still the best -- may not
> necessarily be the same system used for "incident management" but
> should be.*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *Based on the current extent of research underway.*
>
> *R7 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (a)*
>
> *Floating-vehicle data is becoming more common, but problems still
> exist of communications costs, data reliability and quality (spatial
> coverage, time sampling, and understanding the causal factors behind
> any abnormality). In the UK, point-to-point license-plate tracking is
> used by Trafficmaster to derive landmark A \> landmark B journey
> times, but is not truly floating-vehicle data. Floating-car data based
> on the radio taxi fleet has been used in metropolitan Paris. A UK
> company, ITIS has formal arrangements with the operators of a national
> truck fleet and a long-distance express coach fleet to gather journey
> time data in real time across Britain, and for historical data across
> mainland Europe. Other European companies are experimenting with
> floating-vehicle data to determine how it can complement traditional
> traffic data collection methods.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *In general, I agree with the statement, but I'm not sure that
> "reliance" is the correct word. I think there is an increased interest
> in trying to mine whatever data and information sources may be out
> there to enhance infrastructure-based sensor systems, and exploring
> non-intrusive methods of gauging system performance. Perhaps an
> alternative way to look at this would be a decreased reliance on any
> single form of collecting data.*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *It depends on what you consider floating-vehicle data. In the UK,
> license-plate tracking is used by TrafficMaster. I don't consider that
> floating-vehicle data. Aside for that, floating-vehicle data has yet
> to be proven as viable.*
>
> *R13 (d)*
>
> *\--*

B. Differences between Europe and North America

> *Please indicate whether you strongly agree (aa), somewhat agree (a),
> strongly disagree (dd), somewhat disagree (d), or neutral/no opinion
> (n) on each of the following statements. If you wish, you may expand
> your answers with texts. You may also add statements to this list.*

1.  The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North
    America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and
    demography. *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *The land-use and demography factors are more important than the
> cultural factors.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *Governmental organization is also a key difference.*
>
> *R3 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (d)*
>
> *Without any real evidence to the contrary, I doubt it. ATIS usage is
> primarily driven by congestion\... assuming that factors such as
> content, device availability and quality are a given.*
>
> *R5 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *Plus public transit availability and usage, public-private
> relationships, powers and expectations of central governments.*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *Governmental policy goals on personal mobility and the movement of
> freight are also important differences, as is the level of transport
> infrastructure (highway and rail capacity) relative to the transport
> demand. Finally, environmental objectives are important in some
> corridors, for example trans-alpine routes, and historic cities.*
>
> *R9 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *Given these fairly broad categories, it's hard not to agree. Land use
> patterns, as well as the availability of alternate modes, help to
> drive a commuter's transport mode preference, hence the overwhelming
> popularity of the personal vehicle as the mode of choice in North
> America. Differing public financing methods (e.g., fuel and other user
> taxes) also contribute to differences between Europe and North
> America, perhaps contributing to the increased availability and use of
> mass transit in Europe.*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *Also political environment -- we spend much less as a percentage on
> taxes than Europeans do.*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *Equally important are differences in government roles in ATIS and
> European governments ownership of traffic information and radio
> stations. European governments are providing free RDS-TMC broadcasts
> of traffic data. As a result, there is little commercial opportunity
> and poor quality traffic information.*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *Political, too, due to more countries in Europe and the different
> transportation agencies that need to be considered.*

2.  Europe, through the use of DATEX, is ahead of North America in
    moving toward interoperable traffic data exchange. *( )*

> *R1 (n)*
>
> *I am not sure about this, partly due to my unfamiliarity about the
> European situation in this regard.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (d)*
>
> *I have no real knowledge of the value of DATEX so I may not
> understand the question. In our experience, traffic data exchange is a
> non-issue. Traffic data is being exchanged every 30 seconds anywhere
> anytime in the US today, without DATEX. The word interoperable is
> confusing to me because I associate it with ATMS not ATIS.*
>
> *R5 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *Not sure it's due to the DATEX protocol, but maybe due to agreement
> on the data definitions.*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *There have been initiatives in this area in Europe since the original
> DATEX MoU (1997). A new DATEX MoU is being launched this year (2002),
> with a more political/strategic emphasis, supported by a code of
> practice on standards and technical requirements.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *\--*

3.  There is a higher diversity in traffic data sources and formats in
    Europe than in North America due to diversity of countries, more
    diverse modes of transport, and more diverse modes of private sector
    involvement policies (e.g., France/Netherlands being more publicly
    oriented versus Germany/UK being more privately oriented). *( )*

> *R1 (n)*
>
> *The diversity of data sources in the US from many levels of
> government units in 50 states is just as diverse, if not more, than in
> Europe. However, there are probably more public transit agency sources
> in Europe than in the US.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (n)*
>
> *I don't know and I don't know why that is important.*
>
> *R5 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *Seems reasonable given the number of different implementations.*
>
> *R7 (n)*
>
> *Don't know enough about European data, but there are vast variations
> (from our perspective) across 50 states and hundreds of local road and
> transit agencies.*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *Work on the DATEX data dictionary and the Traffic Message Channel
> (TMC) in Europe have introduced some conformity, but there is still
> much diversity.*
>
> *R9 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *I agree that there is a higher diversity in Europe than in North
> America, but the diversity level in North America is [not]{.underline}
> insignificant, nor should be overlooked.*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *\--*

4.  There is a larger traffic "data gap" in North America than in Europe
    (in other words, there are more roads wired in Europe than in North
    America). *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *Because of high population density, urban traffic congestion in
> Europe is more severe and there is more motivation to "wire" the
> congested roadways there. In this sense, the "data gap" in North
> America is probably larger.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (n)*
>
> *Again, I don't know and I don't know why that is important. What is
> important is the size of the "data gaps" in the large metropolitan
> urban or highly congested areas. Large data gaps in congested areas
> diminishes the value of ATIS.*
>
> *R5 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *Many freeways and toll roads in Europe have loops and other detection
> systems. In urban areas the use of detectors varies greatly, depending
> on whether dynamic traffic control has been implemented. UK and
> Germany have taken special initiatives to encourage the private sector
> to invest in their own independent data collection sources, and this
> is now reflected in the Commission Recommendation to the Member States
> on developing the market in ATIS services.*
>
> *R9 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (d)*
>
> *I somewhat disagree with the statement. My impression is that the
> continents are fairly close when it comes to the amount of
> detectorization of roads -- urban expressways in Europe may have
> greater amounts of surveillance than North American counterparts, but
> North America has more urban expressways. And arterial street
> surveillance appears minimal on both continents.*
>
> *R11 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (dd)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (n)*
>
> *\--*

5.  European agencies provide greater amount and wider range of ATIS
    information to travelers than their counterparts in North America.
    *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *This is probably true regarding public transit information but the
> amount of ATIS information for automobile traffic may be quite
> comparable.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (n)*
>
> *Once again I don't understand why that is important. It is wonderful
> if they do. The importance should be based on the market penetration
> of various market segments of the traveling public are able to
> conveniently access information regarding their travel mode and
> route.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *Some European governments are providing free RDS-TMC broadcasts of
> traffic data. Elsewhere it has been left to the private sector to
> develop services which use the RDS-TMC carrier using their own sources
> (e.g., probe vehicles).*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (d)*
>
> *It is difficult to generalize, but on average, the public agencies
> from both continents appear to provide similar levels of ATIS
> information. North America may provide somewhat more robust
> information about incidents, whereas European agencies may provide
> richer real-time travel information.*
>
> *R11 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *\--*

6.  Private ATIS companies (e.g., Trafficmaster) in Europe are closer
    than their North American counterparts to being financially
    independent of public subsidies. *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *My impression is that Trafficmaster is relatively unique in Europe
> and its financial success in UK has not yet been replicated in other
> parts of Europe. Thus, it is difficult to generalize at this time.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (n)*
>
> *I have no knowledge of the facts in Europe. Certainly ATIS private
> companies in the US are totally dependent upon public subsidies.*
>
> *R5 (d)*
>
> *no -- I think trafficmaster still as to prove they are generating
> revenues from subscriptions -- some of their large initial revenues
> were generated by sales to car manufacturers who were providing "free"
> 2 year subscriptions to the car buyer -- I don't believe there has
> been a large uptake once the subscription lapsed -- one apparently
> successful operation is the special cell number for traffic info
> related to the cell you are in -- it comes at a premium rate but no
> subscription required -- the added bonus of selling extra air time!*
>
> *R6 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *But I thought this was as at least partly due to governmental
> processes not available in N. America, e.g., nation-wide exclusive
> franchise.*
>
> *R8 (a)*
>
> *Trafficmaster has survived 12 years without public subsidy, but the
> share price has been depressed of late. Other countries also have
> private sector information service data fusion and information
> publishers serving a variety of end user services (Webraska -- France;
> Mizar -- Italy; TMC4U -- Netherlands; Tegaron - Germany).*
>
> *R9 (d)*
>
> *Trafficmaster (and their latest selling of assets) still need to
> prove that they are even close to being "financially independent".*
>
> *R10 (n)*
>
> *While TrafficMaster has a longer history of providing information
> directly to end users, North American firms such as Metro Networks
> (now part of Westwood One) have a long history of providing traveler
> information and never receiving subsidies from public agencies.*
>
> *R11 (d)*
>
> *Trafficmaster is stable only in the UK, they are in investment mode
> everywhere else -- no telling how they will do...*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (d)*
>
> *\--*

7.  Europe has a more formal and conscious policy statement regarding
    private sector participation in ATIS activities. *( )*

> *R1 (n)*
>
> *I have heard statements like this fairly frequently but don't have
> direct knowledge that it is true in all European countries.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (n)*
>
> *Again this question is very hard to measure and I don't know what it
> buys us. I don't why a formal and conscious policy statement is
> important. In the US it is a barrier to ATIS deployment. In the US we
> have operated without a formal policy for radio and television for
> years and it has worked reasonably well. Many public agencies have no
> formal policy regarding ATIS. They let interested parties use the
> data. If there is such a public policy, it should be to get traveler
> information in the hands of the consumer as quickly, conveniently and
> efficiently as possible with no strings attached.*
>
> *R5 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (aa)*
>
> *The European Commission Recommendation to the Member States of the
> European Union seeks to create the conditions for the development of
> private sector information service providers and a market in Travel
> and Traffic information services. This is particularly important for
> Value-Added Services serving the freight industry and for personalized
> services to motorists. It is also important for the development of
> pan-European and cross-border services.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *In general, I agree with the statement, although locations such as
> Phoenix, Arizona, and the San Francisco Bay area in California, are
> helping to establish a base in North America for policies dealing with
> public agencies' cooperation with private firms.*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (n)*
>
> *\--*

8.  Formal agreements (mostly in the form of Memo of Understanding) are
    prerequisite for ATIS public-private partnerships but are frequently
    not necessary in North America. *( )*

> *R1 (n)*
>
> *If a number of ATIS public-private partnerships in North America have
> operated without formal agreements, then why are such agreements
> prerequisites?*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (a)*
>
> *Yes they are frequently not used in the US but the agreements vary a
> great deal.*
>
> *R5 (d)*
>
> *not in Canada!*
>
> *R6 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (d)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (d)*
>
> *Since most "partnerships" in North America are really just
> modifications of contracts, the contracting instrument replaces the
> MOU. Many North American ITS projects have required MOUs but often the
> formal "standing" of the MOU is not clear among the affected parties.*
>
> *R11 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *I don't understand the statement. Was it intended to mean that
> agreements are prerequisite in Europe but not North America? In any
> case, I believe that agreements are necessary in the USA.*
>
> *R13 (dd)*
>
> *\--*

9.  ATIS organizational cooperation is more horizontal (between parallel
    countries and transport modes) in Europe but is more vertical
    (between state-level responsibility for expressways and city-level
    responsibility for arterials). *( )*

> *R1 (a)*
>
> *This is true because there are more sovereign countries in Europe.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (n)*
>
> *The cooperation varies a great deal. It is both horizontal and
> vertical from Federal Highways, Federal Transit down to the state,
> regional, sub-regional and local level. It is very difficult to
> generalize that it is one way or another. It often depends on the
> circumstances and funding sources.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (d)*
>
> *Europe has both problems to contend with. There are also situations
> where data exchange is needed between public and private sectors, and
> in some cases private-private data exchange.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (d)*
>
> *Because of the differing government structures in Europe,
> organizational cooperation likely varies between countries. But I
> think that there are more similarities than there are differences
> between North America and Europe. There seems to be relatively good
> vertical cooperation between levels of government, but somewhat
> limited horizontal cooperation between modes or jurisdictions. Europe
> does appear to have more horizontal cooperation than North America,
> but it is still fairly limited.*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (?n)*
>
> *This statement seems incomplete. If you mean that in No. America has
> more vertical cooperation then I would agree.*

10. Compared to Europe, North American ATIS services put much greater
    emphasis on integration of traffic information across jurisdictions
    than across modes (e.g., between mass transit and automobile
    traffic). *( )*

> *R1 (aa)*
>
> *This is due to the predominance of private vehicles in the US
> traffic.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (a)*
>
> *Generally I would agree however it depends on the market area and the
> traveler segment. In some areas where only one mode is used, personal
> car or public transit, the user of one mode has no desire for
> information on the other mode. In areas or market segments where
> multi-modal travel is used, then having information across modes is
> important.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *Agree that is current state, but seems to be much interest in going
> multimodal.*
>
> *R8 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R9 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *...although I'm not sure that there is a huge emphasis of cross-modal
> information in Europe either.*
>
> *R11 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (d)*
>
> *\--*

11. It is more complicated in North America than in Europe for private
    ATIS enterprises to negotiate agreements with the public agencies.
    *( )*

> *R1 (n)*
>
> *I don't know whether this is true for lack of direct information for
> comparison.*
>
> *R2 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (a)*
>
> *There is no question it is difficult in the US. In a market like Los
> Angeles alone there are over 200 public agencies all with a different
> take on what should be done.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *Don\'t Know.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *Again, I do not think one can make such a blanket statement.*
>
> *R10 (a)*
>
> *I suspect that the complexity varies greatly across Europe, given the
> different government structures (socialist, federalist,
> privatization); but because there is a bit more of a history
> (precedent) of public-private cooperative transportation ventures in
> Europe, it is somewhat easier to negotiate agreements.*
>
> *R11 (aa)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (d)*
>
> *\--*

12. Most European ATIS firms can go to a single public source for
    traffic data whereas most North America firms need to go to multiple
    public sources for the data. *( )*

> *R1 (n)*
>
> *This is related to the 3^rd^ statement in this section.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (a)*
>
> *I don't know about Europe, but can be true in the US. However, there
> are a few private sources in the US that consolidate the data. So
> other ATIS firms can go to these single private sources for the
> traffic data.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R7 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R8 (d)*
>
> *This varies from one European country to another. For some (e.g.
> Netherlands, Spain) there is a single regional source. Elsewhere,
> (France, UK, Italy) it is more complex.*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *Again, I do not think one can make such a blanket statement.*
>
> *R10 (d)*
>
> *I don't think that, in general, European ATIS firms can rely upon
> only a single source. There may be more sources for North America
> firms to coordinate with, but successful ATIS companies must deal with
> multiple data sources.*
>
> *R11 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R12 (d)*
>
> *It seems to me that European firms must also go to multiple sources
> if they want to work across multiple countries.*
>
> *R13 (a)*
>
> *\--*

13. North American consumers are more reluctant than European consumers
    to pay for traffic information due to the more deeply-rooted car
    culture in North America. *( )*

> *R1 (d)*
>
> *I think willingness to pay is more related to the perceived value of
> traffic information than to any cultural factors.*
>
> *R2 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R3 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R4 (n)*
>
> *I have no evidence to support or deny that conclusion. If it is
> because they have always have had free traffic information on their
> car radio, that would make sense.*
>
> *R5 (a)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R6 (aa)*
>
> *If this means there is less value-added for N. American drivers to
> have traffic information because they are more familiar with their
> local and extensive road networks, then agree.*
>
> *R7 (n)*
>
> *Agree with the first part, but don't think the "due to..." is a major
> reason.*
>
> *R8 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R9 (dd)*
>
> *Again, I do not think one can make such a blanket statement.*
>
> *R10 (dd)*
>
> *I disagree that the car culture determines consumers' willingness to
> pay; if anything, it may cause an increased willingness to pay, IF
> there were recognizable value in the information. Since traffic
> information is usually a "news" item that is at best informative and
> at worst historical, the consumer has seen little value in the
> information -- how could it improve his/her quality of life, or at
> least improve the quality of the current trip? As it becomes possible
> for information \[in general\] to be more personalized, consumers will
> pay premiums for this now-focused information; and traveler
> information should become a part of that packaged information.*
>
> *R11 (dd)*
>
> *Until we have a pervasive ATIS that delivers personalized
> information, the jury is still out on whether consumers will pay.
> While "car culture" term is Yank-bashing, I would believe that we
> would be more likely to pay for information -- if it is good and
> better than what we already get for free (the fact that in urban
> areas, radio stations give out info for free is the main barrier to
> fee-based services).*
>
> *R12 (n)*
>
> *\--*
>
> *R13 (d)*
>
> *\--*

C. Unresolved Issues

> *Please prioritize the following issues for electronic discussion. For
> example, \[2,5,4,1,3\] would mean the 2^nd^ issue is the most
> important and the 3^rd^ would be least important.*
>
> *R1 5,3,2,4,1*
>
> *R2 2,4,5,3,1*
>
> *R3 5,3,1,4,2*
>
> *R4*[^13] *\--*
>
> *R5 5,2,3,4,1*
>
> *R6 2,5,3,1,4*
>
> *R7 2,3,5,1,4*
>
> *R8 2,4,5,3,1*
>
> *R9 3,2,5,x,x*
>
> *R10 5,3,2,1,4*
>
> *R11 5,4,1,2,3*
>
> *R12 4,3,2,5,1*
>
> *R13 3,4,2,1,5*

a.  Compared with Europe, are North American transportation agencies
    more interested in preserving current modes of public funding than
    trying out financial innovation and, if so, why?

b.  Where should the line be drawn between free public information and
    paid private information in any country or region?

c.  What should the public agencies do in their traffic sensor
    investments in view of the uncertain rate of development and
    implementation in floating car usage?

d.  Do we need further studies to prove that travel time reliability is
    the principal benefit to users?

e.  How do we distinguish the success and failure of a business model
    from the success and failure of its implementation? (In other words,
    should we abandon a business model just because its implementation
    has failed?)

[Other suggested issues for discussion]{.underline}:

f.  What are the benefits to a public sector agency, if any, in
    encouraging the development of value-added services?

g.  The TCC project in England suggests a two-tiered market for
    information services: "public" information and commercial services,
    but where is the line between "public" and "commercial" information?

h.  What balance should be struck between multi-modal and road based
    information?

i.  How can the management of travel information for the urban network
    be integrated with inter-urban travel choices? (Is this of more
    significance for the European conurbations than in North America?)

**Appendix G**

**Summary of Questionnaire Responses**

A. Similarities between Europe and North America

> *Please indicate whether you strongly agree (aa), somewhat agree (a),
> strongly disagree (dd), somewhat disagree (d), or neutral/no opinion
> (n) on each of the following statements. If you wish, you may expand
> your answers with texts. You may also add statements to this list.*
>
> *Example: If you somewhat agree with the following statement, but only
> with qualification, then you should put (a) after the statement and
> (optionally) add a comment.*
>
> "Public funding is essential for successful ATIS business models"
> *(a)*
>
> *Public funding is needed mostly for data collection but not for data
> distribution.*
>
> *Results: Average \[Standard Deviation\] shown*

*(Average = 100 if everyone strongly agrees; -100 if everyone strongly
disagrees)*

1.  Public funding is essential, especially with regard to data
    collection. *61.5 \[44.5\]*

2.  Public sector should not look for private sector revenue to support
    ITS investments. *26.9 \[66.8\]*

3.  Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of
    specific information services they wish to provide. *38.5 \[52.5\]*

4.  Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been
    proven to be viable. *46.2 \[53.6\]*

5.  Fee-based and advertising-based ATIS services are not viable yet.
    *7.7 \[54.9\]*

6.  Both Europe and North America need an enabling policy framework for
    public-private partnerships in ATIS. *23.1 \[60.8\]*

7.  Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information
    value chain for delivery of ATIS services. *50.0 \[48.0\]*

8.  The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are
    the same in both continents. *30.8 \[63.7\]*

9.  Criteria for travelers' willingness to pay are, in a descending
    order of priority: data quality, data coverage, bundling of
    different modes of travel information (automobile and transit),
    bundling of different kinds of information (weather, stocks, sports,
    news, and traffic), and bundling of different ITS services
    (security/rescue, ATIS, electronic payments, and wireless
    communications). *3.8 \[45.8\]*

10. The trend of ATIS services in both continents is toward travel time
    forecasts. *23.1 \[50.4\]*

11. The trend of ATIS data collection in both continents is toward
    increased reliance on floating vehicle data. *--7.7 \[58.3\]*

B. Differences between Europe and North America

> *Please indicate whether you strongly agree (aa), somewhat agree (a),
> strongly disagree (dd), somewhat disagree (d), or neutral/no opinion
> (n) on each of the following statements. If you wish, you may expand
> your answers with texts. You may also add statements to this list.*
>
> *Results: Average \[Standard Deviation\] shown*

*(Average = 100 if everyone strongly agrees; -100 if everyone strongly
disagrees)*

1.  The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North
    America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and
    demography. *30.8 \[50.1\]*

2.  Europe, through the use of DATEX, is ahead of North America in
    moving toward interoperable traffic data exchange. *0.0 \[39.2\]*

3.  There is a higher diversity in traffic data sources and formats in
    Europe than in North America due to diversity of countries, more
    diverse modes of transport, and more diverse modes of private sector
    involvement policies (e.g., France/Netherlands being more publicly
    oriented versus Germany/UK being more privately oriented). *15.4
    \[30.3\]*

4.  There is a larger traffic "data gap" in North America than in Europe
    (in other words, there are more roads wired in Europe than in North
    America). *7.7 \[58.3\]*

5.  European agencies provide greater amount and wider range of ATIS
    information to travelers than their counterparts in North America.
    *11.5 \[44.5\]*

6.  Private ATIS companies (e.g., Trafficmaster) in Europe are closer
    than their North American counterparts to being financially
    independent of public subsidies. *--3.8 \[41.4\]*

7.  Europe has a more formal and conscious policy statement regarding
    private sector participation in ATIS activities. *26.9 \[50.4\]*

8.  Formal agreements (mostly in the form of Memo of Understanding) are
    prerequisite for ATIS public-private partnerships but are frequently
    not necessary in North America. *-26.9 \[46.5\]*

9.  ATIS organizational cooperation is more horizontal (between parallel
    countries and transport modes) in Europe but is more vertical
    (between state-level responsibility for expressways and city-level
    responsibility for arterials). *0.0 \[43.9\]*

10. Compared to Europe, North American ATIS services put much greater
    emphasis on integration of traffic information across jurisdictions
    than across modes (e.g., between mass transit and automobile
    traffic). *46.2 \[41.4\]*

11. It is more complicated in North America than in Europe for private
    ATIS enterprises to negotiate agreements with the public agencies.
    *19.2 \[50.1\]*

12. Most European ATIS firms can go to a single public source for
    traffic data whereas most North America firms need to go to multiple
    public sources for the data. *7.7 \[51.3\]*

13. North American consumers are more reluctant than European consumers
    to pay for traffic information due to the more deeply-rooted car
    culture in North America. *--11.5 \[62.5\]*

C. Unresolved Issues

> *Please prioritize the following issues for electronic discussion. For
> example, \[2,5,4,1,3\] would mean the 2^nd^ issue is the most
> important and the 3^rd^ would be least important.*
>
> *Results: Average points shown (100 maximum)*

1.  Compared with Europe, are North American transportation agencies
    more interested in preserving current modes of public funding than
    trying out financial innovation and, if so, why? *15.6*

2.  Where should the line be drawn between free public information and
    paid private information in any country or region? *64.6*

3.  What should the public agencies do in their traffic sensor
    investments in view of the uncertain rate of development and
    implementation in floating car usage? *56.3*

4.  Do we need further studies to prove that travel time reliability is
    the principal benefit to users? *46.9*

5.  How do we distinguish the success and failure of a business model
    from the success and failure of its implementation? (In other words,
    should we abandon a business model just because its implementation
    has failed?) *66.7*

\[Four additional issues have been suggested for electronic discussion
as given in Appendix F.\]

**Appendix H**

**Questionnaire Response from TANN**[^14]

### John Cox

### May 30, 2002

**PRIVATE ACTORS**

**Questions for individual interviews**

Questions in blue: See questionnaires in: Battele/ US DoT. 2002.
*Sharing data for public information*. Washington
(<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel/DatShare.htm>)

**A - factual information**

# 

What is your business model regarding ownership and sharing of real time
and archived TTI data?

*User fees, Revenue Sharing*

How do you protect the value of your TTI data?

*Use agreements and the honor system.*

 

In the locations where you receive data from public agencies, what type
of data do you receive typically, only sometimes or never.

  --------------- -------------------- ---------- ------- ----------- ---------- ------- ----------- ---------- -------
                  Electronic/digital                      Verbal                         Video                  

                  Typically            Sometime   Never   Typically   Sometime   Never   Typically   Sometime   Never

  Motorway/       ***X***                                                                ***X***                
  real-time                                                                                                     

  Motorway/       **X**                                                                  ***X***                
  static                                                                                                        

  Public                                                                                                        
  transport/                                                                                                    
  real-time                                                                                                     

  Public                                                                                                        
  transport/                                                                                                    
  static                                                                                                        
  --------------- -------------------- ---------- ------- ----------- ---------- ------- ----------- ---------- -------

 

When you receive data with public agencies, are there conditions that
they place on accessing data?

-   Technical specifications (e.g. hardware or software required) --
    ***In some cases, in most cases it is conditions we place on them...
    deliver the data to an FTP site.***

-   Restriction on use (e.g. depiction of injury or identity on video
    images) - ***No***

-   Acknowledgement of the source (e.g., use of logo, verbal mention) -
    ***No***

-   Any other conditions? - ***No***

Which, if any, of the following arrangements regarding cost of data
sharing apply in the locations in which you operate? Please indicate if
these arrangements are typical, occasional, or never apply.

-   You reimburse an agency for its costs to provide data - Never

-   You pay for your own hardware, communications, or software costs for
    accessing the data -- ***No, not the data source site***.

-   You are required to share a portion of the revenue generated from
    your business - ***No* **

-   You make in-kind contributions (e.g. sharing part of a
    communications fiber) - ***No* **

-   You make \"value added\" information available to the agency for
    internal use - ***No*  **

-   Any other forms? (specify) - No

What distribution channels are used to deliver traveler information to
the public? -- *Destop and PDA Internet Web Sites; In-vehicle displays;
Cell phones; Kiosks; Pagers.*

What TTI information is made available to the public? -- *Traffic
congestion, incidents, alert messages, cameras, weather information.*

-   What other information are made available?

What are the characteristics of the TTI service(s) your institution
participates in regarding:

-   Service accessibility? - ***Internet, cell phone access.***

-   User profile? -- ***Commuters.***

How many users do(es) the service(s) have per day? -- *150,000 a month.*

-   How did the number of users develop since the introduction of the
    service? -- ***Steady growth over 4 years.***

**B -- assessment and opinion**

What are key components of value-added TTI service provision:

-   In terms of service contents? -- ***Graphic displays, text to
    voice***

-   In terms of technologies? -- ***XML data format***

What are success criteria for the development of value-added TTI
services:

-   In terms of context? (market size, geography, infrastructures,
    socio-economic structure, cultural differences) -- ***Highly
    congested traffic corridors***

-   In terms of markets and demand? (user expectations and acceptance,
    willingness to pay, cost/benefit) -- ***Highly congested traffic
    corridors***

-   In terms of technologies? (data sources, data exchange, data quality
    and reliability, end-user devices) -- ***24/7 real time data
    access***

In your opinion, either based on your own experience or observing that
of other firm\'s, is the practice of revenue sharing in return for
receiving public agency data a successful approach? Why or why not? No.
There is not sufficient revenue to share. Public/Private business
agreements generally don't work... public agencies do not take risks or
operate for profit. The private sector makes huge investments in the
delivery of the information which is not recognized by the public
agencies even though these investments have significant value to the
public sector. Presently private sector investments are a losing
proposition and the public sector is not willing to share in these
losses.

What do you think are workable arrangements for public-private
cooperation in TTI service provision? -- *If the public sector finds
value in get traveller information into the hands of the consumer, then
the public sector needs to make an all out effort to insure that large
volumes of data gets into the hands of the private sector with great
convenience and reliability.*

-   In what do these arrangements differ? **?**

What do you think are the principal driving forces of TTI service
deployment:

-   At the institutional level? -- ***A passion to get information into
    the hands of the consumer.***

-   At the technological level? -- ***Data collection coverage, access
    and broadband and wireless delivery.***

What do you think are the principal obstacles for TTI service
deployment:

-   At the institutional level? -- ***Lack of interest, desire or
    motivation.***

-   At the technological level? -- ***Data gaps which includes coverage,
    access and reliable delivery of data.***

In your opinion, what are crucial measures for enhancement and promotion
of TTI service provision:

-   At the institutional level? **- *Lack of interest, desire or
    motivation.***

-   At the technological level? -- ***Data gaps which includes coverage,
    access and reliable delivery of data.***

What do you think should be the features of an enabling policy framework
for TTI service deployment?

> ***An interest, desire, motivation and passion to get information into
> the hands of the consumer.***
>
> ***Filling data gaps including coverage, access and reliable delivery
> of data.***

-   What do you think are the deficits of the the Commission
    Recommendation in respect of these requirements? ***???** - **Too
    much time and energy is wasted on the wrong issues.** **Filling data
    gaps including coverage, access and the reliable delivery of free
    data to the private sector is the name of the game.***

> **C -- additional questions related to business models**

Regarding changes in your business model:

-   If you have more than one phase in your business model (or business
    plan), what are the phases and which phase are you in now? -- ***The
    beginning. The market is yet to develop.***

-   What important deviations, if any, have taken place between your
    actual record, future plans and your original business plan, and for
    what reasons? -- ***Deviations take place everyday. No one is smart
    enough to predict how a brand new market is going to operate a year
    from now. Changes in technology, extensive delays in gaining access
    to data and slow market development forces continuous changes to the
    business plan. What hasn't changed is the five year forecast. We are
    still 5 years away from a real market. We said the same thing 4
    years ago.***

Regarding lessons learned from your business experience:

-   What are some of the unexpected results, both positive and negative,
    that you have experienced in your business development? -- ***The
    lack of data access. We expected more cooperation from the public
    sector. We thought traveller information was something the public
    sector wanted to happen. While there is strong support in some
    circles, the amount of public agency support is very limited.***

-   Base on what you know today, how would you have done things
    differently? -- ***Probably nothing. I wouldn't know 4 years ago
    what I know today. And today is not much different than 4 years ago.
    There are still no large quantities of reliable data or very many
    markets that have data and it is still very difficult to predict
    when there will be reliable data. There is no large user market and
    it is still very difficult to predict when there will be a market.
    The same decision remains today. Do we have the staying power to
    wait for data and a market to develop or do we wait until the data
    is available before we enter the traveller information market.***

***Final Note: Traveler Information is not nor ever will be a self
sustaining stand alone business. It is product within a portfolio of
products that is operated by a service company. It will only be
reasonably successful in a critical mass - economy of scale
environment.***

**Appendix I**

**Slide Presentations at the Chicago World Congress**

(October 16, 2002 -- Text outline only)

The presentations at the Special Session on "Benchmarking ATIS
Activities in Europe and North America" at the 9^th^ ITS World Congress
in Chicago were made by the speakers in the following order:

Overall ATLANTIC Project Description

John Miles

Chip White

ATIS Topics

Kan Chen

Bill Johnson

John Miles

Siegfried Rupprecht

Pierre Pretorius

Larry Sweeney

Robert Libbrecht\*

The slides of their presentation (in text outline form) are shown in the
following pages -- each presentation beginning with a new page.

-   Mr. Libbrecht was unable to attend the World Congress at the last
    minute. However, he did prepare and send in a set of slides, which
    he would have presented if he had come.

# [John Miles' 1^st^ Presentation]{.underline}

# 

# The ATLANTIC Project

## **Overview and Current Status**

## **John Miles** 

## **Technical Director** 

## **European ATLANTIC Project** 

# ATLANTIC Project Organisation

# ATLANTIC Partners

# Project aims

## Main aims of the ATLANTIC project:

### Create a network of key individuals and organisations involved in ITS research and policy development in Europe, USA and Canada 

### Develop a trans-Atlantic ITS Forum for information exchange and debate

### Assist the EC with the eEurope Action Plan

# ITS Forum objectives

## High level objectives:

### In-depth comparison of the results of ITS research in the US, Canada and Europe

### Identification of opportunities for trans-Atlantic research collaboration

### Agreement on best research methodologies

### Development of operational skills to enable sustainability of the network

#  ATLANTIC Forum 1^st^ year achievements - 1

## Parallel US Funding for 12 months (will be reviewed)

## Parallel Canadian funding (confirmed only recently) 

## Internet site and ITS Forum operational

## Experience in facilitating ITS Forum discussions 

## ITS Forum editorial capability

## High profile - interest from ITS National groups & POLIS network of city-regions

## Interest beyond N. America

#  ATLANTIC Forum 1^st^ year achievements - 2

## Trans-Atlantic discussion groups established in 4 out of 8 Areas with 3 others still going forward

### Traffic & Travel Information

### Inter-modal freight

### Co-operative vehicle-highway systems

### ITS Benefits, costs and evaluation

## Substantial input to Chicago ITS World Congress

### 1 Special Session on ATIS (SS18)

### 4 Discussion Sessions on BEC(DS2,4,5,6) 

# Conclusions so far....

## On the methodology:

### ITS Forum working group + workshop = v. effective

### Internet-based discussions need active moderation

### Specialist, pro-active leadership is vital

### Some central funding is necessary for co-ordination

## ITS Forum development in general:

### Expert groups (invitation only) work well

### Forum activities need a "sponsor" to oversee the work (e.g. ITS-A BEC International Committee)

### Opportunity to develop a knowledge base for ITS?

# The way forward

## ITS Forum framework

### Scope: Research and/or policy development?

### Expert forums and/or outreach to a wider group?

### Trans-Atlantic, as now, or wider?

### A confederation of (national?) ITS Organisations 

## Financing ATLANTIC 

### Funding needed for convenors, rapporteurs, and workshops, plus design, production and editing of Internet site and ITS Forum 

Funding sources: EU, USA, Canada -- any others?

# [Chip White's Presentation]{.underline}

# 

# ATLANTIC Project U.S. Participation

## ITS World Congress

## 16 October 2002

## Special Session 18: Benchmarking Traveler Information Activities in Europe and North America

# Objectives

## Trans-Atlantic ITS Information Exchange

## Cooperative R&D Program Development

## Sustaining Institutional Framework

# US Participation

## Consistent with USDOT 10-Year Program Plan

## Work Groups

### Benchmarking ATIS business models (K. Chen)

### Vehicle-highway systems (R. Bishop)

### Intermodal freight transportation (C. White)

## Overall coordination (White & Chen) - developing a sustaining institutional framework

# ATIS Subtask Overview of Progress

## Benchmarking ATIS business models (both public & private)

### Agreements on similarities and differences summarized

### Unresolved issues, including possible joint studies, summarized

### Received European comments on US ATIS update report

### e-Europe case studies (pub & priv) based partly on US interview questions

### Collecting information on private ATIS initiatives in US for completeness

## Adding other ATIS subtasks (to enhance value of Atlantic)

### European and Canadian comments on InfoStructure sought

### Electronic discussion on preparing ATIS for 3G initiated

## Presenting results in a special session at Chicago World Congress

# Vehicle-Highway Systems Subtask Overview of Progress

## Providing European project results to IVI program

## Top five topics:

### Understanding international differences

### Terminology

### Relationships between international actors (ISO, TRB, etc)

### Sensor Technology

### External Enhancement of ACC

## Chicago World Congress

### Internat'l Task Force on V-H Automation to incorporate ATLANTIC results and consider next steps (global)

# Freight Subtask Overview of Progress  

## Identified top research topics:

### Security and efficiency

### PUD in a congested environment

### Vehicle tracking, tracing, and routing

### ITS applications for intermodal facilities

## Extending the freight and information process map regarding:

### International issues

### Domestic security issues 

## With Singapore, initiated research on container port efficiency and security (also initial contacts with Rotterdam & Savannah)

## Presenting results at ITS World Congress and TRB

# Institutional Framework

## Identify a sustainable multi-national institutional framework for the ATLANTIC concept. 

## The deliverable: description of a sustainable multinational institutional framework for strategic facilitated information exchange and a model for eventual worldwide international R&D cooperation.

## Make use of existing organizational structures, e.g., ITS World Congress, PIARC, OECD

# Institutional Framework

## Within the new ITS America Coordinating Council structure, initiated a new Special Interest Group on "International Research & Learning." (SIGIRL)

## SIGIRL is part of the Forum on "Research, Education, & Cross-Cutting Interests."

## Exploratory meeting:

##  TIME: 2-4 PM, Wednesday, October 16, 2002

##  PLACE: Best Western Grant Park Hotel (one and half block from Chicago Hilton)

##  1100 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL

##  Hospitality Room (near the breakfast area)

# Agenda

## Recruitment of members and observers 

## Scope of SIGIRL 

## Work plan for the 1^st^ year 

## Web-enabled electronic dialog 

## Multinational confederation of e-dialogs 

## Initial topics for ITSA-based e-dialog 

## Future meetings

## Please join us!

## 

# [Kan Chen's Presentation]{.underline}

# 

# Comparative Analysis of ATIS Practices

# Specific Approach

## Began with US ATIS Update Report

## Obtained comments from Canada & Europe

## Elicited statements on similarities and differences

## Conducted questionnaire survey

## Analyzed level of agreement and standard deviation on responses to each statement

## Summarized survey results for comments

## Conducted follow-up e-discussions on web

## Final report to be issued

# 1. US ATIS Update Report

## Co-authored by Rick Schuman & Eli Sherer

## Published in November 2001

## Entitled "ATIS U.S. Business Models Review"

## Wide coverage of ATIS practices beyond business models (beyond traffic broadcasts)

## Focused on public-private partnerships 

## [EX]{.underline}: Revenue generated cannot wholly support ATIS service yet

# 2. Canadian & European Comments

## Sought specific interactions

## Examples of European comments

### Europe has greater amount and range of ATIS services

### Offered reasons why US ATIS services are not self-sustaining

## Examples of Canadian comments

### US & Canadian architecture may have fragmented multi-modal ATIS services

### Failure of business models may not be the same as failure in their implementation

# 3. Statements for Questionnaire

## Effective alternative to immediate e-debate

## Elicited three sets of statements

## Similarities between Europe & North America

### [EX]{.underline}: Public funding essential, esp. in data collection

## Differences between Europe & North America

### [EX]{.underline}: More integration of transit info in Europe

## Unresolved issues

### [EX]{.underline}: Where to draw boundary between free public & for-pay private ATIS

# 4. Questionnaire Survey

## Asked for degree of agreement on 11 similarities and 13 differences

### Choose among aa, a, n, d, dd (strongly agree to neutral to strongly disagree)

### Optional text to expand or comment on each answer

## Asked for ranking of 5 unresolved issues, with optional additional nominations, for later e-discussion

# 5. Analyze Survey Responses

## 15 experts responded from all 3 communities (most answers with added text comments)

## Assign weights (aa=100, a=50, n=0, d=-50, dd=-100)

## Compute average and standard deviation for each of 11+13 statements

## [EX]{.underline}: Public funding is essential, especially with regard to data collection. *61.5 \[44.5\]*

## [EX]{.underline}: The trend of ATIS data collection in both continents is toward increased reliance on floating vehicle data. *--7.7 \[58.3\]* 

## Make composite ranking of all unresolved issues (including new nominated issues)

# 6. Survey Results Summarized

## Interim paper on Comparative Analysis distributed to ATIS group for review & comments

## General agreements on 4 (out of 11) statements on similarities and 2 (out of 13) statements on differences, all with qualifications

## 5 general disagreements or misunderstandings

## Significant diversity (large StdDev) of opinions

# 7. Follow-up e-Discussion on Web

## 5 ATIS issues chosen as web discussion strands

## All ATIS group members have registered for TTI Forum on the web

## 18 Forum registrants contributed inputs to web discussion

## Summaries of web discussion distributed through e-mail to ATIS group members as well as posted on the web

# 8. Final Report

## To be issued near the end of October, 2002

# Additional Subtasks

## Sought information on private ATIS initiatives

## Sought Canadian and European comments on US initiative on Infostructure

## Sought interactions regarding impact of 3G telecommunications on ATIS

Suggestions for future work \-- documented as project requests

# [Bill Johnson's Presentation]{.underline}

# 

# ATLANTIC - Canadian Node

## *A Partnership to advance ITS research in Canada in concert with international partners*

## *Analysis of ATIS Business Models in Canada*

## William Johnson 

## Special Session 18, 9^th^ World Congress on ITS

## Chicago, Illinois, USA

## October 16, 2002

# ATLANTIC - Canadian Node / Overview

## Canada-E.U. Science & Technology Agreement - *Canada requested to participate in the E.U.'s transport thematic networks.* 

## ATLANTIC Thematic Network *- Universities of Toronto & Montreal form Joint Canadian Node and solicit partners & sponsors.*

## ATLANTIC - Canadian Node Objectives: ***Shared** - benchmark ITS research in 3 economies including Traveler Information Systems (ATIS), **Unique ***- *stimulate an active & self-sustaining ITS research community in Canada with spin-offs to private, public & academic sectors.*

# ATLANTIC - Canadian Node / ATIS

## ATIS Business Models *- High priority issue to establish viable services,* *- Joined the U.S.- led analysis and "peer" review.*

## Canadian Conditions *- Small population with only 4 major urban areas \>1m,* *- Federal funding for deployment is not significant , [but]{.underline} - Pioneer developers of VMS & CMS for driver info and in-vehicle systems, - Companies use Canadian cities to prove ATIS components for North American & global markets.*

# ATLANTIC - Canadian Node / ATIS Services

## Variety of small-scale services *- Local solutions; no integration across modes.*

## Road Traffic *- Telephone dial-up is widespread, - Broadcast by radio, television & internet, - Toronto trials of displays at gasoline pumps.*

## Transit Information *- Telephone dial-up for bus stop information, - Montreal Metro cars have display panels for \<emergency + route guidance + entertainment\> funded by commercial advertising.*

# ATLANTIC - Canadian Node / ATIS Activities

## Analytical activities underway *- Review/comment on U.S. ATIS Update Report and U.S. Info-Structure initiative, - Inventory/profile existing ATIS services (in progress), - Survey service operators and policy offices using ATLANTIC questionnaire (in progress), - Identified opportunities for X-border harmonization e.g. "511" telephone traveler information number is not yet established across Canada.*

# ATLANTIC - Canadian Node / Future Directions

## Initiate Work for All 8 ATLANTIC Themes *- Use ATIS experience as guide, - Planning for 15 months of operation, - Measure success by spin-offs to private, public and academic participants.*

## ATLANTIC Canadian Node *- Model for small economies to join this international ITS thematic network.* 

## Thank You!

# ANNEX ATLANTIC - Canadian Node / Contacts

## Baher Abdulhai, Director

## ITS Centre and Testbed

## University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

## Tel.: 416 946-5036 E-mail: [[baher@ecf.utoronto.ca]{.underline}](mailto:baher@ecf.utoronto.ca) 

## Theodor Crainic, Director

## Intelligent Transportation System Laboratory

## Centre for Research on Transportation

## Université de Montréal, Montréal (Québec), Canada

## Tel: 514 343-7143 E-mail: [[theo@crt.umontreal.ca]{.underline}](mailto:theo@crt.umontreal.ca) 

## William Johnson, Consultant

## Transport Research, Education & Development Services

## Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

## Tel: 613 797-1489 E-mail: [[johnswf@attglobal.net]{.underline}](mailto:johnswf@attglobal.net) 

# [John Miles' 2^nd^ Presentation]{.underline}

# 

# The ATLANTIC Project

## Special Session 18: Benchmarking ATIS Activities in Europe and North America

# Overview

## Some early results on:

## Implementation framework for ATIS (TTI) in Europe

## Trends & drivers

## Status of deployment

## Measuring ATIS success

## \"TTI service scorecard\" 

## What to expect from ATLANTIC?

# TTI Trends in Europe

# Current status of ATIS in Europe

## Variety of services

### few multimodal

### mostly free services (at point of use)

### low coordination (at spatial levels & across modes)

### considerable regional/ national differences

### \... but a positive trend

## RDS/ TMC is single European service

## Markets & users

### low willingness to pay (customer utility? trust? cost?)

### crisis of the new economy has negative impact

# TTI Trends: Society (\"megatrends\")

## Regulatory approach

### aim to balance public service obligation & market forces

### freedom of deployment of TTI (in most countries)

## Market demography

### increasing buying power

### favourable age structure, increasing time values, etc.

## High-level transport policy goals

### emphasis on using existing infrastructure ()

### intermodality & TTI commonly accepted as key goals

### attitudes of decision makers (\"ITS culture\"?)

## Growing mobility demand (especially leisure & freight)

## ITS & TTI industry

## Decreasing public funds

# Drivers & Obstacles

## positive regulatory approach

## specific ITS/ ATIS regulation

## high-level policy goals

## market demography

## growing mobility demand

## regional TCC/ TIC\'s

## \...

## public funding availability

## users\' willingness to pay vs. expectations

## willingness to take risks

## good practice experience

## evaluation results

## crisis in the markets

## \...

# TTI Trends: Medium-term potential

## Integration and connection of infrastructures

## Specific ITS & TTI regulation in place (\"mostly\")

## Transport mode preferences & lifestyles

## Mutual understanding of stakeholders & users

## Willingness to pay, user expectations

## General economic climate

# TTI Trends: Short-term potentials

## Technology convergence

## Low cost solutions for data collection, integration, & transmission

## Device penetration & ITS image

## Standards & codes of practice

## Specific ITS/ TTI policy objectives, R&D policy

## Technology development vs market uptake

## Availability of public & private funding

## Revenue expectations & readiness to take risks

## Good practice experience & evaluation results

# TTI implementation framework: Overview

## Influence on TTI implementation

# Status of TTI Deployment

# Status of ATIS implementation in Europe

## 1. A wide range of ATIS services and business models has been created: e.g. 133 service profiles covering:

### public, private & in partnership

### free & pay services

### urban-regional & intermodal networks/ national & European

### multiple delivery channels

## 2. A more \"mature\" ATIS market is emerging

### differentiation of ATIS service chains 

### strategic partnerships & alliances

### intermodal services & new „packages" 

### more emphasis on „B2B" 

# Status of TTI Deployment in Europe (2)

## Service provision

### various delivery models

### increasingly an image factor (users and "providers")

### shift from technology-driven to policy-led & commercial approach

### PPP discussions have not yet resulted in many significant joint services

### trend from B2C to B2B (and new \"B2B2C\" packages)

### few (no?) completely sustainable business cases (yet)

### most successful are single-actor, single-mode, low-cost services

### some evidence of niche markets (personalised services)

# A \"Real\" TTI Service Delivery Model

# Basic TTI Service Models in Europe

# Thank you!

## **Contacts**

## www.atlan-tic.net

## jcm@ankerbold.co.uk www.ankerbold.co.uk

## s.rupprecht@rupprecht-consult.de www.rupprecht-consult.de

# A variety of TTI services in Europe

## Scope

### pre-trip / on-trip

### collective / individual

### ubiquitous / exclusive

## Content

### static / dynamic / predictive

### single / multi-mode / intermodal

### location referenced

### service integration (VAS)

## User interaction

### passive / instructive

### push / pull

### free / paid (at point of use)

# Rationale for TTI service implementation

TTI stakeholders & interests

# [Siegfried Rupprecht's Presentation]{.underline}

# 

# ATIS business models 10 October 2002

# Status of ATIS implementation in Europe

## A wide range of different ATIS services and business models has been created.

### with public, private, and partnership finance

### for traffic management \... or personal comfort

### for urban-regional and intermodal networks

### for national and European networks (road, rail, air)

### on multiple delivery channels (internet, VMS, RDS/TMC, DAB, GSM, \...)

## The development of ATIS services in Europe is „maturing".

### differentiation of ATIS service chains & clusters

### strategic partnerships and alliances between stakeholders

### implementation of regional TCC/ TIC

### integration of intermodal data and services

### new ATIS service „packages"

### selling of ATIS services as „B2B" and „B2B2C" 

# Conditions of ATIS implementation in Europe

## ATIS service implementation is conditioned by very heterogeneous and multi-level frameworks.

## The basic cognitive, institutional and strategic frameworks play a fundamental role in ATIS service development.

### regulatory ethos, policy goals, institutional structures

### IT cultures, preferences and pre-conceptions

### decision makers, stakeholders, users

## To influence ATIS service deployment, the constitution of these frameworks need to be developed actively.

# Understanding ATIS „business models"

## Rather than „business models", the aim should be to understand „service models".

## „Service models" need to consider the views of the private sector, the public sector, and the users.

### commercial goals: return on investment

### policy goals: traffic management, modal shift, intermodality

### individual goals: utility and benefit

## A focus on public/private task divisions along the information chain is a self-limitation. 

### (public) data supply -- (private) service provision (Commission Recommendation)

# Developing ATIS „service models"

## To achieve „more (private) ATIS services" is not a success criterion: What counts is the service quality.

## All service models need to be *developed* in an open process.

### realize there is not *one* successful „service model"

### include all relevant actors

### develop a general vision and elaborate common goals

### chose a step-by-step approach to implementation

### remain open for new actors & service products

# ATIS service benchmarking process

# What to expect from ATLANTIC

## Status overview of ATIS implementation in Europe

### 23 status reports from EC and CEE countries

### over 40 key-actors interviews

### 5 Focus Group discussions with 5-10 stakeholders 

### 18 Good Practice Case studies

## Derive basic typologies of regulatory frameworks, policy approaches and ATIS service models

## Identify key drivers, trends and obstacles

### 

# [Pierre Pretorius' Presentation]{.underline}

# 

## ***[Developing the INFOstructure]{.underline}***

## Pierre Pretorius P.E.

##  Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

# Roadway INFOstructure

## USDOT initiative to help meet the information 

## needs for operating the surface transportation

## system. Intended to have a pivotal role in:

## Meeting public expectations for 21st century transportation

## Addressing transportation-related homeland security needs

## Addressing the growing problem of congestion

## Supporting improved response to weather events 

## Facilitating national and regional traveler information

# ATLANTIC Discussion

## How the Roadway INFOstructure should be developed and operated

## Data ownership and privacy

## Addressing ITS data needs through the INFOstructure

## Addressing transportation security needs through the INFOstructure

## Performance and information security requirements

## Technical, institutional, and policy challenges

# Responses/comments

## Concern about mixing security objectives with other objectives (congestion, weather, etc.), because the decision theories are distinct different and should be approached differently.

## Take advantage of the heightened interest in safety and security to accelerate efforts to really define the business processes we support in converting public expenditure on transportation into value.

# Responses/comments (2)

## Analogy between the UK TCC (US\$250 million) project and the US INFOstructure initiative. 

## TCC approach is not to go straight for one particular design solution without first considering in depth what the project is trying to achieve and the trade-offs between performance, risk and price.

## Recommends that one needs measures of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness to guide public investment decisions.

# Responses/comments (3)

## In Ontario, Canada two levels of surveillance have been developed - a full system and a light infrastructure system for less busy sections of highway. 

## There is a need to keep \'light infrastructure\' equipment in storage to be deployed on short notice in areas where they are needed

# Responses/comments (4)

## Examples of private data sources in UK:

### Point-to-point vehicle license-plate tracking is used by TrafficMaster to derive journey times. 

### ITIS has contracts with the operators of a national truck fleet and a long-distance express coach fleet to gather \"floating car\" journey time data in real time across Britain (and historical data across mainland Europe). 

### The public benefit and utility of the INFOstructure facility should be reasonably high compared with the costs of providing that facility. 

# TRB/ITS America Workshop

##  Short Term Vision

### Statewide Reporting of Incidents

### Monitoring of Freeways and Principal Arterials in Major Metro Areas

### Monitoring of Major Rail and Bus Transit Systems in Major Metro Areas

### Surface Transportation Specific Weather and Road Condition Information

### Facilities Monitoring of Other Key Facilities

# TRB/ITS America Workshop

## Long Term Vision

### Vehicle Probe Data System-wide

### Advanced Surveillance on Arterials/Intersections

### Transit Monitoring Standard

### National Surface Transportation Weather Observation and Forecasting 

### Transportation Security Systems

# Benchmarking Traveler Information Activities in Europe and North America

## ***[Developing the INFOstructure]{.underline}***

## Pierre Pretorius P.E.

##  Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

# [Larry Sweeney's Presentation]{.underline}

# 

# Larry Sweeney, Ph.D. VP/GM Dynamic Traveler Content Tele Atlas Special Session 18 Benchmarking ATIS Activities in Europe and North America ITS World Congress, Oct. 16, 2002, Chicago, IL

# Topics

## A US Private-Sector ATIS Initiative

## Traffic-linked maps

## Business models

## Consumer interest

## Conclusions

# Dynamic Content -- Traffic System

# Traffic Coverage

# Tele Atlas/Westwood One Dynamic Info

## Traffic for entire U.S. available from a single IP address

### 72 operations centers nationwide (more coming)

### 92 Traffic Workstations deployed in daily operation

### 2000 personnel, 70 aircraft involved daily in traffic reporting

### Cover 98% of the population in the 75 largest U.S. urban areas

## Robust architecture

### Over 5 years of overall system operational experience

### Over 2.5 million workstation-hours of TWS operation

### Better than 99.99% data-feed-service availability

## Support existing & evolving standards (including RDS-TMC)

## Output used in many applications 

# Traffic Info Customer Products/Services

## Internet -- about 60 service providers online, growing rapidly

### National Web sites MSN Carpoint, Tribune Interactive, Cox Interactive, etc. 

### Plus over 50 local Web sites

## Traffic Check Automated Traffic TV -- 7 systems online, 

### Cable broadcasts in Atlanta; Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale, AZ; Salt Lake City; and Orange County, CA

### UHF broadcast plus cable in San Francisco Bay Area

## Telematics -- 2 service providers online, expect rapid growth

### OnStar, ATX, etc.

## Personal services -- 6 service providers online, expect rapid growth

### Palm VII (Bell South), Palm V (Earthlink), etc.

### PCS phones -- AT&T, Sprint, etc.

### Paging/e-mail -- MS Notify.net, etc.

### Voice portals -- TellMe, BeVocal, etc.

# Linking traffic to maps

## Tele Atlas traffic codes imbedded in Tele Atlas maps for maximum accuracy and efficiency

### Same as codes used for traffic reports

### No translation tables required

## Traffic-Linked Maps enable traffic-dependent, pathfinding, route guidance, and personal alerts

## Important for Traffic-Linked Navigation

## U.S. nationwide routable traffic-linked maps announced by TA at this 9^th^ World Congress

# Business Models

## Tele Atlas NA is a B2B content company

## Our customers pay royalties based on usage with annual minimums

## Royalties based on

### Subscriptions

### Transactions

### Bundled into price of unit or vehicle 

### Etc.

## For navigation systems first year may be included with subsequent years subscription or transaction

# Driscoll-Wolfe Telematics Survey\*

## Top ranked services: (1) stolen vehicle tracking, (2) emergency notification, (3) real-time traffic info

## 79% expressed high interest in real-time traffic service

## Would use traffic more frequently than any other service

### 97% would use traffic sometimes, 48% would use daily

## 91% willing to pay for traffic service

## Considerable interest among consumers in traffic navigation

## 70% of auto execs interviewed planned to include traffic navigation into their product lines

## **\*** White paper available at Tele Atlas booth

# Conclusions

## Consumers top-rated telematics applications are emergency assistance and real-time travel information/directions

## Nationwide traffic available from Tele Atlas/Westwood One 

### 72 U.S. operations centers covering 98% of the population in the 75 largest urban areas

## Real-time traffic already used in many applications including Internet, Traffic-TV, Telematics, IVR, personal devices, etc.

### Pricing and business models are established

## Demand increasing for real-time traffic nav systems

## U.S. business models differ from those in Europe and Japan

## Traffic-Linked Maps critical to traffic-navigation systems

# [Robert Libbrecht's Slides]{.underline}

# 

# Telematics Application Programme

## Demonstration

## Validation

## All Modes

### Road - Rail - Air - Maritime

## Guidelines

### Safety - HMI - Assessment - Architectures

## Central theme: User

### As traveller - As driver

# Telematics Application Programme

## **[Traveller Information: Key Application]{.underline}**

## Dynamic traveller Information

## Mulimodal & Intermodal traffic information

## Services offered:

### Pre-trip Information

### On-trip Information

## Target users:

### Collective Transport passengers

### Individual mode users

### Park & Ride users

# Telematics Application Programme

## Problems Identified

### User need specifications

### Market acceptance

### Socoi-economic evaluation

### Optimisation of data collection and preparation

### Human machine interfaces

#### For access

#### For usability

# Telematics Application Programme

##  **[Pre-trip Information]{.underline}**

## Main carriers: Internet - GSM

## Problems: Data Availability & Collection

### Data ownership - Competing operators

### Technical Problem: Availability & Collection

### No Generic architecture emerged

## Business Case

### Value added: selling information

### Public service: for free

# Telematics Application Programme

##  **[On-trip Information]{.underline}**

## At stop real time information systems

### Highly accepted by users

### Problem: Guidelines & Standards \> larger market and reducing costs

## P.T. on-board Information

### Next stops

### Remaining travel time

## Mobile personal travel assistants

### WAP & Internet will boost

# Telematics Application Programme

##  **[Driver Information Services]{.underline}**

## Basic requirement

### Safety

### Efficiency 

## User needs:

### Public information: free of charge

### Public/private information: no profit: PPP

### Private information: added value 

# Telematics Application Programme

##  **[Applications]{.underline}**

## RDS-TMC

### Almost everywhere in Europe

### High quality data collection & exchange

### Compatibility - Interoperability

## DAB

## GSM (weather, emergency situations, timetables, P&R info)

## Real Time Traffic Situation on Internet

# Telematics Application Programme

##  **[Enabling Systems & Services]{.underline}**

## Traffic Information Centres

### Mobility or information platforms

### Linking traffic control systems (motorways)

## Data Exchange

## Cross-border Data Exchange

### DATEX

### MoU

# Telematics Application Programme

##  **[Payment Systems]{.underline}**

## Integrated Payment Systems

### Different P.T. operators

### Multi modal approach

### P&R, Loyalty schemes

## Electronic purse

## Smart Cards - Contactless

### Hybrid card: 2 chips - 2 interfaces

### Combi card: 1 chip - 2 interfaces

# Telematics Application Programme

##  **[Automatic Debiting & Toll Collection]{.underline}**

## EFC: tool for policy objectives

### Demand Management

### Road Pricing

-   **Access Control**

> **Appendix J**

**Participants in ATIS Exchanges**

[US Participants]{.underline} (17)

Bishop, Dick Richard Bishop Consulting

Chen, Kan University of Michigan

Cox, John TANN

Lappin, Jane Volpe Center

Markowitz, Joel Metropolitan Transportation Commission

McQueen, Bob PBS&J

Perley, Scott Mobility Technologies

Pretorius, Pierre Kimley-Horn

Pritchard, Bob TrafficCast

Roberts, D. Craig PBS&J

Rupert, Bob Federal Highway Administration

Schaffnit, Tom Schaffnit Consulting

Schuman, Richard S. PBS&J

Sherer, Eli PBS&J

Sweeney, Larry Tele Atlas

Wollenberg, Steve MobileAria

Zimmerman, Carol Battelle

##### Non-US Participants (19)

Allouche, Jean Francois Syndicat des Transports d'Ile de France

Atkinson, Lesley Ankerbold International (UK)

Austin, John Austin Analytics (UK)

Boelen, Alexander CMG (Netherlands)

Dolger, Reiner Regional Government of Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany)

Frigon, Paul PSR Group (Canada)

Harris, Richard FaberMaunsell Ltd (UK)

Hayward, Mike Carl Bro Group Ltd

Henriques, Carlota European participant

Johnson, Bill Consultant (Canada)

Kamnitzer, David IBI Group (Canada and UK)

Libbrecht, Robert ERTRALCO (Belgium)

Maes, Willy European Commission

Miles, John Ankerbold International (UK)

Perry, Mark WSP Group (Europe)

Rupprecht, Siegfried Rupprecht Consult (Germany)

Sinisalo, Kimmo Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (Finland)

Walker, Janet Ankerbold International (UK)

Wolfram, Marc Rupprecht Consult (Germany)

**Appendix K**

**ATIS Group Messages**

***(12 e-mail messages sent by Kan Chen)***

######### 

######### [Message No. 1]{.underline} (9/19/01)

######### 

Dear all:

I am inviting you to be a US participant in the Traffic and Travel
Information (TTI) Work Group within the newly launched Atlantic project.
As shown in the attached press release, the main purpose of the Atlantic
project is to foster information exchange in ITS among Canada, USA and
Europe. The coordination of the US participation on a one-year pilot
basis is supported by the ITS Joint Program Office. Because of limited
budget, your participation will be on a voluntary basis. However, we
believe that the benefits to be derived from your voluntary
participation will be both rewarding to your professional activities and
valuable to the US 10-Year ITS Program Plan under development, to which
the US participation in the Atlantic project intends to support. Your
participation will be mainly through electronic mail and/or electronic
forum, supplemented occasionally by workshops to be held during the 2002
TRB Meeting and the 2002 ITS World Congress in Chicago.

Professor Chelsea White of the University of Michigan and I are serving
as the overall US coordinators for the Atlantic project. I am also
serving as the US coordinator for a substantive subtask focused on ATIS
business models as a part of the TTI Work Group agenda. The work plan
for my subgroup is shown in the attached PowerPoint file. I am
soliciting your contributions mainly to this subtask on business models.
However, as a member of my subgroup, you will automatically become a
member of the TTI WG that will allow your access to other TTI WG
information exchange.

At this point, Bob Rupert of FHWA, Joel Markowitz of MTC and Pierre
Pretorius of Kimley-Horn have already agreed to be US participants
through my subgroup. The European and Canadian coordinators are in the
process of recruiting their participants. Among the Europeans who will
be active in the TTI Work Group are Richard Harris (UK), the TTI WG
convener; Siegfried Rupprecht (Germany), the TTI WG rapporteur; and John
Miles (UK), the Atlantic technical director.

I hope you will respond positively by this weekend since I will be
leaving for Sydney for the ITS World Congress next Monday, September 24.
If I hear from you before my departure, I can send you some information
about key European reports in the ATIS area. Our e-mail and e-forum
activities will start in earnest sometime in early November, after all
the members from Canada, USA and Europe have been recruited.

######### Sincerely,

Kan Chen

######### 

######### 

######### [Message No. 2]{.underline} (11/15/01)

######### 

Dear All:

You will recall that we were planning to begin substantive discussions
with our European and Canadian counterparts in mid-November on ATIS
Business Model Comparison. However, partly due to personnel changes on
the European side, we will not start the discussion till the end of
November. At this time, I'd like to inform you some of the recent
developments related to our task and seek your advice on a couple of
other items.

\(1\) PERSONNEL CHANGE -- John Miles of UK is the new convener of the
Atlantic Project Traffic and Travel Information Work Group (WG1), which
encompasses our ATIS Business Models subgroup. John Collins of UK will
remain as the rapporteur of WG1. You will recall that John Miles is the
initiator and technical director of the Atlantic Project. We certainly
welcome his direct interaction with us in the ATIS Business Model
discussions. An updated list of US participants in ATIS Business Models
is in the attached Excel file.

\(2\) NOMIATIONS -- Since the lists of our counterparts from Europe and
Canada have not firmed up yet, we have the opportunity to nominate
experts in those two communities for the European and Canadian
coordinators to consider recruiting in the next couple of weeks. Our
consideration should include the ATIS cases in all three communities
(e.g., Trafficmaster in UK, TravelGuide in Canada, and TravInfo in the
US) that we would like to get data for comparison. We should try to
include a variety of business models, include both successful and not so
successful examples, and also consider data accessibility. For this
purpose, I would appreciate your sending to me before TUESDAY, NOVEMBER
20 your nominations of European and Canadian experts, and ATIS cases in
all three communities.

\(3\) TRB PLANNING -- We are planning to have a workshop for
face-to-face discussions among the Atlantic Project participants from
all three communities in Washington DC on January 17 and 18, immediately
after the 2002 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting. The
location is likely to be at or near the National Science Foundation
(4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA). Details will be provided at a
later date. Meanwhile please make your travel plans accordingly.

\(4\) ERIC SAMPSON ON SEAMLESS TRAVEL -- Attached is a set of PowerPoint
slides used by Eric Sampson for his presentation on "Traveller
Information in an Age of Seamless Journeys," at the Sydney ITS World
Congress. I found the practical examples he gave to be very interesting
and very relevant to the seamless travel theme under the US 10-year
program plan. I hope your will find the slides interesting even without
his verbal explanation. Actually, I have a 10MB voice file (in MP3
format) if you would like me to send the large voice file to you. I also
hope that both the PowerPoint file and the voice file will be available
through the Atlantic web site. At an opportune time, I will inform you
how to use and get onto that web site.

MEANWHILE PLEASE SEND ME YOUR NOMINATIONS (SEE ITEM 2 ABOVE) BY TUESDAY
NEXT WEEK.

With best regards,

Kan Chen

cc: Roster of US Participants

Sampson's slides

######### 

**[Message No. 3]{.underline} (12/13/01)**

Dear All:

Our first opportunity for face-to-face interactions with our European
and Canadian counterparts in the Atlantic Project will take place in
Washington, DC during the TRB week at a workshop as follows:

TIME: Thursday morning, January 17, 2002

LOCATION: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,
VA (near Ballston Metro Station) -- room to be announced later

SCHEDULE: Plenary session 8:30 - 10 AM; ATIS breakout session 10 - 12
NOON

The status of the entire Atlantic Project will be presented at the
plenary session, which will be attended by those members of all 8
Atlantic topic groups who are in WDC during the TRB week. After
introduction and a few presentations, the ATIS breakout session will
focus on our future work plan and specific methods for future
interactions. The presentations will include:

> Overview of ATIS in Europe Miles
>
> Overview of ATIS in Canada Johnson/Frigon
>
> The eEurope initiative Rupprecht
>
> US ATIS update report Eli Sherer
>
> US ATIS Scan Tour to Europe Pretorius

Presenters from Europe may also include Cathy Jenkins (UK) from
Transport Technology & Telematics (TTT), who reports to Eric Sampson (in
charge of UK Transport Direct). Given the important ATIS work that has
been done recently on both sides of the Atlantic, our ATIS Business
Models work plan needs to be updated to build on the recent
accomplishments. Other ways of enhancing value added by the Atlantic
Project within the ATIS group will also be discussed at the breakout
session.

To assure success of the Atlantic Workshop, I would welcome your
suggestions for other topics for discussion. I would also appreciate
your informing me regarding your intent to attend the Workshop.

With best regards,

Kan Chen

######### [Message No. 4]{.underline} (12/27/01)

######### 

Dear All:

This is just a short supplement to the message I sent you on December
13. The Atlantic Workshop to be held on January 17, 2002 will take place
in the Stafford II Room in National Science Foundation (NSF), located at
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA (near Ballston Metro Station). The
room has been reserved by Professor Chelsea White from the University of
Michigan.

Please plan to arrive at the main desk of NSF by 8:15 am to obtain your
ID and go through security checks. The plenary session of the Atlantic
Workshop is scheduled to begin at 8:30 am, followed by the ATIS breakout
session at 10 -- 12 noon.

To assure success of the Atlantic Workshop, I would welcome your
suggestion of discussion topics to be added to the agenda I sent you on
December 13. If you have not indicated to me regarding your intention to
attend the workshop, please contact me soon so that we can inform the
NSF security guards accordingly.

I look forward to seeing you soon,

Kan Chen

######### [Message No. 5]{.underline} (2/4/02)

Dear All:

There are 3 main purposes of this group message: (1) to convey to you
the presentation materials prepared for the ATIS breakout session at the
Atlantic Workshop held on January 17, (2) to inform you the procedure
for accessing the Atlantic Project web site, and (3) to summarize the
new work plan for our subgroup based on recent ATIS work achievements.

The ATIS breakout session was attended by 12 of the 13 members in the US
subgroup. As noted in the attached agenda, there were presentations by 3
Europeans, 1 Canadian, and 5 US attendees. Because of time limitation,
not all the slides (including Pierre Pretorius' and mine) were actually
used for presentation. However, there was a good amount of interactions
during and after the session, providing helpful inputs to the adjustment
of our work plan for the next 9 months.

PRESENTATION MATERIALS

Attached are all the PowerPoint slides prepared for the ATIS session
that are under 1 MB. I had to truncate John Miles' original slides (6
MB) and provide text-only version of Dave Kamnitzer's slides (1.8 MB) in
order to keep the total attachments size to 2.5 MB. However, I have
prepared a legend for all the acronyms used in the attached slides (see
the attached Excel file) to assure your full understanding of all the
words. All the originals slides, including an index to help your search,
will be available on the Atlantic web site in about two weeks.

ATLANTIC WEB SITE

You may begin to register and access the Atlantic web site by clicking
[www.atlan-tic.net](http://www.atlan-tic.net/) on the Internet. After
the Login page opens, click "Register (new user)" on the left column and
fill out your details. After that, you will be able to download the MoU
(Memo of Understanding), sign it, and fax it to Herman Bertrand of
ARTTIC in Brussels at +32 2 672 16 46. In case you have problems, please
contact Herman by phone or e-mail (tel: +32 2 663 17 46; e-mail:
<hb@arttic.be>). You do need to return your signed MoU before you can
gain full access to the web site.

There are already quite a few documents (and other discussion items) on
the Atlantic web site to browse. We plan to give you a list of
"Essential" and a list of "Reference" documents for our subgroup in the
future. Eventually we intend to conduct most of our electronic
interactions through the web. Herman will provide you further
information about the structure and various uses of the web site after
you fax him your MoU.

NEW WORK PLAN

We intend to build our work on the recently published US ATIS Business
Models Review report, the recently conducted ATIS Scan Tour to Europe,
and other achievements in Europe, Canada and US as described in the
attached presentation materials, especially the work that will proceed
with eEurope program support. For the entire WG1.1 (Traffic and Travel
Information), which includes our ATIS Business Models subgroup, Dave
Kamnitzer has been nominated as the Convener and will play a major
coordinating role, with the assistance of John Collins (of Ian Catling
Consultancy) as the Rapporteur. As a result of my most recent
discussions with John Miles and Bob Rupert, the new work plan of our
ATIS Business Models subgroup will be as follows:

Feb '02: John Austin of UK will draft his comments on the US ATIS
Business Models Review report and circulate them among other Euopean
participants (copied to Canadian participants). Austin's comments are
expected to follow the kind of questions in my slides #7 & #8 (see
attached).

Mar '02: Comments from European and Canadian participants will be
conveyed to the US report co-authors for response, with or without other
US inputs (depending on the nature and extent of the incoming comments).

Apr-May '02: Depending on the extent of comments and responses, the
above interactions may go just one or more than one rounds. The results
will be written up as a joint deliverable of the multinational ATIS
group, and are likely to identify a set of significant policy issues for
further in-depth discussion. This list is expected to augment or
supplement the tentative list of issues in Dave Kamnitzer's presentaton
(see attached).

Jul '02: By July, Siegfried Rupprecht will have conducted a number of
European case studies, taking into account the list of interview
questions presented by Eli Sherer (see attached). The European cases
will include mostly private as well as public/private ATIS initiatives.
By that time, there would be hopefully a number of US examples of mostly
private ATIS initiatives (building on the 3 examples provided by Larry
Sweeney as shown in his attached slides).

Aug-Sep '02: Benchmarking of ATIS Business Models will be conducted,
comparing private as well as public/private initiatives on both sides of
the Atlantic. The results will be documented in one or more reports,
including joint papers and/or presentations at the ITS World Congress to
be held in Chicago next October.

Oct '02: Request for program space has been made for a special session
on "Benchmarking ATIS Activities in Europe and North America." The
organization and implementation of a high-quality session will be an
important mission of our subgroup, and preparation for the session needs
to begin now.

PRIVATE ATIS INITIATIVES

While the US ATIS Business Models Review is an excellent and timely
report on public/private partnerships in ATIS, I have been receiving
comments that our subgroup can provide a complete picture of ATIS
activities only if our benchmarking efforts would include the private
ATIS initiatives as well. I have tried to summarize the various inputs
to me, and my appreciation of the promising impacts of private roles in
ATIS, in my slides #13 and #14 (see attached). Thus, private vehicle
probes may help close the traffic data gap, and bundling of ITS services
(security, electronic payment, etc. as well as bundling of traveler
information with news, weather, etc.) may help develop user acceptance.
I hope this work structure would promote integration of Dick Bishop and
Jane Lappin's expertise into the bulk of our subgroup work.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Let me conclude by inviting questions and/or suggestions from all of you
regarding any parts of this message, especially my suggested work plan
for the next 9 months.

With best regards to all of you,

Kan Chen

######### [Message No. 6]{.underline} (3/4/02)

Dear All:

We are approaching midterm of the US participation in the Atlantic
Project for the pilot year. Last week, I had the opportunity to make a
presentation on our ATIS Business Models subtask to about 20 Canadian
colleagues during a very successful telecon group meeting organized by
Bill Johnson. Attached are the slides I used for my presentation. In
slide #4, I tried to capture our new work structure under 6 bullets,
which I will now use to give you the following progress report:

INTERACTION BASED ON THE US ATIS UPDATE REPORT

This morning I received the attached written comments from Europe under
the leadership of John Austin. By March 20, we may expect written
comments from Canada. I would appreciate all US participants in our ATIS
subgroup to review these written comments and send your responses to
Rick Schuman and Eli Sherer, co-authors of the US ATIS report, with
copies to me, before the end of March. Depending on the nature and
extent of the responses, we may go through another round of electronic
exchanges. At this point, we hope to have a report summarizing the
cross-Atlantic interactions available by the time the ITS America's ATIS
Committee meets on May 1 in Long Beach, CA.

SUGGESTION OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

We have assumed that our objective of benchmarking ATIS activities
between Europe and North America might be better met if similar
interview questions would be used in the case studies on both sides of
the Atlantic. For this purpose, Eli Sherer's presentation at the
Atlantic Workshop during the TRB week included the interview questions
used for the ATIS update report. A couple of weeks ago, Bob Rupert
alerted us about additional interview questions used in the recent
Battelle report on ATIS data sharing; see link:
<http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel/DatShare.htm> These questions have
been conveyed to our European colleagues, especially Siegfried Rupprecht
who is responsible for the European case studies under the eEurope
Initiative.

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ON PRIVATE ATIS INITIATIVES

My call for nominations has resulted in 3 Canadian, 6 European, and 7 US
cases of private ATIS initiatives. Although we don't want to close the
nominations at this point, I would appreciate volunteers among the US
participants indicating to me which of the US cases you would like to
help us collect preliminary information. Based on my discussion with
Larry Sweeney, we may expect him to update the information he has
already collected on, ATX, OnStar, and Microsoft. Bill Johnson has
assured me that he would coordinate the preliminary information
collection on the Canadian cases. It is my understanding that Siegfried
Rupprecht will coordinate or take upon himself to take care of the
European cases.

SPECIAL SESSION AT THE CHICAGO WORLD CONGRESS

Our request for program space at the 9^th^ ITS World Congress in Chicago
for a special session on "Benchmarking ATIS Activities between Europe
and North America" has been conveyed from Dennis Foderberg, General
Chair, to Doug Robertson, Program Chair. A week ago, Robertson informed
me that his committee was still working on the technical sessions and
would let me know whether and how they would accommodate our request in
the near future.

COMMENTS ON INFOSTRUCTURE

Pierre Pretorius has agreed to take the lead in collecting comments,
mainly from Europeans and Canadians, on the US Government's
consideration of launching a major investment initiative on
"InfoStructure" for security, congestion, weather, and traveler
information. However, given the importance of the subject, we would
welcome comments from US participants as well. If you are interested,
please review the documents in
[www.nawgits.com/icdn.infostructure.html](http://www.nawgits.com/icdn.infostructure.html)
and contact Pierre regarding your interest in joining the electronic
discussion on this subject.

PREPARING ATIS FOR 3G

Upon his appointment as the new convener of WG1.1, of which our ATIS
Business Models is a subtask, David Kamnitzer has proposed another
subtask on "Preparing for the Arrival of 3G Mobile Services" (see
attached for detail). Given the synergism between the proposed subtask
and ours on ATIS Business Models, I would like to encourage all of you
to consider joining this new subtask after it is launched.

OTHER INPUTS REQUESTED

In my last group message, I provided you the information about how to
access the Atlantic web site. I would like to find out how many of you
have actually used the web site and how your experiences are like. John
Miles will be reviewing the status of the web site with its developer in
the near future. Your feedback and suggestions based on your own
experience would be very helpful.

As you know, the degree to which one reaps benefits from electronic
discussions is proportional to the degree to which one participates and
interacts with others in the group. Now that both our European and
Canadian colleagues are ready for the interactions, let's all take
advantage of the opportunity by actively joining the ATIS electronic
exchanges.

With best regards to all of you,

Kan Chen

Attachments: (1) Chen's presentation slides; (2) European comments on US
ATIS report; (3) Proposed subtask regarding 3G

######### [Message No. 7]{.underline} (4/12/02)

Dear All:

Yesterday I had a phone discussion with John Miles regarding the
Atlantic Project in general and our ATIS subgroup participation in the
project in particular. Let me share with you the results of our
discussion.

THE NEXT ATIS COMMITTEE MEETING

Pierre Pretorius, Chair of the ITSA ATIS Committee, has agreed to let
John Miles and me to make a 10-minute presentation, with some limited
time for discussion, on the Atlantic Project at the next ATIS Committee
meeting on May 1 at 6:30 pm, during the ITSA 2002 annual meeting in Long
Beach, CA. This will probably be the only face-to-face meeting of our
subgroup before the ITS World Congress. We hope to see all of you there.
Since our time during the committee meeting will be limited, John and I
will make ourselves available both after the committee meeting and
during breakfast the next morning (May 2) for individual discussions.

ORGANIZATION OF WG1.1

Due to health reasons, John Collins of UK has resigned as Rapporteur of
WG1.1 Traffic and Travel Information (TTI) Services, of which our ATIS
Business Models subgroup is a part. Lesley Atkinson of Ankerbold
International has been appointed the new rapporteur. The new TTI
organization is as follows:

Convenor: David Kamnitzer (dkamnitzer@ibigroup.com)

Rapporteur: Lesley Atkinson (lesley.atkinson@talk21.com)

WP leader: John Miles (jcm@ankerbold.co.uk)

N. American leader: Kan Chen (<kanchen@attbi.com>)

INTERACTION BASED ON THE US ATIS UPDATE REPORT

As reported in my last group message (#6), we have received written
comments from Europe under the leadership of John Austin. However, we
have not received any written comments from Canada. At this time, Rich
Schuman and Eli Sherer, co-authors of the US ATIS report, are preparing
a response to the European comments. We intend to give a summary of the
cross-Atlantic interactions at the May 1 ATIS Committee meeting.

SUGGESTION OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

In order to facilitate benchmarking ATIS activities between Europe and
North America, we have conveyed to our European colleagues, especially
Siegfried Rupprecht and John Miles, two sets of interview questions used
by US investigators in this area. As reported in my last group message
(#6), one set was used by Rich Schuman & Eli Sherer in their ATIS update
report; and the other was used by Carol Zimmerman et al. in their US
travel data sharing study. Having taken these interview questions into
account, Rupprecht has composed the attached sets of interview questions
(one for the public sector and the other for the private sector) for his
forthcoming case studies in Europe. Please review them and send your
comments and suggestions to me (<kanchen@attbi.com>) as soon as possible
but no later than Friday April 19.

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ON PRIVATE ATIS INITIATIVES

I have reviewed the lists of nominated case studies reported in my last
group message (#6) with John Miles and Bill Johnson. At this point, I
would like some of you to volunteer to collect preliminary information
on Comworxx and Wingcast in the US. If I don't hear anything in the near
future, I intend to call on some of you individually.

SPECIAL SESSION AT THE CHICAGO WORLD CONGRESS

The International Program Committee has accepted our request for program
space at the 9^th^ ITS World Congress in Chicago for a special session
on "Benchmarking ATIS Activities between Europe and North America" and
the specific time slot will be conveyed to me in the very near future.
John Miles and I intend to have a discussion with all of you during the
next ATIS Committee meeting in Long Beach.

COMMENTS ON INFOSTRUCTURE

Taking the lead in collecting comments on the US initiative in
"InfoStructure" for security, congestion, weather, and traveler
information, Pierre Pretorius has sent a group e-mail to invite
responses. So far we have not heard any comments from Europeans and
Canadians. John Miles expressed his opinion to me that the discussion
may be easier if we broke the subject down into smaller segments. We
could also use both e-mail and the web site to facilitate the
discussion. John has agreed to write up an informal message in response
to Pierre's original call for comments.

PREPARING ATIS FOR 3G

David Kamnitzer's proposal on "Preparing for the Arrival of 3G Mobile
Services" has been accepted as a subtask for WG1.1. John Miles indicated
to me that a number of additional European experts (at least half a
dozen) will be recruited in the near future for WG1.1. With the new
recruits, John sees the beginning of an active forum within WG1.1 on the
following three topics: ATIS Business Models, InfoStructure, and 3G
Mobile Services.

ACTIONS REQUESTED

Let me summarize the actions I am requesting for all of you at this
point:

a.  Send me your comments on Rupprecht's interview questions (attached)
    by April 19.

b.  Consider volunteering to collect information on Comworxx or
    Wingcast.

c.  Plan to attend the ATIS Committee meeting in Long Beach on May 1 at
    6:30 pm.

With best regards to all of you,

Kan Chen

Attachment: Rupprecht's Interview Questions

######### [Message No. 8]{.underline} (5/7/02)

Dear All:

This 8^th^ group message is primarily for the US participants in the
Atlantic Project Working Group WG1.1. However, I would like to urge all
Europeans and Canadians receiving copies of this message to read through
it and respond to the set of questions in Appendix E so that we can get
inputs from both US and non-US participants.

NEW US PARTICIPANTS

We would like to welcome four new US participants to WG1.1:

-   Steve Wollenberg of MobileAria

-   Bob Pritchard of TrafficCast

-   Bob McQueen of PBS&J

-   Tom Schaffnit of Schaffnit Consulting

These four gentlemen are expected to participate in all WG1.1
activities. In addition, Steve Wollenberg and Bob Pritchard have
volunteered to provide information about their respective companies to
help our comparison of ATIS business models on both sides of the
Atlantic. Bob McQueen, with his recent development of a training course
on telecommunications, and Tom Schaffnit, with his co-authorship of the
1999 book "The Comprehensive Guide to Wireless Technologies," will put
most of their efforts on the new WG1.1 subtask on preparing ATIS for 3G.

ATIS COMMITTEE MEETING

John Miles from UK, Bill Johnson from Canada, and I were present at the
ATIS Committee meeting in Long Beach on May 1, which was attended by at
least half of the US participants in WG1.1. We made a joint report on
WG1.1 at the meeting. The presentation slides are in Appendix A.

CANADIAN COMMENTS ON THE US ATIS BUSINESS MODELS REVIEW

Our ATIS subtask began with solicitation of European and Canadian
comments on the report by Rick Schuman and Eli Sherer on *ATIS U.S.
Business Models Review* published in November 2001 (see summary in
Appendix B). The European comments co-authored by John Austin *et al.*
were received and attached to my group message #6 on March 11, 2002
(shown in Appendix C). The European comments have been reviewed and
responded by Eli Sherer. Now we have received the Canadian comments by
Paul Frigon and Bill Johnson (shown in Appendix D.) I believe these two
sets of comments from Europe and Canada have given us a basis for some
group interaction, which I will explain below.

YOUR OPINION NEEDED!

Those of you who were at the ATIS Committee meeting will recall that I
handed out two pages of statements and questions regarding similarities,
differences and unresolved issues related to ATIS activities in Europe
and US. These statements and questions were generated on the basis of
the European comments only. With the additional comments from Canada, I
have expanded the three lists as shown in Appendix E. We would like to
solicit your answers to the questions in those three lists. On the first
two lists, we would like to find out whether and how much you agree or
disagree with each statement, with the option to add texts to your
simple answers. On the third list, we would like you to rank the
importance of each issue. You may add statements and questions to these
lists if you wish. Please return your answers to me
(<kanchen@attbi.com>) by the end of May. Your feedback will help us pose
discussion topics and threads on the Atlantic website for group
interactions in June and July.

PRIVATE US ATIS CASE STUDIES

The following US participants have volunteered to collect preliminary
information on 8 private US ATIS cases:

Larry Sweeney: ATX, OnStar, MSN

Scott Perley: Mobility Technologies

Steve Wollenberg: MobileAria

Bob Pritchard: TrafficCast

Jane Lappin: Wingcast

?? Comworxx

As indicated above, we are still looking for a volunteer to collect
information on Comworxx, which is related to ComROAD in Germany. If
nobody steps forward by the end of May to do that study, I (Kan Chen)
will be the backup investigator. We would like all the studies to follow
the questionnaire in Appendix F, which was developed by Rupprecht
Consult based partly on the interview questions used by two US studies
(by Schuman/Sherer and by Zimmerman *et al.*), and later expanded with
further inputs from the US ATIS subgroup (section C in the
questionnaire). We call for "preliminary information" only because we
don't expect the volunteers to work in close coordination as in a funded
study. Of course, none of the collected information is expected to be
proprietary. However, we do believe that the information will help the
benchmarking of all ATIS activities in Europe and North America. We
would like all the 8 studies to be done in the months of May and June so
that the results could be compared with European study results, some of
which will become available in July.

CANADIAN AND EUROPEAN COMMENTS ON INFOSTRUCTURE

Bill Johnson of Canada and John Miles of UK were present at the
"Megasession on Infostructure" at the ITS America meeting in Long Beach.
They are planning to provide initial inputs to Pierre Pretorius, who is
leading this subtask.

PREPARING ATIS FOR 3G

We have received confirmation that this subtask proposed by David
Kamnitzer, Convenor of WG1.1, has been accepted. With Tom Schaffnit and
Bob McQueen as the two new US recruits with substantive background in
this area, we expect active discussion on this topic led by Dave
Kamnitzer in the near future.

ATLANTIC WEBSITE

Continuing efforts are being made to make the website more
user-friendly. For example, one should be able to sign onto the website
by accepting a set of ground rules online without having to sign and fax
a hard copy of MOU to the Atlantic Project administration. In addition,
John Miles will distribute to all of us a "quick start" user's guide in
the next week or 10 days. We expect most of our electronic discussion
will take place on the improved website by June on the three topics of
Business Models, Infostructure, and 3G.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS WELCOME

If you have questions and suggestions related to this group message,
please send them to me immediately. I plan to take a group tour to China
from May 9 to 28. I may not have access to the Internet during this
period.

With best regards to all,

Kan Chen

Appendix A: Presentation slides (Progress Report)

Appendix B: Summary of US ATIS Business Models Review

Appendix C: European comments on US ATIS Business Models Review

Appendix D: Canadian comments on US ATIS Business Models Review

Appendix E: Questionnaire for **YOUR RESPONSE** by May 31

Appendix F: Questionnaire to be used for US private ATIS case studies

**[Message No. 9]{.underline} (6/29/02)**

Dear all:

This message is to give you a progress report on several subtasks and
urge you to begin using the Internet-based electronic forum for
continuing our cross-Atlantic interactions.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

First of all, I wish to thank the 15 experts from all three ITS
communities for their responses to my survey questionnaire that was
constructed on the basis of the US ATIS Update Report, the European and
Canadian comments on that report, and the US Data Sharing Report.
Attached as Appendix A is an "interim paper" based on your responses. I
think you will find the results quite interesting in that while we have
general agreements on a few statements on the similarities and
differences (and misunderstandings) between European and North American
ATIS practices, there is a significant diversity of opinion that would
make further discussion over the Internet worthy our efforts. After your
review of the interim paper, please send me your comments that will
influence our final report this fall. You will notice that I have kept
your responses anonymous at this point even though I think I have
learned a great deal personally by knowing who has said what. To give
the same benefit to future readers, I intend to attribute your responses
to specific individuals in the final report unless I hear strong
objections from some of you. I would also offer you the opportunity to
edit your questionnaire responses (to smoothen some the statements)
before the final report is published.

PRIVATE US ATIS CASE STUDIES

In my group message #8, I indicated that the following US participants
had volunteered to collect preliminary information on 8 private US ATIS
cases:

Larry Sweeney: ATX, OnStar, MSN

Scott Perley: Mobility Technologies

Steve Wollenberg: MobileAria

Bob Pritchard: TrafficCast

Jane Lappin: Wingcast

Chen (by default) Comworxx

I also indicated that we hoped to have the results of these case
studies, at least in draft form, available in July so that we could
begin to compare the results with those from the European case studies.
Let me urge the above volunteers to send me your case studies before the
end of July. Meanwhile we are indebted to John Cox who has sent me an
additional case study (on TANN as the 9^th^ case attached herewith as
Appendix B) using the questionnaire format we have agreed to. I think
John has given us a great deal of valuable information and a very good
example for us to follow.

CANADIAN AND EUROPEAN COMMENTS ON INFOSTRUCTURE

Bill Johnson of Canada and John Miles of UK have sent us their initial
comments on the US InfoStructure initiative as shown in Appendices C and
D, respectively. Pierre Pretorius and I would appreciate your reactions
to Bill and John's comments (either by e-mail or via the Internet-based
forum).

PREPARING ATIS FOR 3G

David Kamnitzer and Lesley Atkinson have decided to start the subtask by
interviewing a number of experts in Europe. They have asked Bob McQueen
and Tom Schaffnit, our new ATIS group members with expertise in
telecommunications, to comment on their interview guide (which is
available on the Atlantic web, under the TTI Forum). We will keep you
posted about further progress on this subtask. Meanwhile please do not
hesitate to contact any of the above four people if you would like to
find out or contribute to their subtask.

CHICAGO WORLD CONGRESS

Bob Rupert has graciously accepted an official invitation from ITS
America to moderate the special session (SS18) on "Benchmarking Traveler
Information Activities in Europe and North America" to be held on
Wednesday October 16, 8:30 to 10 AM. The following session description
has appeared in the preliminary program: "Presentations and a panel
discussion based on one-year interactions among key people in Europe,
Canada, and USA related to the research and deployment of advanced
traveler information systems (ATIS). Topics include business models used
in private initiatives and public/private partnerships, infostructure
investments, and preparation for third-generation (3G) mobile
telecommunications. Yearlong interactions have taken place within the
Atlantic Project and are supported by the European Commission, ITS Joint
Program Office of the United States Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration, and Canadian government agencies." The final
session contents will depend on the output of all our subtasks and
whether the special session needs to include a general description of
the Atlantic Project.

ATLANTIC WEBSITE

We are now at the stage of our task that further interactions through
the ATLANTIC website would really be useful. Recently our European
partners have made a great deal of effort to improve the website and
have developed a "quick start" user's guide (see Appendix E) that would
be especially helpful to those of us who have not even tried to sign on
before. Depending on your responses to my Interim Paper in Appendix A, I
will work with Lesley Atkinson, Rapporteur of WG1.1, to put 5 or 6
discussion strands on the TTI Forum for continuing group interactions. I
will also work with Pierre Pretorius to add a discussion topic on US
InfoStructure. Meanwhile I would like to urge you to sign on and get
acquainted with the website. Please contact Lesley
(<lesley.atkinson@talk21.com>) if you need any help. If absolutely
necessary, we can fall back to group e-mail for electronic debate but I
really hope that would not be the case.

With best regards to all,

Kan Chen

Appendix A: Interim paper on Comparative Analysis

Appendix B: Case study of TANN by John Cox

Appendix C: Canadian comments on US InfoStructure

Appendix D: European comments on US InfoStructure

Appendix E: ATLANTIC Website User Guide

**[Message No. 10]{.underline} (7/17/02)**

Dear all:

This message is to invite you to join a new Special Interest Group and
to urge you to participate in electronic discussion on the Atlantic
website.

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

In searching for an institutional home on the US side for future
international activities like the Atlantic Project, Chip White and I had
a fruitful discussion recently with a couple of key people in ITS
America: Gerry Conover who heads up the International Activities
Council, and Steve Kuciemba who is Vice President of Programs. Following
their advice for us to relate to the new organization of the ITS
America's Coordinating Council, Chip and I are requesting for the
formation of a new Special Interest Group (SIG) on "International
Research and Learning," which will come under the Research and Academia
Forum headed by John Collura of Virginia Tech. We would like to invite
all of you, and other US professionals involved in the Atlantic Project,
to join this International Research and Learning SIG. Please let me know
if, for any reason, you prefer [not]{.underline} to be associated this
SIG. With the intention to be inclusive, Chip and I would also welcome
your specific suggestions for us to invite additional professionals who
are not currently involved in the Atlantic Project.

ATLANTIC WEBSITE (www.atlan-tic.net)

As mentioned in my ATIS group message #9, we would like all of you to
fully utilize the Atlantic website for continuing electronic discussions
under the Traffic and Travel Services (TTI) Forum. The following three
new discussion strands have been added to the topic of ATIS Business
Models:

Should public sector look to private sector revenue sharing to support
ITS?

Should a business model be abandoned just because its implementation has
failed?

Public investment in traffic sensors in view of rate of development of
FCD

Opening remarks and some initial discussions have already been posted,
waiting for your responses. Inputs and interactions on these three
discussion strands will be open for the next three weeks (to August 9,
2002). While you are viewing and participating in these three discussion
strands, you might want to review and participate in the discussion
topics on InfoStructure and 3G mobile services as well.

We all understand that electronic discussion through e-mail may be more
convenient to some of us than discussion through the website, which
requires a moderate extra effort to get familiar with. However, one
should not overlook the power of the website to provide quick reference
to a large amount of valuable materials. I hope the attached focus group
discussion summary (especially the section on business strategies),
lifted from the website, might whet your appetite for registering and
using the website. If you have any questions or need personal help on
using the website, please contact Lesley Atkinson
(<lesley.atkinson@talk21.com>).

With best regards to all,

Kan Chen

Attachment: Focus Group 1 Discussion Summary

**[Message No. 11]{.underline} (9/13/02)**

Dear all:

The US participation in the Atlantic Project in the current pilot year
will officially end by the end of October. I would like to share with
you the activities we are planning for the next month and half.

SPECIAL SESSION #18 IN THE CHICAGO WORLD CONGRESS

Appendix A shows the description of Special Session #18 on "Benchmarking
ATIS Activities between Europe and North America" which will appear in
the final program of the 9^th^ ITS World Congress. As you know, the
special session has been organized by our ATIS group and will be chaired
by Bob Rupert. Because this special session is the only program space
provided to the Atlantic Project, the session will begin with a
description (and self-assessment) of the entire Project by John Miles
(overall project director) and Chip White (leader of the US
participation). The plan allows 30 minutes of discussion at the end,
following a number of relatively brief presentations by European,
Canadian, as well as US speakers from our group. The special session is
scheduled for Wednesday morning, October 16, from 8:30 to 10 AM. Please
make plans to attend the session.

ATLANTIC WEBSITE (www.atlan-tic.net)

With the help of Lesley Atkinson, we were able to get all of you
registered for the TTI Forum within the Atlantic website. I wish to
thank all of you and Lesley for your extra efforts. Altogether, 18
experts from all three communities, including 6 from the US,
participated in the e-discussion. I was unable to find out how many of
you have actually followed the discussion without posting comments
and/or raising questions. With the extension of the discussion deadline
by a week, all inputs to the following discussion strands ceased by
August 16:

-   Revenue sharing

-   Business model implementation

-   Floating car data

-   Drawing line between public & private information

-   Infostructure addressing traveler needs

Appendices B through F give the summaries of these five discussion
strands. The one on drawing a line between public & private information
is relatively long because the very active discussion on that strand
merits a second round of e-discussion to be led by John Miles. These
inputs, plus other materials, will be used to expand the Interim Paper
on Comparative Analysis (which I distributed to you with group message
#9) into a final report, to be co-authored by John Miles (UK), Bill
Johnson (Canada) and myself and distributed at the end of the Atlantic
Project.

SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (SIG)

As reported to you in my group message #10, Chip White and I had made a
request for the formation of a new SIG on International Research and
Learning (IRL). At this point, the request has been accepted by the
Forum of Research and Academia, headed by John Collura, in the new ITS
America organizational structure. Chip and I intend to invite all of you
and other interested individuals to an exploratory meeting during the
Chicago World Congress, assuming that our request for the IRL/SIG meets
the approval of the ITSA Coordinating Council. We will let you know as
soon as we can about the exploratory meeting.

Meanwhile please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions
or any specific ideas related to either our ATIS group or the new SIG.

With best regards to all,

Kan Chen

Appendix A Final program for Special Session #18

Appendix B Revenue sharing -- summary

Appendix C Business model implementation -- summary

Appendix D Floating car data -- summary

Appendix E Line between public & private information -- summary

Appendix F Infostructure addressing traveler needs -- summary

**[Message No. 12]{.underline} (10/31/02)**

Dear all:

The US funding for its shared leadership role in the Atlantic Project in
the current pilot year, at least for its ATIS portion, is ending
officially at the end of October, 2002. I would like to thank all of
you, (both US and non-US participants who have contributed their time
voluntarily), for your generosity and valuable contributions. I hope you
feel you have found some benefits through your experience. And I hope
these benefits are sufficiently valuable so that you will continue to
participate in the future in this kind of international exchanges. As to
ATIS discussion specifically, I am pleased to announce that Bill Johnson
and Paul Frigon of Canada have agreed to take over the North American
leadership from me, effective November 1, 2002. For those of you who
know Bill and Paul's background and expertise in ATIS, I think you will
agree with me that we can count on them as our able and dedicated
leaders for the ATIS group on behalf of North America.

For my own effort devoted to the ATIS group in the past year, I am
submitting a final report to the funding agency, US ITS Joint Program
Office, through Battelle. A zipped file of the final report is attached
herewith. Note that all the slides used in the special session organized
by the ATIS group for the 9^th^ ITS World Congress may be found in an
appendix in the attached report. These slides would be of particular
interest to those of you who wanted to attend the session but were
unable to do so for various reasons. Since you may not have time to look
through the 117-page report, I would like to share with you herewith my
concluding section in that report as follows:

*The core objective of making a comparative analysis of ATIS practices,
including business models, between Europe and North America has been met
during the pilot year of US participation in the ATLANTIC Project. To
demonstrate how the ATLANTIC Project could add value to existing ATIS
activities, additional work has also been conducted on INFOstructure
discussion, collecting information about privately run ATIS services,
and organizing a special session on ATIS for the 9^th^ ITS World
Congress in Chicago. Toward the end of the ATIS subtask, 17 US experts
were involved in international exchange with a group of ATIS experts of
comparable size from Europe and Canada. Their names are listed below.*

*[US ATIS Participants]{.underline} (17)*

*Bishop, Dick Richard Bishop Consulting*

*Chen, Kan University of Michigan (Emeritus)*

*Cox, John TANN*

*Lappin, Jane Volpe Center*

*Markowitz, Joel Metropolitan Transportation Commission*

*McQueen, Bob PBS&J*

*Perley, Scott Mobility Technologies*

*Pretorius, Pierre Kimley-Horn*

*Pritchard, Bob TrafficCast*

*Roberts, D. Craig PBS&J*

*Rupert, Bob Federal Highway Administration*

*Schaffnit, Tom Schaffnit Consulting*

*Schuman, Richard S. PBS&J*

*Sherer, Eli PBS&J*

*Sweeney, Larry Tele Atlas*

*Wollenberg, Steve MobileAria*

*Zimmerman, Carol Battelle*

##### *Non-US ATIS Participants (19)*

*Allouche, Jean Francois Syndicat des Transports d'Ile de France*

*Atkinson, Lesley Ankerbold International (UK)*

*Austin, John Austin Analytics (UK)*

*Boelen, Alexander CMG (Netherlands)*

*Dolger, Reiner Regional Government of Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany)*

*Frigon, Paul PSR Group (Canada)*

*Harris, Richard FaberMaunsell Ltd (UK)*

*Hayward, Mike Carl Bro Group Ltd*

*Henriques, Carlota European participant*

*Johnson, Bill Consultant (Canada)*

*Kamnitzer, David IBI Group (Canada and UK)*

*Libbrecht, Robert ERTRALCO (Belgium)*

*Maes, Willy European Commission*

*Miles, John Ankerbold International (UK)*

*Perry, Mark WSP Group (Europe)*

*Rupprecht, Siegfried Rupprecht Consult (Germany)*

*Sinisalo, Kimmo Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (Finland)*

*Walker, Janet Ankerbold International (UK)*

*Wolfram, Marc Rupprecht Consult (Germany)*

*The results of comparative analysis indicate that there are more
similarities than differences between ATIS practices and business models
in Europe and North America. Among the more prominent
[similarities]{.underline} are:*

> *Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information
> value chain for delivery of ATIS services.*
>
> *Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been
> proven to be viable.*
>
> *The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are the
> same in both continents.*
>
> *Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of
> specific information services they wish to provide.*

*Among the more prominent [differences]{.underline} are:*

> *Compared to Europe, North American ATIS services put much greater
> emphasis on integration of traffic information across jurisdictions
> than across modes (e.g., between mass transit and automobile
> traffic).*
>
> *The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North
> America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and
> demography.*

*Each of the above statements needs to be qualified to avoid the risk of
oversimplification, as discussed in detail within the report.*

*One might argue that the accomplishments of the ATIS group cannot be
considered outstanding since the number of experts could have been
greater and their interactions through electronic communications could
have been deeper and more frequent -- especially if the web-enabled
dialog tools had been user-friendlier from the beginning of the pilot
year. However, the ATLANTIC website went through several stages of
improvement so that, at the later stage of the pilot year, the ATIS
group was able to take advantage of the e-dialog on the website to carry
out effectively the follow-up discussion on five of the remaining ATIS
issues. Overall, the ATIS group experience has demonstrated the
feasibility and desirability of developing and maintaining international
exchanges through electronic communications, and the results of the
comparative analysis have certainly added to the ATIS knowledge base.
The extra work of receiving European and Canadian comments on the US
initiative on INFOstructure, and the contribution by the ATIS group
(both its US and non-US members) to the 9^th^ ITS World Congress have
been valuable and appreciated.*

*The lessons learned through the ATIS group interaction experience are
also valuable. One lesson learned is that the methodology for electronic
discussions needs to be flexible, depending on the group members'
available time, interest in the topic, and their experience in various
modes of electronic communications. In the case of ATIS comparative
analysis, the following 8-step process was used as the methodology:*

1.  *Began with US ATIS Update Report*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  *Obtained comments from Canada & Europe*

2.  *Elicited statements on similarities and differences*

3.  *Conducted questionnaire survey*

4.  *Analyzed level of agreement and standard deviation on responses to
    each statement*

5.  *Summarized survey results for comments*

6.  *Conducted follow-up e-discussions on web*

7.  *Issue and distribute (this) final report*

*This methodology was not pre-determined but was adaptive to several
factors as time went on: (1) the existence of the US ATIS Update Report,
(2) the lack of response to general calls for responses to comments
received from Canada & Europe, (3) the initial lack of group members'
interest to participate in e-discussion on the not-so-user-friendly web
at the early stage, and (4) the need to coax all ATIS members to
register as users of the much improved ATLANTIC web at the later stage.
Several steps and sub-steps had to be improvised to meet the
challenges.*

*The lessons learned from the ATIS group experience can be generalized
in terms of five essential factors for success in any future sustainable
international exchanges through electronic communications:*

1.  *Dedicated leadership*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  *Participants' experience in electronic discussions*

7.  *User-friendly web-enabled e-dialog tools*

8.  *Judicious combination of web-based e-dialog, e-mail, telephone
    discussions and face-to-face meetings*

9.  *Central funding for the secretariat (combination of leader,
    moderator and rapporteur functions)*

*Note that, for the pilot year of US participation in ATIS international
exchanges, the most important mode of electronic communications has been
group e-mail. For the record, the 12 group e-mail messages are shown in
Appendix K in this report.*

*The central funding for the US leadership of the ATIS group is expiring
at the end of October 2002. Fortunately, the funding for the Canadian
participation in the ATLANTIC Project has just begun. With the
understanding of both the European and Canadian leaders in the Project,
Bill Johnson and Paul Frigon of Canada will assume the North American
leadership of the ATIS group after October 2002. It is hoped that all
the current US ATIS members (and additional ones in the future) will
continue their voluntary participation in the international exchanges in
ATIS. The author of this report will certainly continue his
participation in the ATIS group on a voluntary basis. It is also hoped
that, with the expected overhaul of the ATLANTIC Project website, and
possible development of comparable websites in Canada, US and other
parts of the world, there will be an effective and global confederation
of websites to stimulate and facilitate future international exchanges
in research and education, including ATIS.*

With best regards to all,

Kan Chen

P.S. All the ATIS participants (both US and non-US) listed earlier are
receiving copies of this message and the attached ATIS final report. If
you think I should send the report to additional people, please let me
know their names and e-mail addresses.

[^1]: ^1^ In spite of the words of "Business Models" in its title, the
    US ATIS Update Report has a broad coverage of all ATIS practices,
    including business models. This report has the same broad coverage
    of ATIS practices as the Update Report.

[^2]: ^2^ J.C. Miles and A.J. Walker (eds.) "West European Local Legal
    Arrangements for Transport Information Management and Exchange of
    Data," European Commission Telematics Applications Program, April
    1998.

[^3]: The results in this section have been distributed to all members
    of the ATIS group for comments. There has been no indication of
    disagreement by any one with any of the results.

[^4]: The plan for the special session also included a presentation by
    Robert Libbrecht on telematics program in Europe. Unfortunately he
    was unable to attend the World Congress at the last minute. However,
    he had prepared and sent in a set of slides, which are also included
    in Appendix I.

[^5]: \'ATIS U.S. Business Models Review\' prepared for U.S. Department
    of Transportation, ITS Joint Program Office, by Rick Schuman and Eli
    Sherer, PBS&J, November 2001

[^6]: The authors drew on the document \'Current trends in research into
    the integration of traveller information research in the USA\', by
    Susan Kenyon (of Transportation Research Group, University of
    Southampton, UK), and produced for the Highways Agency, London, UK,
    for insights into the provision of integrated highways and transit
    information in the US

[^7]: \'The Citizens\' Network - Fulfilling the potential of public
    passenger transport in Europe\' (European Commission, Luxembourg,
    1996).

[^8]: \'European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide\', European
    Commission, Luxembourg, 2001

[^9]: ibid., p.78

[^10]: For detailed information see: C(2001) 1102 final

[^11]: At http://www.georgia-navigator.com/about.html

[^12]: The Canadian comments have been reviewed by, and include inputs
    from, Bill Johnson.

[^13]: Respondent R4 chose to comment, but not to rank, the five given
    issues.

[^14]: Questions are in regular font; answers are in italic.