Qu, Wenhua, Ilias Parmaksizoglou, Isabelle Roche-Cerasi, Marit Natvig, Chloé Eyssartier, Bruno Dewailly, Guillaume Costeseque, et Jan Huber. 2023. « Intermediate Evaluation Results from Living Labs ». H2020 ORCHESTRA program report D6.2. European commission - DG Research and Innovation, 72 p.

Quintero, Rodríguez, et Vidal-Abarca Garrido. 2022. « Revision of the EU Green Public Procurement Criteria for Road Transport ». JCR Technical Report, EU Science Hub - Join Research Center. Luxembourg: European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/030068.

Relling, Tore, Margareta Lützhöft, Runar Ostnes, et Hans Petter Hildre. 2022. « The contribution of Vessel Traffic Services to safe coexistence between automated and conventional vessels ». *Maritime Policy & Management* 49 (7): 990-1009.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1937739.

Rockström, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, et al. 2009. « A Safe Operating Space for Humanity ». *Nature* 461 (7263): 472-75. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.

Rosenbloom, Daniel. 2018. « Framing Low-Carbon Pathways: A Discursive Analysis of Contending Storylines Surrounding the Phase-out of Coal-Fired Power in Ontario ». *Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions* 27 (juin): 129-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.003.

Roxon, Jacob, Zaheer Allam, Catherine Gall, Carlos Moreno, et Roland J.-M. Pellenq. 2022. « Urban Physics: Introducing New Assessment Tools for Climate Risk Management in Urban Environments ». In *Energy Transition: Climate Action and Circularity*, édité par Peter J. Boul, ACS Symposium, 1412:527-49. ACS Symposium Series 1412. American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2022-1412.ch012.

Shafique, Muhammad, Anam Azam, Muhammad Rafiq, et Xiaowei Luo. 2022. « Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles: A Case Study of Hong Kong ». *Research in Transportation Economics*, Decarbonising transport, 91 (March): 101112.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101112.

Steffen, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette Biggs, et al. 2015. « Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet ». *Science* 347 (6223): 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.

Stoma, Monika, Agnieszka Dudziak, Jacek Caban, et Paweł Droździel. 2021. « The Future of Autonomous Vehicles in the Opinion of Automotive Market Users ». *Energies* 14 (August): 4777. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14164777.

Sunitiyoso, Yos, Prawira Fajarindra Belgiawan, Muhamad Rizki, et Valid Hasyimi. 2022. « Public Acceptance and the Environmental Impact of Electric Bus Services ». *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment* 109 (August): 103358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103358.

Vaillant, Ludovic, Marie Douet, Chloé Eyssartier, Marit Natvig, Abdulghani Al Sabouni, Anne Freiberger, Nicola Cavagnetto, Alessandra Tedeschi, et Paria Amini. 2022. « Initial Scenarios for Multimodal Traffic Management ». H2020 ORCHESTRA program report D2.3. European Commission - DG Research, 64 p.

Vaillant, Ludovic, Chloé Eyssartier, Marie Douet, Bruno Dewailly, Nicola Cavagnetto, Alessandra Tedeschi, et Marit Natvig. 2021. « Initial Target Vision for Multimodal Traffic Management
Ecosystem ». H2020 ORCHESTRA program report D2.1. European Commission - DG Research, 70 p. https://hal.science/hal-04029880.

Vance, C., J. Sweeney, et F. Murphy. 2022. « Space, Time, and Sustainability: The Status and Future of Life Cycle Assessment Frameworks for Novel Biorefinery Systems ». *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews* 159 (May): 112259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112259.

WPSP. 2019. « Autonomous Vehicles: IAPH Publishes Report on Impact for Ports ». World Ports Sustainability Program. 18 June 2019. https://sustainableworldports.org/autonomous-vehicles-and-the-bigger-picture-for-ports/.

Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. “Surveillance capitalism: A new priesthood”. *Esprit*, N° 454, 63-77. https://www.cairn-int.info/journal--2019-5-page-63.htm. Extracted from Zuboff, Shoshana “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (Public Affairs Boocks, 2019).
# Appendix

## A The data collected from the Herøya and Malpensa WS (September, October 2022)

During the second CoPs workshops held in Herøya and Malpensa (respectively on the 28th of September 2022 and on the 4th of October 2022) the team of WP2 facilitated a one-hour session dedicated to the scenario building.

### A.1 Purpose and process of WS session

Three main objectives drove the WP2 team's choices regarding the content and methodology of the WP2 sessions in Herøya and Malpensa workshops:

- Get feedback on aspects related to KPA5 (Stakeholder's acceptance of traffic management operations and autonomy), KPA6 (Operational practices and decision making for traffic orchestrators) and KPA7 (Business policy aspects) in the context of three different sociocultural scenarios.

- Collect new assumptions on the acceptance and business models of the MTM.

- Provide participants with a better understanding to refine and carry out the survey of professionals during the months following the CoP Workshops in order to start deepening the implementation scenarios.

The session *content* included three scenario perspectives to 2050, summarised as follows:

- **Scenario 1** - Imagine a future where MTM supports a **diversity of new mobility solution** providers;

- **Scenario 2** - Imagine a future where MTM is **operated by an "oligopoly"** of new mobility solution providers;

- **Scenario 3** - Imagine a future where **digital sustainability and digital frugality**<fnref n="12" /> are always preliminarily addressed to the MTM.

Each scenario was situated in a particular "sociocultural" context and depending on a combination of three *categories of variables*:

- the nature of the data exchanged;

- the amount of data exchanged;

- the way in which data is shared and exchanged.

*Method*. Each of the scenarios were subject of a working table during the two workshops. Therefore, to optimize the time assigned to this activity, each participant was confronted with only one of the three scenarios. The participants (partners and CoPs) were divided into three groups of six to eight people.

The idea was then to immerse each of the participants in a particular 2050 future perspective with the help of a storytelling outlining the world of the scenario that was assigned to each table. Each scenario was narrated by a session facilitator, that also facilitated 45 minutes of exchanges and discussions among the table participants based on a series of four to five questions associated with each scenario.

<footnote n="12">¹² That is, an approach that considers the 9 planetary limits - as an ecological ceiling - in the choices, dissemination and implementation of the MTME, but also takes into account the social foundations essential for spatial justice.</footnote>
Thus, thanks to the involvement of the CoPs and partners, the debates and exchanges were rich in information, ideas, opinions and suggestions. All these exchanges were recorded, with the acceptation of all the attendees.

In a perspective of continuous collaboration with CoPs, this synthesis was also distributed to them before the end of the year. Thus, they could get insight into the contents and contributions regarding the two scenarios in which they did not take part.

## A.2 Interest for partners and CoPs

Through these three scenarios parallel sessions, the Partners aimed to achieve specific objectives, both for the Project and for the CoPs members. With reference to the Project, the objectives before the session were:

* To get feedback on the MTM concepts, vision and scenarios in order to refine the content of the KPA 5 to 7 on the specific case of Herøya (freight) and Malpensa (passengers).

* To identify eventual missing gaps.

* To receive support in evaluating also the possible effects and implications of the MTM on changing behaviour and mobility.

With reference to the CoPs, the Partners focused on the following objectives:

* Acknowledge that their ideas from the 1st WS (held in 2021) have been considered through the presentation of the target vision scenarios. The project is based on and feeds off the contributions of the CoPs.

* Make CoPs reflect on the possible implications in terms of management, decision and business model acceptance by exposing the framework of the MTM governance and functionality in three different sociocultural environments.

* Help CoPs to project themselves into the future of the MTM: prepare their own strategy. Help them to lobby policy makers (prepare their arguments).

* Produce visions that CoPs might consider useful to refine their strategic choice.

## A.3 Attendees to the WS

**Attendees to the Malpensa Workshop:** ITSN, SINTEF, IKEM, FST, ISC, ROSAS, SEA, TUDELFT, DBL, ENAV.

**Attendees to the HIP Workshop:** ITSN, SINTEF, IKEM, FST, ISC, ROSAS, SEA, HIP, CEREMA, AA, NPRA, Politecnico di Milano, Trenord, Vestfold & Telemark County.

## A.4 Scenario 1 (Diversity of new mobility solution providers) – Description and questions

The storytelling used to drive this scenario was:

> "Imagine a future in which a majority of journeys is orchestrated in a seamless multimodal manner.

> A world where the MTM has actually enhanced **the transport systems performance in terms of costs and time savings.**

> A future in which EU policies have succeeded in standardizing and regulating the data exchange of traffic management and their processing and succeeded in defining and standardising civil liability in ITS matters.
A European space in which **altruistic data practices** are commonplace and their security truly robust and thus enhance the emergence of new services providers.

A world where, in areas of dense mobility, the traffic stakeholders (TOs, TSP, NU, FO) **agree to share data**, and where communication infrastructures allow the **exchange and processing of huge volumes of data in real time**, so that the TOs propose efficient solutions for multimodal Transport Demand Management and Demand Capacity Balancing, even in response to hazard events and risks."

The questions addressed during the session:

- How could the MTM concept encourage and facilitate the sharing of data between the different actors, regardless of the different transport modes?

- What should be the TO's role, actions, decisions and degree of autonomy, according to diverse situations or events?

- What might be the main stumbling blocks to arbitration rules and priority requests?

- What do you think should be the mindset of stakeholders towards the TO?

- What are the elements that would most encourage transport actors to use the opportunities provided by traffic orchestration?

- How can MTM reduce risks related to disruptions (cyber, weather...) and what will be the effect on claims and insurers?

### A.5 Scenario 2 (Operation by an "oligopoly") – Description and questions

The narrative outlining this universe was expressed as follows:

> "Imagine a future in which a majority of travel is orchestrated in a seamless multimodal manner.

> A future in which EU policies have succeeded in standardizing and regulating the data exchange of traffic management and their processing and succeeded in defining and standardising civil liability in ITS matters.

> A European society that has no real technological and systemic independence regarding ITS infrastructures and software, because the **dominant global players (Tech Giants)** took the **market** of MTM data collection and processing, as they began to do since the beginning of the 21st century. A world where, in areas of dense mobility, **stakeholders (TO, TSP, NU, FO)** **negotiate with the Tech Giants** for providing MTM solutions involving the handling of huge volume of data in real time. So that the TOs propose efficient alternative solutions for multimodal Transport Demand Management and Demand Capacity Balancing, even in response to hazard events and risks.

> Imagine a society in which **Tech Giants know almost everyone intimately**. Thanks to the deployment of gigantic infrastructures, and whatever their role(s) within the MTME, these companies are able to offer services that meet everyone's desires, and business operations."

The questions addressed during the session:

- What kind of actor would be able to create effective TOs and implement it?

- What do you think should be the mindsets of stakeholders towards the TO?

- In such a scenario, who will guarantee the fairness of the arbitration rules?
<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

- What are the elements that would most encourage transport actors to use the opportunities provided by TO to be orchestrated in a polycentric way?

- How can MTM reduce the risks of oligopoly? And more specifically, how can TO contribute to this?

- How can the TO ensure access to data for public authorities?

### A.6 Scenario 3 (Digital sustainability and frugality) – Description and questions

The last scenario expressed a more demanding and constrained futuristic environmental vision. The opening story to this universe was worded as follows:

> "Imagine a future in which a majority of traffic flows is orchestrated in a green relevant multimodal manner. Indeed, the implementation of the EU Green Deal policy has been highly successful. The non-carbon energy infrastructures deployed can efficiently support the MTM.

> Data exchange and processing technologies as well as transport technologies are energy and material efficient. In the EU, stakeholders play the game regarding the harmonization of data enforcement and controls. The rules for sharing data are clear and trustful. The governance rules allow that at any time NUs can easily make a choice about their past, present and future personal data.

> Nevertheless, the selected MTM solutions always offer high resilience to hazards and risks. Based on the principle that "the best trip is the one you don't have to make", in this scenario vision, society reorganises itself spatially to reduce the number of mobilities. The administration of the MTM by traffic orchestrators (TO) incorporates technology and functionalities that can assess, at any time, the environmental impact of each trip, in accordance with an ambitious sustainability standard. Traffic is less dense due to the significant reduction in the number of individual trips with motorised vehicles. The transport of goods is optimised, resulting in a significant reduction in traffic and a better distribution."

The questions addressed to the CoPs in Herøya and in Malpensa for such a future to exist were:

- How could the MTM encourage the use of really challenging green norms (with Life Cycle Analysis for example)?

- How could the sharing of data between the different stakeholders be reduced to the strict necessity?

- What should be the TO's role, actions, decisions and degree of autonomy, according to diverse situations or events?

- What might be the main stumbling blocks to arbitration rules and priority requests?

- Can the role of the TO go as far as postponing the offer, or even suggesting a solution "outside the business"?

- What do you think should be the mindsets of stakeholders towards the TO?

- How can MTM reduce risks related to disruptions (cyber, weather...) and what will be the effect on claims and insurers?

- What are the elements that would most encourage MTM actors to accept being orchestrated?

## B The data collected from the plenary meeting (Berlin, 1st, 2nd, February 2023)
The plenary meeting holds in Berlin, on the 1st and 2nd February 2023, had planned a one-hour discussion session on the sociocultural scenarios. The aim of this session was to discuss with the attendees about two core concepts introduced by the Data Governance Act (EU Regulation, 2022) to overtake some of the obstacles related to trust and transparency regard to data exchange:

* The **"Data intermediation service"** that is *"a service which aims to establish commercial relationships for the purpose of data sharing [...] between data holders and data users... through technical, legal or other means"*.

* The **"Data altruism"** which refers to *"a voluntary sharing of data on the basis of the consent of data subjects to process personal data pertaining to them, or permission of data holders to allow the use of their non-personal data without seeking or receiving a reward that goes beyond compensation related to the costs that occur where they make their data available for objectives of general interest ... such as combating climate change..."*.

This EU regulation applies to the data held by the public sector bodies and the attendees were asked to think about the implementation of these concepts in the fields of the two Living Labs (Herøya and Malpensa). But they were also asked to think further about it in a future of data sharing which involve also the private sector bodies, and NGOs.

Two sets of questions were addressed to the attendees, in the context of the two Living Labs:

**1- Who could be the data intermediation service?**

* One of the pre-existing authorities (which one?) or a new body?

* Can it be the TO himself?

* Can and should this data intermediation service involve several GAs?

* Which public actors should entrust it with their data?

* What means will it have to use to fulfil its mission?

* Should private actors provide their data so that the TO can fulfil its mission? Which ones?

**2- What governance should be implemented to manage data altruistically?**

* As a first approach, what personal data would be useful to the MTM?

* Imagine services of general interest, public policies that you will be able to derive from this altruistic sharing of data.

* Who would be the minimum stakeholders in governance and why?

* Can this altruistic data collected be shared (sold) to private actors?

* Should service providers, users of this data, be part of it?

* In the future, can we imagine that the MTM data becomes a common good?

**B.1 Results from the HIP LL context**

**B.1.1 Who could be the data intermediation service at HIP?**

**- One of the pre-existing authorities or a new body?**

It will be several – and many of them already exist. It will probably be existing authorities that will take this role.

Norway already has one for transportation domain (ENTUR)

Responsible for collecting and managing data

All the data is open
Financed by the government

For public transport and micro-mobility

Also collect data about parking, charging, on-demand transport, but no data about traffic

We need many data intermediation services

Everyone has their data base. They will need to share their data

Can be a combination of public and private actors

Nasjonal Vegdatabank | Statens Vegvesen

- Can it be the TO himself?

It is not TO, it is a service

No, but it can be the same organisation

- Can and should this data intermediation service involve several GAs?

Yes, it can even be on the level of a country

- Which public actors should entrust it with their data?

Those that manage:

Physical/digital transport network

The traffic

The maps

- What means will it have to use to fulfil its mission?

It needs regulations

- Should private actors provide their data so that the TO can fulfil its mission? Which ones?

Yes, E.g., HIP, Fleet operators, regulation and standardisation bodies

### B.1.2 What governance should be implemented at HIP to manage data altruistically, even as a common good?

- As a first approach, what personal data would be useful to the MTM?

Time driving and resting for truck drivers. Correct prediction of arrival times. The deliveries so that the needs of infrastructure, capacity, hazards/risks could be forecasted. Priorities due to goods and weather conditions is important to give the right priority since some goods only can be loaded when not raining or snowing. Incidents/disruptive situations in each transport mode.

- Imagine services of general interest, public policies that you will be able to derive from this altruistic sharing of data.

Using the society around to applaud green choices, make a social contribution. Prioritize choices that are green/good, ex lower CO2 emissions.

- Who would be the minimum stakeholders in governance and why?

Truck/goods deliverers, shippers/factories, traffic orchestrators, society/people around because they are interested in what goes on and they need to know about security issues related to the industry.
- Can this altruistic data collected be shared (sold) to private actors?

- Should service providers, users of this data, be part of it?

- In the future, can we imagine that the MTM data becomes a common good?

## B.2 Results from the Malpensa LL context

### B.2.1 Who could be the data intermediation service at Malpensa Airport?

- One of the pre-existing authorities or a new body?

Existing authorities in Malpensa that could do the job:

ART – authority that regulates traffic in Italy (international body)

They might be able to do the job

New body options:

- Traffic Orchestrator

- Completely new actor

As it is a new service that is to be introduced, there are several options to execute it. It's important, that the intermediary is neutral and trustworthy.

- Can it be the TO himself?

It might be better to separate the roles, as this is a different task it likely requires a different kind of knowledge

- Can and should this data intermediation service involve several GAs?

Yes, should be countries at least because GAs are too small.

- Which public actors should entrust it with their data?

Municipalities, Road maintenance, Meteorological authorities, topographical authorities etc. a Full list in D3.2.

- What means will it have to use to fulfil its mission?

Clear Legal and technical framework that sets boundaries

Advertisement to bring new companies into the system

- Should private actors provide their data so that the TO can fulfil its mission? Which ones?

The more the better – but there are legal boundaries to this. An option is to make very essential basic data mandatory and monetize further data (giving them the option to receive money for their data).

## B.3 What governance should be implemented at Malpensa Airport to manage data altruistically, even as a common good?

- As a first approach, what personal data would be useful to the MTM?

Travel data should be voluntarily shared

Tacking acknowledgement in each step of your trip

You should be rewarded for the data you share
Real time location - should be anonymised in compliance with GDPR - you can stop the sharing at any time

Special data - sensitive data: health status (if you need special assistance or specific services)

Personal data such as age, preference and travel habits, family status (it can affect your traveling choices)

Historical data about mobility to derive your habits, needs and preferences

We are focusing on the passenger level, but what happens at company level?

Different companies should share sensitive commercial data with 'third parties' (other companies)

At company level there are more problems, since the data have a big commercial value and in principle you will share data also with competitors.

Public Authority should enforce the data sharing

- Imagine services of general interest, public policies that you will be able to derive from this altruistic sharing of data.

A new service for passengers could be "travel wallet" and single ticketing with 'smart rerouting'

For the transport service providers, you should generalise the Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) tool to a Multimodal Transport Collaborative Decision Making tool (that is MTM in fact)

- Who would be the minimum stakeholders in governance and why?

Public Authority (Municipality, Transport Ministry, Regional Transport Authorities, CAA, etc), all the other Transport Stakeholders: Airports, Airlines, ANSPs, Railways Infrastructure Manager, Railways Service Providers, Road Authorities, Public Transport Organisation, Car-sharing companies, Ports, Shipping Companies, etc.

- Can this altruistic data collected be shared (sold) to private actors?

Data are already shared with private actors (almost all the organisation mentioned above are private)
... Data should be shared for the specific purpose of MTM (optimise traffic flow, manage delays and disruptions, etc.)

A problem can arise when data go outside EU. Where the data will be stored? In the country of origin?
Regulations are very different outside EU.

- Should service providers, users of this data, be part of it?

Yes, service providers should be part of it

- In the future, can we imagine that the MTM data becomes a common good?

We don't know if MTM will become a common good (completely open and public?)
Members of the ORCHESTRA consortium

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

ITS
Norway

**ITS Norway**
c/o Tekna - Teknisk-
naturvitenskapelig forening
Postboks 2312 Solli
NO-0201 Oslo
Norway
**its-norway.no**

**Project Coordinator:**
Runar Søråsen
**runar.sorasen@its-norway.no**

**Dissemination Manager:**
Trond Hovland
**trond.hovland@its-norway.no**

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

SINTEF

**SINTEF AS**
NO-7465 Trondheim
Norway
**www.sintef.com**

**Technical Manager:**
Marit Natvig
**Marit.K.Natvig@sintef.no**

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

TU Delft

**Technische Universiteit Delft**
Stevinweg 1
2628 CN Delft
The Netherlands

**Evaluation Manager:**
Alexei Sharpanskykh
**O.A.Sharpanskykh@tudelft.nl**

ROSAS

**ROSAS Center Fribourg**
Passage de Cardinal 13B
Halle bleue
CH-1700 Fribourg
Switzerland
**info@rosas.center**

**Contact:**
Robatel Vincent
**vincent.robatel@hefr.ch**

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

**CERTX AG**
Route de l'Ancienne Papeterie 106
CH-1723 Marly
Switzerland

**Contact:**
Samuel Rieder
**samuel.rieder@certx.com**

IKEM

**Institut Fur Klimaschutz Energie
Und Mobilitat-Recht, Okonomie
Und Politik Ev (IKEM)**
Magazinstraße 15-16
10179 Berlin
Germany

**Data Manager / Legal, Privacy and
Policy Issues Officer (LEPPI)
officer:**
Juliane Beck
**juliane.beck@ikem.de**

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

IOTA
FOUNDATION

**IOTA Foundation**
c/o Nextland
Straßburger Straße 55
10405 Berlin
Germany

**Contact:**
Åsa Dahlborn
**asa.dahlborn@iota.org**

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

Milan
Airports

**Societa Per Azioni Esercizi
Aeroportuali Sea (SEA)**
Presso Aeroporto Linate
20090 Segrate MI
Italy

**Contact:**
Massimo Corradi
**massimo.corradi@seamilano.eu**
<table><tr><td>deepblue<br>consulting & research</td><td><strong>Deep Blue Srl</strong><br>Via Ennio Quirino Visconti, 8<br>00193 Roma<br>Italy</td><td><strong>Innovation Manager:</strong><br>Alessandra Tedeschi<br><a href="mailto:alessandra.tedeschi@dblue.it">alessandra.tedeschi@dblue.it</a></td></tr><tr><td>REPUBLIC OF FRANCE<br>DELEGATION TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL</td><td><strong>Cerema</strong><br>25 Avenue François Mitterrand<br>69500 Bron<br>France</td><td><strong>Contact:</strong><br>Chloé Eyssartier<br><a href="mailto:Chloe.Eyssartier@cerema.fr">Chloe.Eyssartier@cerema.fr</a></td></tr><tr><td>TECHNOLOGY<br>GRUPPO FERROVIE DELLO STATO ITALIANE</td><td><strong>FSTechnology SpA</strong><br>Piazza della Croce Rossa, 1<br>00161 Roma RM<br>Italy</td><td><strong>Contact:</strong><br>Luca Mariorenzi<br><a href="mailto:l.mariorenzi@fstechnology.it">l.mariorenzi@fstechnology.it</a></td></tr><tr><td>Information<br>Sharing<br>Company</td><td><strong>Information Sharing Company<br>Srl (ISC)</strong><br>Via di Tor Pagnotta, 94/95<br>00143 Roma<br>Italy</td><td><strong>Contact:</strong><br>Antonio Martino<br><a href="mailto:a.martino@gruppoisc.com">a.martino@gruppoisc.com</a></td></tr><tr><td>APPLIED AUTONOMY</td><td><strong>Applied Autonomy AS</strong><br>Kirkegardsveien 45<br>NO-3601 Kongsberg<br>Norway</td><td><strong>Contact:</strong><br>Olav Madland<br><a href="mailto:olav.madland@appliedautonomy.no">olav.madland@appliedautonomy.no</a></td></tr><tr><td>HEROYA<br>INDUSTRIPARK<br>www.heroya-industrpark.no</td><td><strong>Herøya Industripark AS</strong><br>Hydrovegen 55<br>NO-3936 Porsgrunn<br>Norway</td><td><strong>Contact:</strong><br>Tone Rabe<br><a href="mailto:tone.rabe@hipark.no">tone.rabe@hipark.no</a></td></tr><tr><td>enav</td><td><strong>ENAV SpA</strong><br>Via Salaria, 716<br>00138 Roma<br>Italy</td><td><strong>Contact:</strong><br>Patrizia Criscuolo<br><a href="mailto:patrizia.criscuolo.1@enav.it">patrizia.criscuolo.1@enav.it</a></td></tr><tr><td>Statens vegvesen<br>Norwegian Public Roads<br>Administration</td><td><strong>Statens vegvesen</strong><br>Brynsengfaret 6A<br>NO-0667 Oslo<br>Norway</td><td><strong>Contact:</strong><br>Elisabeth Skuggevik<br><a href="mailto:elisabeth.skuggevik@vegvesen.no">elisabeth.skuggevik@vegvesen.no</a></td></tr></table>