EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.12.2008 
SEC(2008) 3083 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
 
Action Plan for the Deployment of Inte lligent Transport Systems in Europe 
  
and the 
  
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
laying down the framework for the deploym ent of Intelligent Transport Systems in 
the field of road transport and for in terfaces with other transport modes 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
{COM(2008) 887 final} 
{COM(2008) 886 final 
{SEC(2008) 3084} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ .. 6 
1.1. What are Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)?............................................................ 6 1.2. Target .................................................................................................................... ....... 6 
2. Procedural issues and Consulta tion of interested parties ............................................. 7 
2.1. Expertise................................................................................................................. ...... 7 
2.2. Consultation of Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 7 2.2.1. Meetings with public authorities, indu stry and other interested parties....................... 7 
2.2.2. Wider consultation of the public .................................................................................. 8 2.2.3. Consultation of other Commission services................................................................. 8 2.2.4. Main results of the consultations.................................................................................. 8 2.3. Follow-up of the recommendations made by the Impact Assessment Board ............ 11 3. Problem Definition: why is there a need to act? ........................................................ 12 3.1. Nature of the problem ................................................................................................ 12 3.1.1. Problem drivers hindering ITS take up ...................................................................... 14 3.1.2. How are ITS applications domains affected by the problem drivers? ....................... 17 
3.1.3. Relevance of ITS to (transport) policy  and related objectives — why should the 
EU act? ....................................................................................................................... 1 8 
3.2. What happens if nothing is done? .............................................................................. 24 3.2.1. Risk of fragmented deployment of ITS...................................................................... 24 3.2.2. Difficulty to achieve further EU  transport policy objectives ..................................... 24 
3.2.3. Impact on main policy objectives regard ing congestion (avoidance), road safety, 
environmental nuisance and secur ity of the transport system.................................... 26 
3.3. Who is affected........................................................................................................... 28 
3.4. EU right to act and prin ciple of subsidiarity .............................................................. 28 
4. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 29 
4.1. General objective........................................................................................................ 2 9 
4.2. Specific objectives...................................................................................................... 3 1 
5. Policy options............................................................................................................. 3 2 
5.1. Policy Option A (baseline scenar io): no additional new action ................................. 32 
 
EN 3   EN 5.2. Policy Option B: Overcoming specific problems by concentrating on enabling 
actions and application fields, indire ctly supporting development and wider 
deployment of ITS services........................................................................................ 34 
5.3. Policy Option B+: Option B extended with a comitology procedure ........................ 37 
6. Analysis of Impact ..................................................................................................... 39 6.1. Methodological Considerations.................................................................................. 39 6.1.1. Approach ................................................................................................................ .... 39 
6.1.2. Use of TRANSTOOLS simulations........................................................................... 40 6.1.3. Uncertainty surrounding the impact analysis............................................................. 41 6.2. Impact of Policy Option A — No additional new actions (baseline scenario) .......... 42 6.2.1. Direct impacts .......................................................................................................... .. 42 
6.2.2. Indirect impacts........................................................................................................ .. 43 
6.3. Impact of policy Option B: Overcomi ng specific problems by concentrating on 
enabling actions and application fields , indirectly supporting development and 
wider deployment of ITS services.............................................................................. 43 
6.3.1. Direct impacts: ......................................................................................................... .. 44 
6.3.2. Indirect impact......................................................................................................... ... 50 
6.4. Impact of policy Option B+: Option B ex tended with a comitology procedure........ 55 
6.4.1. Direct impacts: ......................................................................................................... .. 56 
6.4.2. Indirect impacts:....................................................................................................... .. 58 
6.5. Administrative costs................................................................................................... 59 7. Comparison of policy Options ................................................................................... 60 7.1.1. Direct impacts .......................................................................................................... .. 60 
7.1.2. Indirect impacts:....................................................................................................... .. 61 
7.1.3. Conclusion.............................................................................................................. .... 61 
8. Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................................... 62 
 
EN 4   EN This report commits only the Commission servic es involved in its preparation and does 
not prejudge the final form of any de cision to be take n by the Commission. 
Lead DG : TREN 
Other services involved : SG, DG ECFIN, DG EMPL, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG INFSO, 
DG RTD, DG TAXUD and JRC 
Agenda planning or WP reference : TREN/2008/035 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
This working document assesses different  strategies and actions the European 
Commission might undertake to improve the depl oyment of Intelligent Transport Systems 
(ITS) for road and their interconnections  with other modes of transport. 
ITS stands for Intelligent Transport Syst ems which apply emergi ng information and 
communication technologies (ICT) to transport.  ITS are related to all transport modes 
and facilitate their interaction (co-modality) and interlinking. ITS applications have been 
developed in several modes of transport, leve raging functionalities of existing operations 
and services by boosting their effectiveness and cr oss-linking, and by providing better 
responses to user needs.  
ITS applications and services ha ve the potential to increase transport efficiency, safety 
and security, to reduce congesti on and also to improve the en vironmental performance of 
the transport system. In addition, by supporti ng and improving effectiv eness of transport 
operations, it can also be expected that ITS services will have a strong, positive influence 
on the competitiveness of the European m anufacturing industries and on the economy in 
general. 
Broader deployment of ITS, in particular  a more generalised use of advanced 
instruments such as interoperable elec tronic toll payment and demand management 
systems, is crucial to several policies  which the European Commission proposes to 
introduce, in particular for the greeni ng of transport - based mainly on the 
internalisation of external costs. 
Furthermore, the rapid growth of freight  transport with consequent congestion, 
accidents, noise, pollution and energy us e are among the economic, social and 
environmental problems that need to be  addressed. Innovativ e solutions in road 
transport are clearly needed, but are currently not sufficiently  developed nor deployed to 
face the challenges of fast-growing dem and for freight and passenger transport. 
In spite of their potential to contribute positively to transport policy objectives, ITS 
solutions in road transport are being taken up slower than expected and, in general, 
services are deployed on a fragmented bas is as a result of, inter alia, transport 
authorities increasingly but in an uncoordinated way explo ring options to better manage 
their transport systems. This leads to a patchwork of differen t national, regional and 
local solutions without clear har monisation; users need to adapt  to each of them and that 
is endangering the integrity of the single market throughout the EU. 
 
EN 5   EN As part of the current exercise, an intense effo rt was made to consult representatives of 
the public sector, industry and other interested  parties, resulting in a number of priority 
application domains for EU-wide deployment of ITS and a set of potential measures to be 
launched in order to foster such process . 
Considering the general objective to accelerat e the uptake of ITS in Europe, the impact 
assessment considers three policy options, co mparing their effects on specific objectives 
of interoperability, cooperation and (s olving) privacy and liability issues.  
A No additional new action (baseline scenario) B Overcoming problems by concentrati on on enabling actio ns and application 
fields (functional open ITS platform, optimal use of road and traffic data, continuity of services and addr essing privacy & liability)  
B+ Option B extended with a comitology procedure. The main difference between B and B+ is th e replacement of a High Level Group by a 
European ITS Committee assisting the Commissi on through the comitology procedure. 
The main advantage of Option B+ is a faster  and more harmonised deployment of ITS 
services. The anticipated positive impacts on congestion, road safety and emissions will 
thus be reached earlier. That is why this option is more effective: Option B+ will save 
more lives and more time otherwise spent in congestion, and will reduce CO
2 emissions 
most. 
Considering both their direct impact (boos ting uptake of ITS) and indirect impact 
(supporting economic, social and environmental policies) the prefer red option is Option 
B+.  
Option B+ focuses on an limited set of ‘horizontal’ actions that address main identified 
bottlenecks and problem areas, and as such di rectly and indirectly foster development 
and consistent, harmonised deployment of IT S in Europe. Option B+ builds on broad 
concertation and cooperation with major st akeholders to get selected measures 
implemented, but also incorporates the mechanisms — whenever necessary — to allow 
the Commission, assisted by a European ITS Committee, to adopt such measures via a comitology procedure. This procedure will  ensure an effective steering and management 
of the necessary processes at minimum adm inistrative cost and should result in rapid 
positive impacts on congesti on, safety and emissions. 
The proposed legal instrument to set up this fr amework would be a Directive, which 
recognises the different levels of ITS use and deployment, while at the same time leaving 
the power and responsibility to the Commission to define, with the European ITS Committee, the technical details in support of the implementation of the Directive. 
 
EN 6   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
1.1. What are Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)? 
The mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 White Paper on Transport 
Policy1 suggests that innovation  can play a considerable part in making road transport 
more efficient, safer and cleaner.  
In particular applying available a nd emerging information and communication 
technologies (ICT) can help to deliver safe, efficient, sustainable and seamless transport 
of goods and people. These ICT a pplications are commonly known as Intelligent 
Transport Systems (ITS).  ITS apply to all transport modes and facilitate their 
interlinking (co-modality). Typical applications include (multi-modal) trip planners, combined public transport ticket dispensers or River Information and Air Traffic Control 
Systems. Examples in road transport are dynam ic traffic management with variable speed 
limits, Parking Guidance & Reservation, Na vigation Devices and (Advanced) Driver 
Assistance Systems like Electronic Stabil ity Control or Lane Departure Warning 
Systems. 
The ITS action plan covered by the presen t impact assessment report was announced in 
the mid-term review of the European Co mmission’s 2001 transport White Paper as the 
“launch of a major programme to roll out inte lligent infrastructure for road transport.” 
1.2. Target  
Though ITS are not limited to road transport, the focus  in the present exercise is on the 
Road Transport System and its interfaces with the other modes . Other modes already 
have similar initiatives such as the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) for air, 
the European Rail Traffic Management Syst em (ERTMS) for rail, River Information 
Services (RIS) for inland waterway transport and SafeSeaNet and Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information Systems (VTMIS) for maritime transport. 
This impact assessment (IA) examines the op tions for action in favour of ITS for road 
transport in the EU and considers their likely effects. This IA is the basis for the ITS action plan, a set of dedicated measures to encourage take-up of IT S for Roads which the 
European Commission has planned to adopt  in Autumn 2008, and for the accompanying 
legislative proposal on the setting up of  a comitology procedure allowing the 
Commission, assisted by a Committee, to issue decisions in specific areas when 
necessary.  
This impact assessment addresses the items listed in Art. 21(1) of the Implementing 
Rules and can therefore be rega rded as an ex-ante evaluation. 
                                                
 
1 COM(2006) 314: “New te chnologies coming to market in the near future will gradually provide 
new services to citizens and allow improved r eal-time management of traffic movements and 
capacity use, as well as the tracing and tracking of flows for environmental and security purposes. 
In addition to the obvious benefits to transport operators and clients, new systems will provide public administration with rapid and detailed information on infrastructure and maintenance 
needs. They will not only enhance driving comfort but also help to increase safety and security 
and to tackle wasteful transport patterns in the interest of environmental sustainability.” 
 
EN 7   EN Obvious links exist between this  exercise and the Logistics2 and Urban Mobility Action 
Plans3 as ITS are also used as a tool to optim ise logistics and urba n mobility. Examples 
are e-freight, smart freight distribution in ci ties and security of commercial and public 
transport. 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1. Expertise 
This impact assessment relies on results fr om various work carried out over the past 
years — EU research projects, support to  deployment and customer surveys.  
Since 1988, the Commission has financed seve ral research and development programmes 
on ITS which have delivered many useful resu lts and products which in some cases are 
still awaiting full explo itation. Useful input on the impact of in-vehicle safety systems 
has come from the SEISS and eImpact studies4. 
A number of Euro-regional ITS deployment projects have b een financed under the Trans-
European Transport Network programme and are about to be concluded, and work is 
being continued in the EasyWay5 project.  
The eSafety initiative has developed a ro admap covering in-vehicle applications 
implementation6.  
Use was also made of the results of some TRANSTOOLS7 simulations of the policy 
options described in the present IA. 
Finally contracts were signed with Ankerbol d Consulting for the stakeholder interviews 
and with COWI-ECORYS8 for providing methodological  advice and collecting 
information for assessing the impact of actions.  
2.2. Consultation of Stakeholders 
2.2.1.  Meetings with public authorities, industry and other interested parties 
Thirteen high-level industry stakeholders’ interviews, related to the uptake of ITS and 
relevant issues,  were organised between November  2007 and end of January 2008. The 
persons interviewed were high-level pers onalities from the following stakeholder 
communities: national ministries of tran sport, government-owned development and 
deployment agencies for ITS, a city aut hority, a membership-based international 
                                                 
2 COM(2007) 607. 
3 To be adopted in early 2009; cf. http://ec.eur opa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport 
4 SEISS (2005): Exploratory Study on the potential socio-economic impact of the introduction of 
Intelligent Safety Systems in Road Vehicles, eIMPACT (2008): Assessing the impacts of the 
socio-economic effects of Intelligent Vehicle Safety  Systems (IVSS), their im pact on traffic safety 
and efficiency, www.eimpact.eu. 
5 http://www.easyway-its.eu. 
6 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/forum/roadmaps/index_en.htm. 
7 JRC report on TRANSTOOLS simulations of ITS Action Plan, 3rd draft (04.06.08). 
8 COWI-ECORYS: Preparatory Study for an Impact  Assessment on the EC ITS Action Plan, Final 
report, May 2008. 
 
EN 8   EN organisation bringing partners together to develop ITS-based services, a toll motorway 
operator, an ITS-based inform ation service provider, a membership-based organisation 
representing the heavy road tr ansport industry, representati ves of the Directors of the 
National Road Authorities, a mobile tel ecommunications operato r, an electronic 
components supplier to the automotive in dustry and an automobile and truck 
manufacturer. These interviews led to a fi rst inventory of observations regarding the 
issues hampering the wider deployment of ITS, its market penetration and potential 
actions that could be undertaken to achieve a faster uptake of ITS.  To consolidate the 
findings of the first interviews, two workshops  were held, one on 22 February and one 
on 26 March 2008 with more than 2 00 participants in total.  
An eSafety forum9 (Ljubljana, 25 April 2008) was dedica ted to the initiative, with some 
35 participants debating supplementary actions. 
Finally Member States’  delegates discussed the rati onale behind specific actions 
presented at a meeting in Brussels on 26 May 2008.  
As such the Commission’s minimum standard s for stakeholder consultation have been 
met. 
2.2.2.  Wider consultation of the public 
A questionnaire-based survey  using the internet was launc hed at the end of February 
2008, which generated 34 replies. The analysis of this survey has been published on the Europa website
10 and is explained below (see 1.2.4).  
2.2.3.  Consultation of other Commission services 
An inter-service group  composed of representatives of the Directorates-General 
concerned  (SG, ECFIN, ENTR, EMPL, ENV, INFSO, RTD, TAXUD and JRC)  was 
created to accompany the impact assessmen t. The group met 4 times between January 
and May 2008 and provided input to the impact assessment.  
In addition to this in ter-service group, an ITS Steering Group  was set up in April 2007 
with Directors from five di fferent Directorates-General: INFSO, RTD, ENTR, ENV and 
TREN . This Group provided guidance on the preparation of the ITS Action Plan. 
2.2.4.  Main results of the consultations 
Interviews:  
The most important issues raised by the high level stakeholders  interviewed  can be 
listed as follows: 
• ITS deployment should not be seen as an objective on its own but rather as a 
tool  
                                                 
9 www.esafetysupport.org/en/news/esafety_forum_comments_on_ec_its_action_plan.htm. 
10 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/r oad/consultations/its_en.htm. 
 
EN 9   EN • ITS deployment needs to be accelerated es pecially in the fields of urban and 
freight transport.  
Stakeholders pointed out the followi ng priorities for European ITS:  
• ITS deployment should be policy-led, combine a top-down approach with 
bottom-up and build intelligence into the transport infrastructure.  
• It should enable better use of existing infrastructure and increase safety and 
efficiency on it.  
• The responsibilities of the different players (EU, public  authorities,  industry, 
etc.) need to be clearly identified; business cases including public-private 
cooperation should be defined and a legal basis for actions needs to be established 
• For stakeholder coordination, a high-leve l cross-sector coordination group is 
necessary involving all players and esta blishing the necessary link between 
developers, industry and public authorities.  
• Interoperability needs to be agreed on a European level (as was the case to 
enable the deployment of GSM).  
It was also pointed out that the ITS Action Plan should cove r cross-border enforcement, 
standards on Human-Machine Interaction (H MI) (code of practice, legislation), a 
regulatory framework for the introduction of  driver assistance systems, a legal 
framework for liability issues of e-Safety applications and the mandatory deployment of 
Electronic Stability Control (ESC)
11 to reduce fatalities.  
In the context of enabling instruments, the st akeholders wanted a range of fora with all 
major players present, from EU level to local /regional level. The l eading in-car services 
(speed alert, eCall, and real-time traffic information) need a coordinated deployment 
group of stakeholders, deliver ing against targets. The sa me should apply for road 
authorities and network operato rs in their domain. A platfo rm for standardisation of 
procedures and consensus-building on data and data-exchange is needed.  
Stakeholders stated that if customers will  not pay for safety, mandates and regulatory 
instruments will be needed as an incentive to  get safety-related ITS systems in place that 
will impact on the mass market. 
The consolidated outcome of the interviews  was used as a starting point for further 
discussions and fine-tuning during dedica ted workshops and for setting up a broader 
internet consultation:  
Workshops:  
                                                 
11 On May 23, 2008 the European Commission proposed that all new cars from 2012 will have 
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems. Furthermore, lorries and other heavy vehicles should be fitted with Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) and Lane Departure Warning 
(LDW) Systems as of 2013. These measures will re duce fatal casualties in traffic by an estimated 
5000 a year. (IP/08/786). 
 
EN 10   EN Starting with this first set of  observations and recommendations,  two public 
Stakeholders’ workshops were organised to discuss, group  and fine-tune problem areas, 
objectives and potential actions. During this pr ocess a number of criteria were applied. 
Priority ITS application doma ins/ dedicated applications to be addressed should:  
(1) contribute to high level Eur opean (policy) objectives in  fields including safety, 
efficiency and environmental impact of transport systems, 
(2) present a clear benefit to society and citi zens by facilitating mobility in general or 
by improving the performance of transport operations in a co-modal environment, 
and 
(3) be mature enough to be rolled out in a cons istent manner or to have the potential 
to act as a catalyst for ITS systems or to offer synergies between these;  
resulting overal l in following priority application domains related to EU-wide ITS 
deployment and proposed dedicated measures : 
(1) support for traffic management and the interconnection of transport modes , 
in order to optimise the use of the exis ting infrastructure and to better balance 
traffic demand over the networks. Dedicate d measures include: support for wider 
deployment of (roadside-based) ITS infrastructure for information services, provision of warnings and dynamic speed  harmonisation; th e development and 
roll-out of interoperable road pricing a nd city access control mechanisms and the 
promotion of intermodality via provision of dedicated information and guidance to hubs; 
(2) fight against congestion on EU freight corridors and in cities , by developing 
traffic forecast models, setting up effective Data Exchange mechanisms and enhancing cooperation among network operators. This action includes a 
promotion of load optimisation mechanisms and support for deployment of city-
logistics and e-freight; 
(3) promotion of  co-modality , by providing dynamic multi-modal door-to-door 
travel information, interconnecting multi-m odal travel planners and developing 
instruments for internalising external costs 
(4) safety & security of commercial transport operations  through the creation of 
secure rest areas and enhanced control of provisions for hauliers (resting and 
driving times). This action includes suppor t to deployment of Advanced Driver 
Assistance Systems, e.g. dynamic guidance,  Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), 
Lane Departure Warning (LDW) 
(5) improvement of  road safety by fostering deployment of  (autonomous) in-vehicle 
safety enhancing systems, e.g. Crash Avoidance Applications, Intersection 
Support Systems, eCall etc.  
(6) provision of more reliable Real Time Traffic and Travel Information  (RTTI) 
services, matching user expectations  by supporting efficient travelling and 
reducing safety risks 
 
EN 11   EN (7) efficiency of road transport and logistics operations , by optimisation of pre-
trip planning, dynamic fleet management and en-route trip recalculation; the 
development of local distri bution centres and e-freight. 
Where these domains fully comply with the ‘principles’ raised during the first batch of 
stakeholder interviews, they were also iden tified during the workshops as being equally 
important in their contribution to current (t ransport) policy objectiv es. The stakeholders 
did not agree on any hierarchy among these with  regard to a potential prioritisation of 
actions. 
The internet-based public consultation:  
14 questions relating to current and future de ployment of ITS were  presented, and 34 
replies were received. Most  responses came from nationa l public authorities:  
• 79 percent of respondents believe that th e uptake of ITS is too slow and less 
than expected. The main reason for this is, for 85 percent, the lack of Europe-
wide coverage and of consis tent deployment of ITS.  
• 95 percent of respondents see ITS as an important tool to increase transport 
efficiency, mobility and road safety. A large majority judges that 
standardisation for ITS and provision of a coordination platform for the 
synchronised deployment of ITS are the main areas where the EU can 
provide added value.  
• 79 percent of respondents are in favour of one common, open in-vehicle 
platform instead of separated platforms for each application.  
Most stakeholders consulted ar e of the opinion that  the European Union should take more 
responsibility for further depl oyment of ITS. The EU should be the main actor in the 
field of legislation, initiatives and financial support for ITS. National authorities should 
lead implementation and evaluation, whereas indu stry should foster cooperation with the 
other stakeholders in the ITS domain. 
2.3. Follow-up of the recommendations made by the Impact Assessment Board 
A first version of the IA  was submitted to the Impact Assessment Board on 11 June 
2008 and discussed in a meeting with the IAB, which took place on 9 July 2008. 
On 15 July 2008 the Impact Assessment Bo ard provided a set of recommendations to 
improve the first draft of the report. These recommendations were taken into consideration as follows: 
• the nature of the problems to  be addressed has been bett er explained, indicating more 
clearly what should be tackled at the EU level;  
• the specific objectives of the ITS Action Plan and the content of the alternative policy 
options have been better linke d to the problems described;  
• the link with other EU policies such as internalisation of external costs has been 
emphasised in 2.2.2; 
 
EN 12   EN • the description and analysis of the policy opt ions have been significantly improved, in 
particular as regards the choice of areas a nd criteria applied; the comparison of the 
expected benefits and implementing costs give s more detail of potential synergies and 
trade-offs within the policy options; 
• the exact nature of the ITS Committee propos ed in Option B+ has been clarified in 
4.3, including a confirmation that an analys is will be carried out in the case of 
concrete measures proposed by the Committee;  
• more information is given in 1.2.4 on the consultations carried out and the relevance 
of the stakeholders consulted; 
• the limitations of the TRANSTOOLS asse ssment tool are indicated in 5.1.2; 
• the revised report was examined at an additional meeting with the Inter-service Group 
on 23 July 2008 (with several units of TREN, INFSO and ENV participating), providing feedback and allo wing further fine-tuning. 
On the second version of the IA  (submitted on 30 July 2008) the Impact Assessment 
Board gave some further recommendations  on 8 September 2008, wh ich were taken up 
as follows: 
• the problem definition has been strengthe ned by providing a new sub-chapter on how 
the problem drivers aff ect the particular ITS applications (2.1.2); 
• the consistency of priorities is shown in a new table which illustrates the link between 
the priority application domains and the chosen action areas (4.2); 
• the reasoning and justif ication for not undertaking a full cost-benefit anal ysis at this 
stage has been expanded (5.1.1 and 5.5); 
• the model scenarios used in TRANSTOOLS and related policy options have been 
further clarified (5.1.2); 
• the main impacts are reflected in the Executive Summary; 
• finally, the participating serv ices in the last Inter-service group m eeting in July 2008 
have been added (see above). 
3. P
ROBLEM DEFINITION : WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ACT ? 
3.1. Nature of the problem 
The mid-term review of the European Commission’s 2001 White Paper on Transport 
Policy clearly stated that ITS can play a signi ficant part in achiev ing (transport) policy 
objectives and reducing the negativ e effects of road transport. Where the benefits of ITS 
seem to be generally recognised the uptake of ITS in road transport has been rather 
slow  and fragmented , mainly because of lack of c ooperation among stakeholders, a low 
level of interoperability and unsolved privacy and liability issues. E .g. insufficient access 
to content has led to a low quality of services  and in some cases to inappropriate use of 
 
EN 13   EN ITS; proprietary ‘all in ’ silo solutions prohibiting sharing of components have kept prices 
of individual ITS applica tions and services high, aff ecting potentia l customers’ 
willingness to buy.  
As a consequence, inefficient use is made of the IT S potential to support achievement 
of (transport) policy objectives and to fight the enormous and increasing challenges 
posed to road transport, i.e. congestion; emissions, pol lution and energy efficiency; 
accidents and security of transport operations.  
Fig. 2.1: ITS problem tree (S ource: COWI preparatory study) 
– Congestion : official estimates12 show that “road congestion costs, including 
commuting and leisure traffic as well as bus iness and freight traffic, amounts to an 
average 1 percent of GDP in the European  Union, with Britain and France at 1.5 
percent.” Over the past decades, transport has increased in line with economic growth 
but there is an obvious need to cope with  growing demand: where real GDP grew by 
2.4 % per year in the period 1995-2006, freigh t transport growth in EU-27 has been 
2.8 % per year and passenger transport gr owth 1.7 %. Freight transport demand has 
increased more strongly for modes offering greater flexibility, in particular road 
transport (1995-2006: road freight +3.5 %, pa ssenger +1.6 %). The increase of traffic 
demand has led to bottlenecks in corrido rs crossing densely populated areas and 
sensitive areas such as the Alps and the Pyrenees. More infrastructure is not a 
solution, especially not in the short term given the l ong planning and construction 
times for new infrastructure and the need to minimise capacity reductions caused by 
maintenance and local upgrades. 
                                                 
12 European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT), Leipzig, 2007. 

 
EN 14   EN – Negative impact on the environment, inefficient use of energy and dependency on 
fossil fuels: road transport has a significan t impact on climate change: it accounts for 
72 % of all transport-related CO 2 emissions — which have increased by 32 % between 
1990 and 2005 while decreasing or stabilising in  other sectors of the economy (such as 
industry and households) over the same period. The same applies to GHG emissions, 
which overall decreased in Europe by al most 6 % over the 1990-2005 period and 
where road transport accounts for an increase of 29 %.  
EU-27 GHG Emissions in transport sector 
02004006008001 0001 2001 400
1990 1995 2000 2005Milliontonnes CO2 equivalentOther
Transport**
Railways
Navigation*
Civil Aviation*
Road Transport
* Including international bunkers (international traffic departing from the EU)
** Includes pipeline transportation and ground activities in airports and harbours 
Fig. 2.2 EU-27 GHG emissions in transport sector  
– Air quality  in cities and other environmentally sensitive areas does not always meet 
the limit values set by European regulation and (road) transport is often a big 
contributor to air pollution in these locat ions — even if technological progress and 
regulation have had a considerable impact in  recent years. Technological progress has 
also contributed to improvements in vehicl e fuel efficiency, but gains have been 
neutralised by increased traffic and car size. 
– Accidents : road fatalities have displayed a net reduction (-23.9 % since 2000 in EU-
27) but there were still about  43 000 fatalities on the EU -27 roads in 2006, more than 
6 000 above the intermediate target based on the target set by the White Paper: 50 % 
reduction in fatalities in 2010 compared to  2001. In more than 80 % of the road 
accidents, the driver happens to be at least partly responsible, appealing for 
applications reducing the drivers’ workload or assisting them, and better 
(autonomous) safety systems 
3.1.1.  Problem drivers hindering ITS take up  
Three conditions are driving the problem. For some conditions market failure justifies 
some degree of public intervention. For example,  continuous cross-border services can be 
regarded as quasi public goods, as there is l ittle willingness-to-p ay at this stage. 
Incomplete information and uncertainty, e.g. on  privacy and liability rules, affects the 
market negatively. Additionally, a lack of vision and cooperation can be substantially 
tackled by a European approach. 
(1) (A lack of) interoperability of applications, systems and services 
 
EN 15   EN • Silo solutions: 
– Industry and private player s develop ‘all in’ proprietary solutions based on 
limited sharing of content or required components, resulting in costly, standalone applications and services requiring high start-up investments and 
increasing risks of market failures; 
– Member States develop i ndividual solutions which are deployed at a local 
level, and are causing a fragmented  technological spectrum that might 
endanger future harmonisation and standa rdisation; obvious examples are toll 
collection, congestion charging, multi-m odal journey planners and public 
transport e-ticketing.  
• Lack of robust business models : business models for several ITS 
applications are unclear or even lacking. In some cases investment and 
operation (costs) fall on specific stake holders while benefits are hard to 
allocate, e.g. eCall. 
• Market inconsistency : deployment of ITS services has led in some countries 
to de-facto monopolies, hindering co mpetition and limiting opportunities for 
innovation, a typical market failure. Fo r example this is the case when 
proprietary road charging devices, init ially set up as part of a BOT–like 
operation for a dedicated part of a ne twork (to be created), and as such 
benefiting in effect from almost manda tory installation in all vehicles 
frequently entering the area, are exported to larger networks or are used as an 
instrument for adding on additional serv ices (e.g. parking payment systems, 
infotainment). Both scenarios give a competitive advantage to the road charging operator if other providers do not have access to the on-board unit.  
(2) (A lack of) concertation and effect ive cooperation among stakeholders 
• No clear vision : There is no clear European vision on how to make best use 
of the ITS tools to achieve the ma ny EU policy objectives (transport, 
environment, energy, industry, etc.) and who will lead the deployment in certain areas (private  or public sector). 
• Lack of a strong platform for concertation and cooperation : ITS are a 
complex area where many stakeholders have  to work together and to agree on 
synchronised actions (investments) in  order to successfully launch new 
services and applications. A strong fr amework for the necessary concertation 
and cooperation between stakeholders  is missing at the moment and 
organisational barriers still exist. 
• Limited awareness of the potential benefits of ITS : Public authorities and 
decision-makers are not fully aware of th e potential benefits  offered by ITS, 
especially of the fact that ITS constitute a valuable tool for solving or alleviating mobility-related problems. They lack knowledge (especially at 
senior level) and are not driven by the need to make economies of scale and create synergies: when needed, solu tions are simply bought. As a result 
applying ITS is not seriously considered  as a substitute for today’s commonly 
accepted solutions for solving bottlenecks, e.g. expanding or upgrading the 
 
EN 16   EN infrastructure. Over the many years it will take to adapt the infrastructure, full 
use will not be made of the currently available road capacity and many hours 
will be lost in unnecessary congestion. Initial deployment led by the public 
sector, considered to be a major trigger for private sector initiatives and developments will remain fragmented.  
 
EN 17   EN (3) Unsolved privacy and liability issues 
• No clear rules of legislation on privacy of data : ITS implicitly require 
collection and exchange of (traffic) data , partly sensitive in  terms of privacy 
policy, such as pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, eCall, road charging etc. 
As such consumers will remain scepti cal as to the added value of ITS 
applications and remain reluctant to buy or invest in them themselves. 
• Unclear distribution of responsibilities, absence of agreements on service 
ownership: most ITS applications or services  rely on integration of data to 
provide assistance to the user or even  take over control from the driver in 
critical situations (e.g. in -vehicle systems such as emergency breaking, crash 
avoidance systems, etc). In the abse nce of clear res ponsibilities for the 
provision, sharing or re-use of data and components, a nd liability in case of 
failure, suppliers will remain very prudent and potential customers will 
remain reluctant to purchase. 
3.1.2.  How are ITS applications domains affected by the problem drivers? 
The problem drivers are affecting th e application domains mentioned and 
hindering their uptake as follows:  
(1) support for traffic management and the interconnection of transport 
modes: the lack of interoperability  of traffic management systems, 
developed at local or regional levels , and specific to one transport mode, 
prevents the use of existing ITS infr astructure across regional domains or 
borders or across transport modes. This slower or reduced uptake is 
worsened by the lack of cooperation and concertation  among 
stakeholders: creating the conditions fo r interoperability of the system or 
continuity of the services is therefore v ery difficult. In addition, the 
necessary exchange of traffic data requires legal  certainty on privacy 
and liability issues 
(2) fight against congestion on EU freight corridors and in cities: the 
development of traffic forecast models to promote load optimisation mechanisms, and support for deployment  of city-logistics and e-freight, 
are only meaningful when the implementation of this load optimisation is not hindered by a lack of interoperability of the traffic management 
interfaces, for example . Likewise, addressing congestion on EU 
corridors requires effective data exchange mechanisms: their development and uptake must be guaranteed by effective cooperation  
among network operators, and data accuracy and reliability  
(3) promotion of  co-modality: the provision of dynamic multi-modal door-
to-door travel information requires da ta or information across different 
modes, i.e. from different sources or databases. It will be difficult to build such systems without addressing their interoperability  or that of 
their interfaces. A lack of cooperation  and concertation will hamper the 
development of such systems.  
 
EN 18   EN (4) safety & security of comm ercial transport operations: the 
implementation of secure rest areas  for hauliers (resting and driving 
times), for example, requires access to the appropriate ITS system, and relies on common or at least interoperable on-board vehicle platforms . 
The security measures required must comply fully with the data 
protection  provisions of the relevant EU directives 
(5) improvement of  road safety: the deployment of safety enhancing 
systems, such as collision avoidance systems, is currently rather low and usually offered as an “e xtra”. An improvement of the situation could be 
expected as soon as the interoperability  of the underlying technology or 
system is ensured (e.g. standardis ation efforts on eCall are on-going), 
and a sufficient level of concertation and cooperation  among 
stakeholders is achieved (e.g. infrastr ucture providers need to agree with 
vehicle manufacturers on the data exchange mechanism);  
(6) provision of more reliable Real Time Traffic and Travel Information  
(RTTI) services: the lack of “s eamless” traffic information on 
international journeys is a problem. Insufficient cooperation among 
road authorities  on cross-border issues means they do not exchange 
enough traffic and incident data. There are mainly organisational barriers 
and outstanding liability issues wh ich hamper the uptake of such 
“seamless” RTTI (e.g. absence of agr eements on the provision and use of 
data between private and public stak eholders and no clear liability in 
case of failure).  
(7) efficiency of road transpor t and logistics operations: logistics 
operations often use specific ITS solutions across their fleet to 
implement their “eFreight”. However,  whether for tracking and tracing 
or for transport efficiency, they need to exchange data with infrastructure providers. Lack of cooperation  with other stakeholders, notably on the 
liability aspects relating to the exch ange of reliable data, constitute a 
barrier to the uptak e of ITS solutions. 
3.1.3.  Relevance of ITS to (transport) poli cy and related objectives — why should the 
EU act? 
(1) As highlighted before, ITS clearly demons trate a potential to support achievement 
of (transport) policy objectives, on cond ition that they are rolled out in a 
consistent, harmonised and synchronised way all over Europe. EU intervention is 
therefore required to guarantee interope rability, to ensure continuity across 
borders and modes, and to foster synerg ies (implying cost reductions) to be 
obtained for both public and privat e applications and services. 
(2) The following transport policies and application areas will clearly benefit from a 
supra-national approach: 
Traffic management services
 (tools for reducing congestion, pollution and accidents) 
These services typically deal with cross-border, interoperability and standardisation 
issues:  
 
EN 19   EN • Little cross-border traffic management : Traffic management is mainly 
done at local, regional and national s cale and seldom cross-border between 
neighbouring countries. Better coordina tion between neighbouring national 
or regional road authorities and interli nking of their respective traffic control 
centres, rerouting on long-distance co rridors, could bring considerable 
benefits to road users, esp ecially international hauliers. 
• Urban traffic management : fragmented use of computer control systems for 
urban traffic control because of lack of  open systems; this increases the price 
and limits the choice of city authoritie s especially when looking to expand 
basic systems.  
• Inappropriate instruments for dema nd management / access control: 
several public authorities are interested  in introducing ch arging schemes for 
the better use of their networks, and limiting traffic demand or controlling access on specific parts of it (including cities). Systems based on different 
technologies are being introduced in a number of cities but they are not 
flexible enough (e.g. London and Stoc kholm: only cordon pricing: once 
inside the city, no limitation in the number of km driven). If a more 
harmonised system could be developed, their prices would come down and 
they would become more affordable for small and medium-sized cities, 
leading to considerable gains in congestion and pollution reduction. The 
(ongoing) definition of a European  Electronic Toll Service (EETS)
13 will be 
pursued and kept to a strict minimu m, losing potential synergies of EETS 
with other applications and the setti ng-up of an integrated (European-wide) 
mechanism for mobile payment. As a result, the implementation and operation costs of dedicated charging schemes and city access strategies will 
remain high, lowering interest from poten tial new network owners and cities, 
whereas customers will have to live with (high costs related to) proprietary solutions. 
Traffic and travel information services (RTTI): 
(tools for reducing congestion, 
pollution and accidents) 
Launching of such services should be left to the market and to national/regional/local 
transport authorities, but common issues  regarding interopera bility and seamless 
operation of the services cross-border neve rtheless justify EU intervention — e.g. the 
human-machine-interaction for presenting the information to the driver, which affects personal safety and cannot be tackled by the Member States individually; or the 
requirement to arrive at a common EU appro ach to guarantee safe use of ITS equipment 
in vehicles.  
• Access to data, enhanced monitori ng and use of latest available 
information : ITS are by definition based on data. Typical areas include road 
infrastructure and works data, circulati on plans, traffic flow parameters and 
forecasts, but also public transport data , access restrictions and opening hours 
of terminals or industrial plants. Data can be static (public transport networks and schedules) or dynamic (actual travel times, occasional congestion). For 
                                                
 
13 Directive 2004/52/EC. 
 
EN 20   EN the moment this type of data is spre ad over public and private actors and the 
coordination and data-sharing between them is not optimal. For example traffic data collected for traffic mana gement purposes by the road authorities 
are not always accessible by private inform ation service providers. Vice versa 
there is no clear obligation, in cases wh ere the private provider has detected a 
serious life-threatening incident, that this  information be passed to the public 
authorities. Private service providers a nd in particular digital map makers 
often are not, or too late, informed about new traffic regulations/limitations 
or circulation plans, thus creating da ngerous situations when using obsolete 
data in navigation systems.  
• Unreliable or inaccurate (dynamic) traffic and travel information 
(RTTI) : traffic information  is still given at an insufficient quality level on 
several road networks leading to inefficient route planning, avoidable 
accidents, congestion and air pollution. A particular problem is the lack of 
seamless traffic information on international journeys where travellers are still facing the “border effect” becau se road authorities in neighbouring 
countries do not always exchange traffi c and incident data in an efficient 
manner. Pan-European deployment , common quality levels and possible 
harmonisation regarding opera tions procedures (what wi ll be delivered?) are 
undermined by local initiatives and ab sence of Europe-wide concertation. 
Consumers will be confronted with the discontinuity of services they might 
be used to on their national or local network, and might have to face a variety 
of user procedures and different ‘look and feel’ of similar ITS services where 
they are provided. Multi-modal journey planners are also non-existent in 
many Member States, preventing the shift to more environmentally friendly transport modes for personal trips and a better interconnection between 
modes. Door-to-door European multi-m odal journey planners are not yet 
operational because first national planne rs have to be completed and have 
then to be interconnected. There are in stitutional and organisational barriers 
to assembling the data from the diffe rent private and public transport 
operators. Special attention should be pa id to disabled a nd elderly people as 
well as vulnerable road users for whom in most cases only isolated local 
solutions or demonstration pilots exist at present.  
• Unreliable route navigation: there is quite good uptake of cheap navigation 
devices but mainly used with static ro ad data which is sometimes unreliable 
due to poor collaboration between the public and private se ctors in keeping 
digital map data up-to-date . There is also the risk of having many devices in 
operation in the near future with obsolete traffic and road data, as traffic regulations will change in the meantime. Several problems exist for heavy vehicles as there are no clear rule s on which routes they are allowed. A 
Commission Recommendation
14 (2001) addressed to th e Member States to 
define a hierarchy of roads was not sufficiently taken up. Cheap navigation 
devices not taking account of vehicl e dimension and weight limits are 
sometimes used by truck and coach drivers, sometimes leading to serious 
                                                 
14 2001/551/CE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 4 July 2001 on the development of a 
legal and business framework for participation of the private sector in deploying telematics-based 
Traffic and Travel Informati on (TTI) services in Europe. 
 
EN 21   EN accidents and damage to the road infrastructure. Fast take-off of navigation 
devices, followed by incorporation of G PS functionalities in mobile phones, 
will increase these problems even more. 
• Complicated Human Machine Interaction , or inappropriate on-board use of 
nomadic devices (such as mobile phone s and digital assistants) can create 
dangerous situations or distract drivers when used while driving. 
• Interesting market developments  are happening where telecom operators, 
digital map makers and service provid ers are making deals to collect real-
time traffic data in order to improve the reliability of traffic information. 
However if traffic information is completely left in the hands of the private 
sector, traffic journeys will risk being optimised from an individual customer 
point of view instead of trying to  find a collective optimum where the 
benefits for society are maximised. There is  also the fact that the dividing line 
between traffic information and tra ffic management, the latter being the 
responsibility of th e road authorities, is very  vague. There is a risk of 
mismatch between messages given by in-v ehicle devices and roadside signs. 
• Inefficient  logistics operations, insecu rity of commercial transport : The 
supply side of the transport market is  dominated by medium- and small-sized 
enterprises. While this renders the industry particularly flexible, fragmentation of the industry can make it difficult to roll out new 
technologies (see Fig. 2.2) because of lack of awareness and expensive non-
integrated systems. Indeed, devices are sometimes too expensive because 
they are addressing sepa rate applications and don’ t benefit from synergies 
between them. Commercial transport is also suffering from problems related 
to unavailability and/or insecurity of parking places because of the non-existence of ITS-based parking reservat ion and security services. Lack of 
information on modal choices and tran sport hubs hinders the creation of 
“green transport corridors” where goods are transported via the most 
environmentally friendly transport mode. 
 
EN 22   EN Fig. 2.3 Use of specific software systems in the transport services sectors - % of companies* using a 
dedicated ICT system / technology (EU-27, 2007)15 
Traffic safety (in-vehicle) applications and services : (tools dedicated to avoiding 
accidents or reducing their effects, a nd therefore non-recurrent congestion too) 
These applications relate to personal safet y, but as they ideally have to be able to 
function in all Member States, interoperability and standard isation issues have to be 
tackled at EU level. The same applies to some legal aspects such as liability in case of failure, potentially leading to accidents, which are faced by all Member States and justify 
a common EU approach.  
Typical services that are considered to be mature and that demonstrate a positive 
(overall) cost/benefit ratio, making them pr ime candidates for Europe-wide deployment, 
include: 
• In-vehicle active safety applications  such as collision avoidance systems 
can considerably improve traffic safety, but are currently (o nly) offered as a 
“comfort service" in upper segments of the market owing to concerns as to 
responsibility and liability: who will be lia ble in cases of failure or misuse by 
the customer; how to avoid unexpected interference of applications running 
in parallel; can the ITS device take ove r control of the vehicle in unavoidable 
accident situations? Low market demand keeps prices high, again reducing interest from potential customers, and possibly impairing the effectiveness of 
a service as well, e.g. in the case of equipped vehicles exchanging warnings 
on hazardous situations, where the overall impact of the application/service is 
strictly dependent on the number of vehi cles equipped. As an  overall result 
little progress will be made regarding core policy objectives such as road safety. 
• Intelligent Speed Management , an in-vehicle application which triggers 
respect for the speed limits applicable on roads, based on digital map data, 
warning the driver if existing speed lim its are exceeded, is recognised to be 
                                                
 
15 eBusiness watch 2008 (www.ebusiness-watch.org/key_reports/documents/BRO08.pdf). 

 
EN 23   EN very effective even in its ‘basic’ version (= purely informative). However 
uptake has been slow due to missing road data or incomplete periodic 
upgrade of speed limits displayed. In so me countries it is very difficult to 
gather all data from the different administration layers (towns, regions, 
departments, national roads etc.) The syst em is applied in Sweden in all state-
owned vehicles, and provided as an op tion in the higher end of the market — 
but only operational on a few parts of the road network, in some EU countries. The applications typically build on network information carried 
onboard and triggered by satellite positio ning signals. Extensive testing in 
field trials including analyses of us er acceptance and possible deployment 
schemes has been organised in vari ous Member States, but though the car 
industry is slowly offering the applica tion, deployment remains fragmented. 
The application and its effects are however of great importance since 
speeding is still a very important cause of accidents and has a clear 
correlation with their severity. Without  Europe-wide coordination and quality 
control, the good functioning of any applicatio n in this field will depend on 
local (national) initiatives, and there is a risk that customers, increasingly 
relying on such support, will be confused when arriving in areas where the information is less reliable or absent.  
• Emergency call or eCall : was initiated by the private sector (automobile 
industry) but relies on wider cooperati on among key stakeholders for real 
operational use. Ongoing discussions on the overall service chain, the 
institutional framework (who will handl e the incoming messages), the overall 
benefits and the related necessary investments (who will/ should pay for 
safety) are seriously affecting the initial timeline and resulting in postponement of operational deployment; 
• Pay as you drive : a service that aims to link the cost of the insurance 
premium to be paid to the profile of  the user and the journeys actually 
undertaken. The service is said to pr ovide a solution for people confronted 
with high ‘classical’ insurance premiums — especially younger, 
inexperienced drivers if they voluntarily  agree not to take the wheel during 
risky weekends, and accept to be checked for not infringing traffic rules (in 
this case: speeding). In the UK, a trial was abandoned after 18 months 
because of too few subscribers. Potentia l customers were reluctant to have a 
tracking device installed in their car on concerns of data privacy, even with 
written confirmation that the data collected were used only for checking appropriate driving. In the absence of  an ‘affordable’ insurance contract, 
some drivers continued to drive uninsured.  
Other policy objectives that will benefit from a broad harmonised roll-out of ITS:
  
• (city) logistics and e-freight (= the real-time, paperless handling of all 
processes related to the movement of  goods): ITS include key applications 
aiming at minimising paperwork a nd unproductive repetitive processes, 
lowering costs and making our enterprise s more effective and therefore more 
competitive; 
• innovation , by stimulating cross-border know ledge transfer on effective 
deployment, cross-fertilisation and nove l add-on services. In addition the ITS 
 
EN 24   EN market itself will benefit from harmonisation and standardisation efforts, 
while synchronised actions will l ead to coordinated deployment and 
shortening of time to market for new se rvices (reducing th e need for venture 
capital);  
• the expansion and improvement of the  European transport infrastructure 
and the  completion of priority cross-border projects — by providing a 
sound basis for appropriate and interopera ble infrastructure pricing systems; 
• the encouragement of a  sustainable use of resources by strengthening 
synergies between environmental prot ection and growth — especially by 
promoting the internalisation of extern al costs, and providing the instrument 
required for this;  
• an increase of the  budget for R&D , in particular by private business, by 
providing better framework conditions fo r the exploitation and rapid market 
take-up of innovative (ITS) solutions. 
3.2. What happens if nothing is done? 
Leaving the situation unchanged would lead to a stagnation or even deterioration of the 
current conditions ruling the de ployment of ITS, resulting in an unchanged low level of 
market take-up and making it hard to achie ve key (transport) pol icy objectives and, 
indirectly, to contribute to objectives regard ing (the tackling of) congestion, road safety 
and environmental nuisance. 
3.2.1.  Risk of fragmented deployment of ITS 
Instead of a coordinated approach to ITS there would be more ad hoc  voluntary 
agreements (if any), fragmented legislative work in individual Member States and isolated deployment initiatives, leading to fragmented roll-out of ITS. This would 
endanger subsequent harmonisation, or w ould lead to lengthy processes for 
interoperability (as the European Electronic Toll Service shows).  
Fragmentation on the public side would result  in a slow market development for ITS, 
missing the opportunity to increase Europ ean industrial competitiveness and provide 
chances for exporting leading-edge technology  solutions. Market prices would remain 
higher for the silo solutions. As a result cust omers would not be ta king advantage of the 
potential of ITS for improved safety, comfort,  cost efficiency and environmental impact. 
If interurban and urban road transport syst ems remain badly connected this would limit 
the possibility to establish co-modality, give n the lack of real door-to-door planning 
instruments, or to shift transport demand from roads to other,  more energy- and 
environmentally-friendly modes.  
3.2.2.  Difficulty to achieve further EU transport policy objectives 
If no new policy for ITS is adopted, the above-mentioned problems will take more time 
to solve: development and deployment of ITS applications would remain slow and fragmented; public decision-makers would not be fully aware of the potential of ITS, 
 
EN 25   EN continuing to opt for ‘classical solutions’ (mor e infrastructure instead of optimising use 
and rebalancing the networks). 
This will be detrimental to several policies which the European Commission 
proposes to introduce for the greenin g of transport based mainly on the 
internalisation of external costs . Indeed, these initiatives presuppose the existence of 
advanced ITS instruments such as inter operable electronic toll payment and demand 
management systems to tackle the worseni ng externalities proble ms. As acknowledged in 
the Greening of Transport package16, the use of technologies is  crucial to ensure the 
implementation of internalisation of external costs based on social ma rginal cost pricing. 
It will facilitate the implem entation of differentiated charges according to location and 
time. 
                                                 
16 COM(2008) 433. 
 
EN 26   EN 3.2.3.  Impact on main policy objectives regard ing congestion (avoidance), road safety, 
environmental nuisance and securi ty of the transport system 
(1) Continued road transport growth and its impacts  
Forecasts for the period 2000-2020 see a growth of  freight road transport of 55 % and of 
passenger road transport of 36 %, which is s lightly above the gene ral transport growth 
forecast.17 From 2006 to 2020 a further increase of 40 million vehicles can be expected.18 
Although the benefits of transp ort services are widely ackno wledged, transport activities 
generate nuisances/costs not only  to other transport users, but also to society in general, 
including the local population and future generations. More specifically, transport 
activities have an impact on time — privat e and professional — (congestion), on life 
(accidents), on health (pollution, noise), on energy use (consump tion of energy will 
continue to increase) and on climate cha nge (greenhouse gas emissions) among other 
things19.  
Over the past years, measures to reduc e these nuisances — regulatory measures, 
awareness information campaigns, research  projects and financial support (Trans-
European Networks, Marco Polo) have been undertaken at EU and lower levels. Several 
economic instruments such as infrastructu re charging, vehicl e taxation, congestion 
charging, and fuel taxation have been implemen ted with various degr ees of intensity and 
coverage. The use of ITS could enhance the e fficiency of some of these instruments. 
(2) Congestion 
The density of traffic in Europe has increase d over the past years and will remain. (See 
the IA on internalisation of external costs).  
Many studies have shown the significance of congestion in some Member states. For 
England, the Eddington Transport Study (200 6) predicted the wa ste of an extra £22 
billion worth of time spent in congested tra ffic, which will reach 13 % of all time spent in 
traffic, by 2025. In the Ne therlands, lost vehicle hours are predicted to double by 2020, 
which means an increase in congestion by 30 %.20 
Moreover, projections show that congestion will remain a problem in many places. The 
map below shows the evolution of bottlenecks in EU25 in 2020.  
                                                 
17 ASSESS study for the mid-term review of the EC 2001 transport White Paper, “Keep Europe 
moving”, 2006. 
18 ProgTrans, European Transport Report 2007/2008. 
19 The evolutions of these nuisances have been  analysed in the imp act assessment on the 
internalisation of external costs. SEC(2008)2208. 
20 European Conference of Ministers of Transport (2007): Congestion: A global challenge; 
CEMT/ITF(2007)6. 
 
EN 27   EN 
  
Fig. 2.4 Projected levels of road congestion (morn ing peak) in Europe in 2020. The congestion indicator 
provides the ratio between average speed and free sp eed. The lower the ratio becomes, the higher the 
congestion is. (Source: JRC/IPTS 2008; TRANSTOOLS , Impact Assessment on the internalisation of 
external costs.) 
(3) Accidents/ Road Safety 
Road fatalities will be further reduced. But at the present rate, road deaths in the 
European Union in 2010 are likely to stand at  32 500 which would mean that the target of 
25 000 (set in the EU Road Action Programme) would not be achieved.21 
Targets set by the Transport Policy White Paper of the European Commission of 2001 in 
the area of Road Safety will be missed, as in sufficient use will be made of proven safety-
enhancing technologies and in-vehicle applications. 
(4) Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 
If nothing is done, CO 2 emissions from transport overall are expected to grow a further 
15 % from 2010 to 2020.22 
Moreover, air quality in some cities and othe r sensitive areas does not meet the limit 
values set by European regulation, and has a major negative impact on human health and 
nature. 
Urban areas are especially affected, si nce urban traffic generates 40 % of CO 2 emissions 
and 70 % of other pollutant emissions from vehicles.23 
                                                 
21 COM(2006)74, European Road Safety Action Programme Mid-Term Review. 
22 European Environment Agency: Climate for a transport change. TE RM 2007. EEA Report 
1/2008. 
23 European Parliament Communication 20080307 IPR 23284. 
 
EN 28   EN (5) Security 
If no specific measures are taken, passengers will  continue to suffer from lack of security 
on public transport, road hauliers from st olen cargo and lack of security on parking 
places. Insufficient attention to data security  will hinder the uptake of in-vehicle active 
safety systems. 
3.3. Who is affected 
First and foremost all road transport users  would suffer from more congestion and 
accidents. The logistics and transport industry  and their commercial drivers will lose 
productivity because of a suboptimal operation of the road network. Road safety will be 
negatively affected by widespread and uncont rolled use of in-vehicle devices and 
applications: in the absence of any rules or  prioritisation, drivers may be distracted by 
services running in parallel on separate ‘on board devices’. Travellers will not be able to plan in an efficient way multi-modal journeys  throughout Europe and road hauliers will 
be still confronted with l ack of security and crime. 
But also society at large  will be affected by the negative environmental impact caused 
by road transport. 
If prices for ITS applications, here especially for in-vehicle telematics, remain high there 
will be a social effect. Today these advan ced safety and comfort systems can be found 
mainly in higher-priced cars. Middle and lower-income classes  would not profit from 
any advances if applications are too expensive. 
The European industry involved in ITS  (car industry, telecommunications, information 
technology, map makers, etc.) will have diffi culties to stay competitive on the world 
market.  
3.4. EU right to act and principle of subsidiarity 
Three conditions determine the EU’s right to act: 
(1) The European Union can only act within the limits of th e powers given to it by 
the Treaties  and the objectives assigned to it (principle of conferral). 
In application of the Common Transport an d the Trans-European Networks Policies 
(Articles 71(1), 80 (1), 154 and 155 of  the EC Treaty ) the EU has the right to act 
because of: 
• lack of Community action in certain domains could significantly affect 
Member States’ interests and will not lead to a straightforward concertation with commercial industry and conglomerates;  
• lack of coordination between natio nal, regional and local solutions 
• national policies not producing the inte roperable transport system that is 
needed for a European Union without borders. The integrity of the single 
market must be ensured so that na tional solutions are not developed and 
implemented in different ways throughout the EU. 
 
EN 29   EN (2) If the problem falls under a competen ce shared by the Union and the Member 
States, the Commission needs to show that the problem cannot be properly solved 
by the Member States  (subsidiarity: necessity test) and the objectives can be 
better achieved by the Union  (subsidiarity: added-value test) 
The proposed policy options respect the princi ple of subsidiarity because they address 
trans-national aspects that ca nnot be satisfactorily regulated  by Member States such as 
the interoperability of equipment and establishing an internal market for ITS services. First of all, the action mainly concerns a tr ans-national deployment to achieve European 
and/or harmonised cross-border services for traffic and trav el information and traffic 
management. Secondly, if no further Union action were taken, Member States would 
continue to develop individual solutions, cau sing a fragmented te chnological spectrum 
that might endanger future harmonisation and standardisation, or w ould lead to lengthy 
processes for interoperability (as the Eu ropean Electronic Toll Service shows). The 
further deterioration of the ro ad traffic situation would conf lict with the requirements of 
the Treaty (especially Art. 70 “Common Tran sport Policy” and Art.  154 “promoting the 
interconnection and interoperability of national networks”). Thirdly, action at 
Community level would have clear benefits by reason of effects (e.g. of common rules on 
liability, as well as data security and privac y) and scale (e.g. reduc ing the cost of ITS 
applications thanks to common speci fications and economies of scale). 
(3) Fundamental rights  may pose legal limits to the Union’s right to take action on 
the problem. 
Fundamental rights will be fully respected and special attention will be paid to the 
protection of individual privacy  in the different ITS appli cations, as this specifically 
constitutes one of the issues identified as needing to be addressed. 
4. O
BJECTIVES  
4.1. General objective 
The general objective  of the present initiative is to create the conditions  and, in 
particular, to put in place  the necessary mechanisms to foster the uptake of ITS 
services and applications for road transp ort and their interconnections with other 
modes of transport in order  to have  ITS contributing at its full potential towards the 
various EU policies. 
“to ensure that our transport systems conti nue to meet society’s economic, social and 
environmental needs whilst minimising th eir undesirable impacts on the economy, 
society and the environment “.24 
                                                 
24 Council of the European Union. June 2006. Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy. 
http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/docs/renewed_eu_sds_en.pdf. 
 
EN 30   EN Fig. 3.1 Overview of relevant EU Transport policies or actions 
• A coordinated and policy-linked deployment of ITS for Roads will contribute to the 
objectives of sustainable transport, growth and jobs  mentioned in the EC White 
Paper on Transport Policy and the renewed Lisbon Agenda : 
(1) the proposal fits in with the EU Sustainable Development Strategy  as 
it addresses several of the key issues identifi ed in the 2005 review 
process as needing a stronger impetus.25 The key link is the aim to make 
transport more sustainable (see above),  
(a) by providing instruments for effective transport demand 
management: extending the framework and interoperable instruments defined under the Directive on European Electronic 
Toll Service (EETS), in order to ha ve it commonly applicable for 
all kind of roads and city access control, will facilitate cooperation among all (public or pr ivate) network operators and 
(local) authorities, and will enab le the introduction of tailor-made 
schemes; 
(b) by contributing to the road safety ob jectives, in particular to halve 
the number of road deaths by 2010 (compared to 2000) through a better acceptance and wider deployment of safety-enhancing (in-vehicle) applications; 
(c) by indirectly addressing climate change and the improvement of 
energy efficiency, through the gr eening of transport and co-
modality. ITS delivers the required instruments for modal choice and eco-driving, and is a key driver to energy efficiency in transport. By facilitating the optimal collection, integration and (real-time) delivery of (personalised) multimodal travel data, it allows citizens and hauliers to opt for the most energy-efficient 
and environmentally friendly transp ort mode before setting off; 
and once en route to opt for the less congested parts of the network and to drive at the most economic speed according to the 
                                                
 
25 On the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy — A platform for action (COM(2005)658 
final). 

 
EN 31   EN actual network status and the fo recast situation at their end 
destination. ITS also contribute s to the optimisation of public 
transport systems and better interconnection between them, and to the enhancement of their attractiveness through the delivery of tailor-made information on possibl e access points, in particular 
where travellers enter urban areas  or congested areas near their 
final destination. 
(2) The proposed action will support se veral of the (microeconomic) 
objectives of the renewed Lisbon Strategy for growth, jobs and 
competitiveness . 
Foremost it will contribute to the obj ective of facilitating the spread and 
effective use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) — where “the EU has been unable to reap th e full benefits of the increased 
production and use of ICT. This reflects the still continuing 
underinvestment in ICT, institutional constraints and organisational 
challenges to the adoption of ICT.”
 26 
4.2. Specific objectives 
Specific objectives  related with this general objective include: 
• to increase interoperability  by standardisation of basic components, 
ensuring seamless access and fostering an open European ITS market based 
on continuity of services. 
• the setting up of an efficient concertation/cooperation mechanism between 
all ITS stakeholders  in order to provide a clear vision on how ITS should be 
deployed on a Europe-wide scale an d how it should support implementation 
of EU policies in the field of sustainable development, competitiveness and growth and to limit or even avoid th e negative effects of inappropriate 
deployment or use of ITS  
• to solve privacy and liability issues  related to the provision and sharing of 
data, and to the deployment of nove l safety-enhancing applications and 
value-adding services 
These objectives aim at improving conditions  for mass market deployment all over the 
EU and at bringing the potenti al benefits of ITS services to all citizens, including 
vulnerable and disabled road users and elde rly people, especially in the field of 
• seamless  traffic management and Real-time Traffic and Travel 
Information (RTTI) services , and 
• road and personal safety  — in particular by fost ering a safe deployment of 
(autonomous) safety-enhancing applicati ons and Advanced Driver Assistance 
Systems (more effective warning of im minent danger; support to drivers and 
vulnerable road users, faster response to accidents) 
                                                
 
26 Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2008-2010) (COM(2007) 803 final). 
 
EN 32   EN 5. POLICY OPTIONS  
5.1. Policy Option A (baseline scenar io): no additional new action 
This policy option (no additio nal new action) does not consider any new proposals — 
such as concentrating efforts on certain exis ting actions or enhancing concertation in 
current activities in addition to what is ongoing or planned. 
Today’s approach is continued, consisting ma inly of bottom-up research, little emphasis 
on connecting deployment to research results, fragmented efforts to align stakeholders’ 
views or to concentrate their efforts and lim ited knowledge and awaren ess, in particular 
at decision-making level in the Public Sector. 
This policy option includes financial support for research and development activities and 
(in a limited way) for deployment, but little  coordination between th e public and private 
sectors and among Member States. Standardis ation, suffering from the absence of public 
authorities’ representa tives in the standardisation working groups, will not sufficiently 
stimulate Europe-wide coordinated deployment or  the creation of markets. The situation 
likely to arise by the time horizon in qu estion (2020) takes into account following 
(proposed) measures by the Commission spr ead over all ITS application and service 
areas without prioritisation: 
• ongoing research as part of the 7th Framework Programme and specific calls 
• continuation of standalone initiatives , focusing on well-defined applications 
or addressing specific issues of ITS; awareness-raising is concentrated on 
limited parts of the ITS spectrum, part icularly addressing Advanced Driver 
Assistance Systems and (autonomous) in-veh icle safety applic ations. Existing 
fora include (or build on) the eSafety forum (focus on safety-enhancing in-vehicle applications a nd Advanced Driver Assistance Systems), the 
Intelligent Car Initiative (founded on support for research, harmonisation of 
technical solutions and cr eation of awareness in relation to the intelligent 
vehicle) and specific Committees addr essing dedicated ITS services or 
application areas (e.g. Road Safety, the European Electronic Toll Service 
(EETS), etc.) 
• support to fragmented deployment of ITS, e.g. with focus on the Trans-
European Road Network (EasyWay proj ect) or cities (CIVITAS), based on 
responses to calls for proposals: thes e initiatives merely build on Member 
States/local authorities’ preferences but suffer from a rather weak global 
policy orientation and top-down steeri ng, and provide few incentives for an 
integrated approach 
• isolated and in most cases time-cons uming standardisation of technology and 
applications 
• fragmented consultation of stakeholders  via fora, projects and platforms, in 
most cases demonstrating limited invol vement, in particular of public 
authorities —logically hardly aff ecting the decision-making level.  
 
EN 33   EN The instruments available to the Commission’ s services will cont inue to be used ad hoc : 
financial support for research and (in a limited way) for deployment, voluntary agreements in line with the policy so far, specific standardisation mandates and (limited) regulative work where re quired and appropriate. 
This scenario will lead to the situation desc ribed in Chapter 2 (what happens if nothing is 
done) and the following trends in select ed application areas are expected: 
• Real-time Travel & Traffic Inform ation/ navigation devices: quite good 
uptake of cheap navigation devices but main ly used with static road data, and 
therefore often providing unreliable guidance; digita l maps are hardly kept 
up-to-date and traffic regulations (circu lation plans) are not systematically 
integrated. Swift introduction of m obile phones with incorporated GPS-
functionalities adds to an extrapolati on of the problems described. Reliability 
of traffic information improves when telecom operators, di gital map makers 
and service providers join forces to incorporate information collected from travelling vehicles (= Fl oating Car Data), but is still no comparison with 
public authorities’ data sources and ag reed traffic policy options, with the 
result that journeys are optimised from  an individual customer point of view. 
Risks of conflicting messaging from in-vehicle devices and roadside signs increase sharply 
• interconnection of interurban and urba n traffic management systems suffers 
from lack of integrati on of policy priori ties, intensifying congestion and 
adding to safety problems  
• innovative ITS services keep on strugg ling with unsatisfactorily access to 
data, questions of quality and continuity of service and lack of awareness. Low market take-up keeps (purchasing)  costs high, even for quite mature 
(safety-enhancing) services which basi cally present a sound benefit/ cost ratio 
(cf. eImpact) and demonstrate a clear contribution to policy objectives, such 
as Intelligent Speed Adaptation
27, eCall and Pay As You Drive. 
• Implementation of electronic toll /roa d charging schemes (devices) enjoy a 
strict ‘add on’ compliance to the EETS Directive (European Electronic Toll 
Service) but continue to demonstrat e little customer-o riented design and 
support. Efforts by the Commission to  develop a framework promoting on-
board units compliant with all schemes wherever applied in the EU do not 
pay off sufficiently: markets remain  fragmented, devices are hardly 
interoperable and suppliers pr omote proprietary solutions.  
Conclusion : 
• Though some success stories might emerge or continue, e.g. the surprisingly 
swift and broad introduction of persona l navigation devices, initiatives in 
general are expected to result in a fragmented, and in most cases locally 
concentrated penetration of ITS services. Real-time traffic information 
                                                 
27 Speed Alert: Harmonisation of in-vehicle speed management applications (EC Grant agreement, 
May 2004- June 2005). 
 
EN 34   EN services will develop but more focused on individual rather than collective 
benefits; 
• Outstanding legal/juridical implications  remain unsolved or are addressed in 
an isolated way, and negative impacts due  to inappropriate use can hardly be 
avoided — cf. the widespread use of na vigation devices in the absence of any 
framework, leading traffic to vulnerable and often non-equipped parts of the 
road network such as city centres, causing c ongestion, environmental 
problems and adding to unsafe situations; 
• Product and service development continue to suffer from problematic access 
to content and lack of synchronised actions by key stakeholders — making 
synergies difficult to obtain and keeping prices high; 
• As an overall result enterprises will re main reluctant to invest and develop, 
customers will hesitate to buy and ITS w ill not be able to demonstrate its full 
potential, nor support achievement of policy objectives. 
5.2. Policy Option B: Overcoming specifi c problems by concentrating on 
enabling actions and application fields , indirectly supporting development 
and wider deployment of ITS services 
Description : 
Policy Option B aims at improving ITS uptake by addressing key objectives through the 
following priority action areas:  
• the definition of a functional  open in-vehicle platform  allowing the re-use 
of crucial components (communication technologies, posit ioning, processing 
power and Human Machine Interface). Su ch a platform will permit synergies 
and reduce the cost of introducing and operating ITS services; it should also 
guarantee access for the public sector and a pplications of pub lic interest. This 
action will facilitate the integration of the vehicle into the transport system  
and support the introduction of cooperat ive systems in the longer term, by 
standardising the exchange of data between the infras tructure and the vehicle, 
and between the vehicles themselves. It includes further support for broader 
take-up of (autonomous) safety -enhancing in-vehicle applications and will 
support the implementation of advanced and flexible solutions to improve 
security  of transport operati ons (effective tracing a nd tracking methods for 
goods, reservation of secure rest areas, etc.); 
• the establishment of a solid Eur opean concertation and coordination 
framework on ITS between Member States  and industry: this  concertation or 
High Level Group would constitute a forum for all representative ITS 
stakeholders (EC, MS, Regional and Lo cal Authorities, industry players) 
tasked with providing recommendations  on options to be taken and 
discussing guidelines  relating to ITS deployment; 
• the definition of a framew ork for optimised use of road and traffic data  
(including local traffic regul ations and circulation plans) and of key issues 
concerning the reliability and the management of traffic and travel 
 
EN 35   EN information to be addressed by relevant  public and private stakeholders. Key 
data will become available to all stake holders in agreed or even standardised 
formats. The organisational framework and the rules of the game will be made clear for everybody, avoiding in appropriate use and reducing costs. 
Stakeholders will see the benefits of cooperation and the market will explore 
new opportunities for developing new se rvices or adding value to existing 
ones; 
• the development of a framework for the continuity of ITS services  and 
related information flows at interfaces between interurban and urban 
transport , in relation to passengers and fr eight. This topic addresses the 
virtual borders between neighbouring ope rators and operating environments, 
directly supporting the s eamless delivery of services. By exchanging 
experiences and data, and connecting e quipment and control lines, operators 
will improve performance of their operations, lowering costs and better addressing customers needs; 
• the resolution of data security  and protection, privacy  and liability issues  
hindering the uptake of certain advanced ITS equipment and services. These 
issues have been identified as being core  to the current slow  uptake of ITS: in 
the absence of clear rules and res ponsibilities, neither providers nor 
customers are willing to invest or buy. Though the whole ITS ecosystem is 
affected, issues relating to deployme nt of in-vehicle applications, and 
(autonomous) safety-enhancing ones in partic ular, need to be addressed first.  
The action areas targeted under Option B are c onsidered to constitute or affect the 
fundamental building blocks required for th e deployment of Europe-wide ITS and to 
offer the maximum potential for synergies. 
All five action areas are considered to be of  enabling or ‘horizontal’ nature. Achieving 
progress will directly contribute to the objec tives and will indirectly support development 
and deployment of applications as part of the priority ITS domains which were identified 
previously during the stakehol der consultation (see 1), as indicated in the table below: 
  Action Areas 
  Functiona
l open 
platform High 
Level 
Group Road & 
Traffic 
Data Continuity 
of 
Services Data 
security, 
privacy & 
liability 
Traffic Management + ++ ++ ++ + 
Congestion (corridors & cities) +/0 +/0 ++ ++ 0 
Co-modality + + +++ ++ +/0 
Safety & Security 
(Commercial transport) + ++ + ++ ++ 
Road Safety + ++ ++ ++ ++ 
Travel Information 
(RTTI) +++ + +++ ++ + Priority Application Domains Efficiency ++ 0 ++ + + 
 
EN 36   EN Logistic Operations 
Option B will result in an agenda for meas ures addressing technical, operational and 
organisational bottlenecks that directly influence the business model for ITS services and applications. By tackling these bottlenecks, it is  expected that the market will accelerate 
the development and provision of innovative a nd mature services, at lower production 
and operation costs and with higher qualit y. Customers will better appreciate and be 
convinced of the potential and added value of  ITS and become less reluctant to purchase 
and use, allowing ITS to contribute at its full potential to the achievement of policy 
objectives. 
Though all five areas were considered to be of equal importance, th e establishment of a 
reinforced framework for concertation and coordination is central, because leading 
to a common vision on the de ployment of ITS in Europe an d resulting in synchronised 
actions. 
Relevance of chosen priority action areas:
 
Identification and definition of these five ma in priority action areas took place during the 
consultation process (see 1 — Consultation of  stakeholders), by comparing their potential 
effect (= the impact of tackling the dedicat ed topics described) on the key objectives, 
being interoperability, cooperation, solving li ability issues and boosting the take-up of 
ITS in Europe. This repeated discussion did however not result in a clear hierarchy of 
priorities: since all five were considered to be  crucial for at least one of the priority ITS 
application domains identifie d, none of them could be re moved or ‘delayed’ without 
affecting the outcome of the whole process. 
This analysis should be unsurprising as it is in line with previous considerations 
regarding the complexity of the ITS ecosystem  and related value chai ns, and the need to 
establish close cooperation among stakeholders. Once the key issues identified have been 
solved or clarified, stakeholde rs will be able to act and cooperate better on individual 
solutions and applications. Improved consultation and top-down steering will encourage synchronised action, where Member States will decide in a concerted way what 
(national) investments and projects should be  realised and the Commission services can 
concentrate on issues that need supranatio nal, Europe-wide solutions and on setting up 
supportive initiatives with a wi der scope. These include targ eted financial support for 
research, tests or pilots; standardisation ma ndates; voluntary agreements (based on the 
work in the ITS High Level Group) and regu latory work where required on identified 
targets and global tax or incen tive schemes, for example. 
Conclusion :
  
Policy Option B will address horizontal issues directly and indirectly affecting the take-
up of ITS, with a clear focus on concerta tion among all stakeholders involved. It is 
expected that top-down steering will be co nstructive and effective, resulting in 
synchronised actions that will allow individual ITS services to penetrate the market in a 
more harmonised and better-supported wa y than in the baseline scenario.  
Option B will make optimal use of the in struments available to the Commission’s 
services by delivering underpinned requests for standardisation and identifying and 
prioritising requirement s for financial support and legislative work. 
 
EN 37   EN 5.3. Policy Option B+: Option B extende d with a comitology procedure  
Description:  
Option B+ builds on the same measures as introduced under Option B but formalises the 
concertation and coordinati on aspect by replacing the ITS High Level Group with 
• an ITS Comitology Committee, constituted of Member St ates’ representatives to 
assist the Commission in adopting speci fic measures in well-defined areas 
(corresponding to the basic enabling meas ures of Option B) via a comitology 
procedure, and  
• an advisory group constituted of private se ctor key representatives, providing input 
and serving as a consultation body to the Commission.  
Under Option B+ the Commission will be able to effectively steer and manage processes 
leading to a concerted, policy-driven  Europe-wide deployment of ITS: 
The Commission, assisted by the European ITS Committee (EIC)  would 
• exchange information with Member Stat es and develop an overall vision on 
ITS deployment in Europe 
• oversee the development of harmonise d guidelines, specifications and 
standards for ITS and cooperative systems; the content of strategic 
components such as the eSafety and EasyWay vision and road maps, and the strategy for achieving continuity of European ITS Services on the Trans-
European Road Network 
• within its mandate  and when necessary  decide on specific actions in the areas 
of: 
the establishment and further devel opment of technical requirements, 
guidelines, specifications and condi tions to ensure a harmonised, 
interoperable and open development and deployment of ITS for Roads in an integrated and coordina ted manner, in particular in the 
following areas:  
– The optimal use of road, traffic and travel data 
– European road traffic management , including interaction with other 
transport modes and with urban transport 
– Continuity of ITS services for freight and passe ngers, including 
those facilitating the interconnec tion of interurban and urban 
transport systems, 
– Road safety and security 
– The definition of an open functiona l platform for (in-vehicle) ITS 
Services 
 
EN 38   EN – Data security, individual data protection and liability 
– The mechanisms ensuring European ITS concertation and 
coordination 
– type-approval of ITS terminal and network equipment and software 
applications — where required by the relevant specifications and necessary for environmental, efficiency (and energy efficiency), safety or security reasons. 
The EIC will not deal with topics addresse d by other comitology committees, e.g. those 
responsible for EETS (the European Elect ronic Toll service Di rective 2004/52/EC), 
digital tachograph (Counc il Regulation (EC) 2135/98
) and vehicle type-approval 
(Directive 2007/46/EC). However,  if synergy could be obtaine d by integrating devices or 
services falling under the responsibility of different committees, common meetings 
between them could be arranged.  
Concrete legislative proposals to be deci ded by the Commission using the comitology 
procedure will however be underpinned by an ad ditional and specific impact assessment.  
In parallel with the ITS Committee an a dvisory group constituted of senior ITS 
stakeholders would be created. This fo rum would provide a solid framework for 
concertation & cooperation with  industrial players, and for reflection and discussion on 
industrial and provider-based requirements and priorities. It should address all aspects 
and domains related to ITS deployment, and advise the Commission on business and technical aspects of the deployment and us e of ITS in the European Community. The 
advisory group would bring toge ther about twenty re presentatives of relevant ITS service 
providers, associations of users, transport and facili ties operators, manufacturing 
industry, social partners a nd professional associations. 
Relevance
: 
In addressing the five enabling actions defined under Option B and  setting up a 
comitology committee, the proportionality principle  is fully respected: 
– the priority actions result from a long filtering procedure reducing the many possible 
local actions to the bare minimum needed to  make progress and to  meet the specific 
objectives;  
– mandating the Commission, assisted by the Co mmittee, to decide in specific areas 
(where necessary) will be stri ctly limited to those areas that require a supra-national 
approach and common guidelines and specifica tions in order to ar rive at Europe-wide 
seamless traffic management, information and in-vehicle safety systems and services. 
Conclusion : 
Policy Option B+ builds on the actions introduced under Option B and introduces a 
comitology procedure, including the constitu tion of a European ITS Committee to assist 
the Commission in dedicated areas of acti on. Option B+ provides the best chances for 
moving on rapidly, and minimise s the risks of not delivering the expected results, by 
giving the Commission the possibility, after clos ely consulting all the stakeholders, to put 
forward proposals for legislation via comito logy. Under such a scen ario the Commission 
 
EN 39   EN will be able to make a difference where necessary  by putting all actors under pressure to 
work together and to (voluntarily) agree on common approaches, synchronised actions 
and issues to be standard ised in the short term.  
6. ANALYSIS OF IMPACT  
6.1. Methodological Considerations 
6.1.1.  Approach 
This impact assessment is being conducted for an Action Plan, a broad policy-defining 
document setting an agenda  and highlighting priority areas  and key issues  to be 
addressed. It is therefore not possible to carry out a full analysis of the concrete measures 
at this stage. Concrete measures are alrea dy proposed in some cases, but will be subject 
to further analysis in concertation with the major stakeholders concerned. Under the 
proportionality principle the assessment of impact s is also quite broad and at this stage in 
most cases preliminary. It only partly relies on detailed quantitative data. 
All options have been compared against th e expected development under the reference 
scenario A, which represents the trend if nothing additional is done. 
For the assessment of the policy options a multi-criteria analysis  has been used, 
whereas effectiveness has been estimated against achievement of progress against a 
number of evaluation criteria  that reflect both the direct and indirect impacts of the 
policy options: 
(1) the direct impacts  of any action to accelerate the deployment of ITS are 
addressed by the following criteria 
• enhancing interoperability and continuity of service  
• strengthening concertation and cooperation among stakeholders  
• removing uncertainties regardi ng privacy and liability and defining the 
responsibilities of the actors involved 
(2) the indirect economic, social and environmental impacts  resulting from a 
faster and higher level of harmonised IT S deployment are related to support in 
achieving the following (trans port) policy objectives: 
• the economic impact: reduction of congestion on roads , competitiveness (of 
industry, cost of ITS ap plications, innovation), consumers (prices, choices, 
services, protection of privacy and personal data and economic growth ; 
• the social impact: road safety , employment and security ; 
• the environmental impact:  climate change, air qual ity and noise, energy 
efficiency and targets rela ted to co-modality (passe nger and freight, modal 
split, interconnections). 
Additionally a general cost assessment with regard to the impact on the EC budget and 
the consistency of the impacts (trade-offs) has been used. 
 
EN 40   EN The time perspective  under each option and indicator is considered to be from short to 
medium-term (up to 2020). Longer-term impact s (beyond 2020) typica lly result from 
increasing awareness, the appl ication of new technologies, th e establishment of greater 
market penetration and/or a change in the mindset of consumers and decision-makers.  
It has to be noted that this impact a ssessment does not attempt to assess the overall 
impacts of a better take-up of any of the ve ry different ITS applic ations concerned. The 
present exercise is rather an attempt to show the impact of possible EU measures to 
influence the coordinated delive ry mechanism for ITS deployment , which will then 
in a second step bring about the benefits ascribed to a wider deployment of ITS. 
Therefore, an important additional criterion is the timescale , which influences the time at 
which positive impacts can be achieved. 
The assessment is basically a qualitative asse ssment. All criteria have been rated on a 
five-point Likert scale : positive ( + +), slightly positive ( +), neutral ( o), slightly negative 
(–) and negative ( – –). The assessment was based on resu lts from previous EU-financed 
research and deployment projects, stakeholde r interviews, desk research and support 
from external cons ultants (see 0.1).  
A full cost-benefit assessment is  not possible at this stage. This proposal mainly concerns 
the selection of priority areas to be addr essed and different process alternatives and 
delivery mechanisms to foster enhanced coope ration. The concrete measures to influence 
deployment and the precise use of dedicated EU instruments will only be defined in a later stage. Only then can the associated cost s be indicated in more detail. Consequently, 
a cost-benefit-analysis will be included in the subsequent impact assessments required for the concrete actions to be d ecided. The support of the pr ivate sector via the planned 
advisory forum will be useful in this respect.
28 
Globally, studies and handbooks29 from Europe and North America show a clear cost-
benefit ratio in favour of many ITS applications. A recen t example is the eImpact30 
research project which assessed the impacts of  intelligent vehicle safety systems. Their 
cost-benefit analysis shows that the majority of the twelve applica tions investigated are 
profitable from society’s point of view w ith benefit-to-cost ratios from 1.6 to 4. 
6.1.2.  Use of TRANSTOOLS simulations  
The transport model TRANSTOOLS has b een used to generate additional , quantitative 
input for estimating the effects of im plementing the various policy options. 
TRANSTOOLS is a European transport netw ork model covering passenger transport and 
freight, as well as intermodal transport. Th e selection of model features is based on 
policy needs addressed by the European Comm ission services. The instrument combines 
various modules including economic indi cators (e.g. GDP, economic growth, car 
ownership, etc.) and transport-related parameters (modal split, route assignment, etc.) in order to simulate the quantitative impact of  specific measures over time. The model is 
                                                
 
28 DG TREN plans to commission a research project to develop an assessment toolkit for ITS 
including a cost-benefit analysis. It is  expected to start in early 2009. 
29 World Road Association (PIARC) (2004) ITS Handbook, 2nd ed.; US Department of 
Transportation (2005): Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits, Costs and Lessons Learned. 
30 www.eimpact.eu > Presentations of th e final conference 26 June 2008. 
 
EN 41   EN able to simulate the evolution of transpor t and economic development related indicators 
according to various scenarios, and was propos ed as an indirect addition to the overall 
assessment of policy options in this report. 
TRANSTOOLS is not qualified  to assess the direct relationship between the actions 
proposed and the rate of depl oyment of ITS, which is the general objectiv e of the ITS 
Action Plan. But it can be used to estimate the impact of this uptake on the transport 
system as a whole and on progress in achiev ing relevant policy objectives related to 
transport efficiency, safety and environmental impact. 
As part of the current exercise, TRANSTOOLS simulations have been used to assess the 
indirect impacts on policy obj ectives of Option B, by comp aring its expected outcome 
against the ‘baseline evolution’, the estimated evolut ion under the baseline scenario 
(Option A) 
Having been introduced at a very early phase of the exercise, TRANSTOOLS 
simulations were run to assess the scen arios proposed by JRC, namely ‘clean & 
efficient’, ‘safe & secure’ and ‘mobility & logistics’. A fourth, combined scenario 
integrates the measurement of these three s cenarios. The main assumptions include lower 
accident rates due to further penetration of advanced safety systems (resulting from a 
previous JRC GALILEO study), electronic char ging for trucks in most countries, urban 
pricing in major European capitals and lowe r loading times and costs (by 2 %) in ports 
and logistics centres. It is the scenario which most closely resembles Option B. It is however worth mentioning th at all the TRANSTOOLS simulations build on specific 
assumptions of broader deployment of  ITS and ITS-related initiatives — which, as 
highlighted above, does not seem to be happe ning with market forces alone. (cf. JRC 
summary report31) 
6.1.3.  Uncertainty surrounding the impact analysis  
ITS are enabling technologies whose deploymen t is subject to a variety of variables 
(factors), e.g. maturity of technology, market acceptance or willingness to invest and to 
buy, and is dependent on actions being impl emented in a coordinated way by various 
independent stakeholders. The progress of these processes is difficult to predict. 
The effect of the instruments pr oposed in the context of this initiative, basically financial 
support, legislation, standard isation and support for volu ntary agreements, are also 
difficult to assess. 
The overall result of the present analysis  based on qualitative expectations, where 
possible supplemented by quantitative elements resulting from recent market analysis, forecasts and simulations, must however be  approached with a certain degree of 
uncertainty. 
All benefits of ITS, such as reduced conge stions, lower fuel consumption/costs, better 
reliability or improved safety enhance the attr activeness of driving. This might result in 
higher road transport demand both for passe nger and freight (induc ed traffic). An 
increase in transport activity  (pkm/vkm) would counter a part of the benefits of ITS. 
                                                
 
31 JRC report on TRANSTOOLS simulations of ITS Action Plan, 3rd draft (04.06.08). 
 
EN 42   EN 6.2. Impact of Policy Option A — No additi onal new actions (baseline scenario) 
Sections 2.2 and 4.1 have described in detail the risks and general trends if nothing is 
done: take-up of ITS services and applications will in general remain low and in the case 
of in-vehicle applications, probably limited to  top-class (vehicle) brands and types, and 
the customers who can afford these; society will hardly perceive efficiency gains in 
traffic management operations and road safety will hardly improve owing to an insufficient penetration rate of pers onal safety devices and services. 
6.2.1.  Direct impacts 
Under policy Option A, the set obj ectives are hardly approached: 
(a) interoperability and co ntinuity of services: 
• operational deployment of ITS servi ces is still hindered by limited and 
difficult access to the necessary traffi c and travel data, especially across 
borders and different modes, and unsol ved legal and liability requirements 
• pan-European deployment, commo n quality levels and possible 
harmonisation regarding opera tions procedures (what wi ll be delivered?) are 
undermined by local initiatives and the absence of Europe-wide concertation. 
As a result consumers are confronted w ith discontinuities in services they 
might be used to on their national or local network, and they might have to face a variety of user pro cedures and different ‘look and feel’ of similar ITS 
services, if they are provided at all 
(b) concertation and coordination: 
• markets continue to suffer from a lack  of vision and c oncertation among key 
stakeholders, so there will less like lihood of concerted and synchronised 
actions, synergies and multiplier effects — or of related cuts in costs and risks 
• concertation and cooperation among stakeholders will remain mostly 
underdeveloped; lack of knowledge and understanding — espe cially at the 
level of public sector entities — will hamper EU-wide deployment of ITS for 
roads as an alternative to building more transport infrastructure. ITS 
deployment needs solid investment d ecisions for both public and private 
funding. In the absence of a clear vision of the fu ture of the European 
Transport policy and the role of ITS in this, uncertainties regarding the 
exploitation and market prospects for ITS will be kept alive whereas initial 
deployment led by the public sector — c onsidered to be a major trigger for 
private sector initiatives and developments — will remain fragmented and not conducive to multiplier effects. 
(c) privacy and liability issues: 
• liability issues and use of personal data differ according to the service 
provider, operator and Member State wh ere the service is provided. As such 
 
EN 43   EN consumers will be sceptical about the added value of ITS applications and 
remain reluctant to buy or invest in them themselves. 
6.2.2.  Indirect impacts 
Unsuccessful market take-up of ITS will make it difficult to achieve policy 
objectives, including: 
(a) Road safety : low penetration of safety-e nhancing applications and life-
saving services will result in continue d unacceptably high levels of road 
fatalities in the EU as a whole, gene rating high costs fo r society (medical, 
police intervention, material damage, etc.) 
In 2004, Germany alone estimated that ro ad accidents created socio-economic 
costs of nearly €31 billion (half of them  for personal injuries, half for property 
damage).32 
(b) the Greening of transport , focussing on an enhanced  shift to more energy- 
efficient and environmentally-friend ly passenger and freight transport 
modes, eco-driving, a reduction in the need for transport resulting from optimal loading of vehicles and more  effective route choice. These goals 
are endangered and congestion will co ntinue to grow on major (road) 
transport axes and in conurbation areas (interurban/ urban interfaces); 
journey times will increase and become even less reliable, affecting all users of the road transport system. 
Other effects of Option A following fr om TRANSTOOLS simu lations indicate: 
• road traffic congestion, expre ssed as congested vs total dr iving time, to increase from 
24.3 % (2007) to 24.9 % (2012) and 28.6 % in 2020 for EU-27; 
• external costs of accidents (road, rail a nd inland waterways combined) to increase 
from €128.6 billion (2007) to €144.3 billion in 2020; 
• fuel consumption (Mtoe) and emission of CO
2 (Mio tonnes) to increase by 15 % in 
2020 (EU-25); 
• total external costs  including congestion, accidents, noise, air pollution and climate 
costs as defined by the External Costs Handbook (published by DG TREN in 2008)33 
to evolve from €161.8 billion in 2007 to €193.3 billion by 2020. 
6.3. Impact of policy Option B: Overcoming specific problems by concentrating 
on enabling actions and application fields, indirectly supporting development and wider deployment of ITS services 
Policy Option B is based on a reinforced fr amework for concertation and coordination, 
and focuses on ‘horizontal’ enabling actions: 
                                                
 
32 Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt), BASt-Info 2/2006. 
33 CE Delft et al. (2007): Handbook on estimation of  external cost in the tr ansport sector; available 
under http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/index_en.htm. 
 
EN 44   EN • Definition of an open functional platfo rm for (in-vehicle) ITS Services 
• Cooperation among stakeholders  
• Access to road and traffic data, optimisati on of data exchange, rules of the game 
• Continuity of services across borders and modes 
• Data security, privacy and liability issues 
The problems and bottlenecks addressed under Op tion B have been identified as directly 
affecting the key objectives and therefore as co re to the overall slow uptake of ITS. By 
tackling these ‘horizontally’ way, that is, by approaching similar problems encountered 
in various application domains in a coordinated manner, actions  can be set up in the most 
efficient and probably most effective way, lim iting the use of resour ces at the EC level 
and for the whole ITS community. 
The key message is that we must seek a multip lier effect with the instruments available to 
the Commission’s services and obtain syne rgies; central to this option are the 
establishment of a modular appro ach to ITS deployment based on an interoperable on-
board telematics platform with open functionalities  and the creation of a High Level 
Group  covering all aspects of ITS deployment: 
6.3.1.  Direct impacts: 
The horizontal actions address key issues  relating to the deployment, provision 
and uptake of ITS services; however they  do not address the specific objectives 
one by one. The following analyses will clarify what each action covers and 
how they will contribute to the set objectives: 
(1) Definition of an open functional platform  for (in-vehicle) ITS Services: 
The establishment of a modular  approach to ITS deployment,  including an interoperable 
telematics on-board platform with open f unctionalities and conceived for plug-in 
integration of nomadic devices will enhance interoperability  and provide new 
opportunities, synergies and cost reductions .  
(a) Need for an interoperable, modular approach: 
During the last 10-15 years the telematics mark et has offered a still growing amount of 
in-vehicle telematics applications and services, in most cases presented as ‘standalone’ applications. These applications typically make use of selected location positioning or communication methods, often rely on propri etary data protocol s and transmission 
interfaces and present a variet y of Human Machine Interac tions (HMI). Although this 
development started in commercial vehicles (fleet management an d e-freight systems), 
the market for devices with navigation or traveller support functi onalities has expanded 
rapidly. 
This action focuses on a universal platform with open functionalitie s, equipped with a 
safe interface (command func tions, screen) and offering an easy plug-in and connection 
for mobile devices. 
 
EN 45   EN This modular concept will include positio ning, communication, processing and possibly 
identification capabiliti es; the re-use of functional co mponents and installed equipment 
will lead to major savings for supplie rs, service providers and customers. 
The market alone cannot be expected to de liver fast and coordi nated integration of 
devices with these functionalities wit hout EU cooperation and legislation. 
 
Fig 5.2: Relationship between acti ons and objectives (open platform) 
Specific targets under this action therefore include: 
– the development of standardised functi onalities related to an in-vehicle 
platform and its interoperability and interconnection with the infrastructure, 
requiring functional characteristics  to be defined and the functional  design  of 
existing applications and services to be taken into consideration 
– measures to ensure the connectivity of nomadic devices in a safe way 
– solutions for vehicle-specific requirement s, e.g. a vehicle identification tag to 
be used for certain environmental charge s or internalisation of costs linked to 
the vehicle, in order to  exclude risks of fraud. 
The platform could initially be introduced in commercial vehicles and might help later to 
speed up integration of ITS applicat ions in passenger cars as well. 
(b) Who will benefit? 
Parallel to a generally accessible front-end device, an integrated service chain will be set 
up distinguishing service prov ision, service delivery a nd management of operational 
requirements. The concept and pilot deploym ent have been developed and tested in 
research projects (GST34 — General System for Telematics), which addressed security 
and privacy issues as well. While the embe dded kernel permits technically sound and 
safe deployment and connection to the vehicl e (in order to integr ate and process data 
from existing sensors), mobile devices can be plugged in to guarantee seamless service 
                                                 
34 GST — General System for Telematics, 6FP Integrated Project developing an open and 
standardised end-to-end architecture for automotive telematics services. 
 
EN 46   EN provision through the on-board  Human Machine Interac tion and therefore reduce 
inappropriate and unsafe continued use of these. 
By standardising and guaranteeing access for all parties involved — be it developers, 
providers, customers or public sector entities,  basic costs can be reduced and competition 
can be enhanced: 
• Developers and service providers will be  able to build on existing in-vehicle 
components and data, lowering the cost of deployment and improving quality 
of the service. Continuous upgrading of  services and data  will be remotely 
processed. By having access to all equi pped users they will be able to 
compete effectively on the basis of quali ty and price, to provide tailor-made 
services better respond ing to users’ needs 
• Customers will be able to freely select their servi ce provider, no longer being 
tied to the installer (owner) of the in-vehicle device. Prices of devices and 
services will go down while service deployment and upgrades will be 
provided remotely, no longe r requiring time-wasting a ppointments in service 
stations. Europe-wide seamless delivery of services is within reach, and 
single invoicing system will be  the next logical step. 
As reported in the eImpact study, a reduction of  the cost of individual safety-enhancing 
in-vehicle applicati ons (ISA, LDW, ACC, etc., all in  the €100-250 range) thanks to 
synergies and re-use of components, togeth er with better data provision and answers 
to liability questions, are all crucial to speed up acceptance and deployment. 
• Public sector entities with access to the platform will be able to address 
equipped users, leveraging the effec tiveness of the services provided 
(warning, routing advice) and allo wing improvement and user-based 
approaches. 
(c) Longer-term perspective 
In the longer term this initi ative will support the developm ent of cooperative systems, 
building on standardised data exchange be tween vehicles and ‘c ommunication portals’ 
along the roadside. 
Such applications would allow faster wa rnings of ambient driving conditions and 
unexpected queues and cut costs for road ope rators by reducing the need for roadside-
based equipment.  
Conclusion:  The direct impact of this action on key objectives can be estimated as 
follows: 
 Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
Functional 
open ITS platform ++ + 0/+ 
 
 
EN 47   EN (2) Enhancing concertation and cooperation by setting up a High Level Group : 
Deployment of ITS calls for effective cooperation between public and private 
stakeholders, with synchronised investme nts; the industrial and public sector’s 
perspectives should however be distinguished: 
• the industry  is well aware of research results and potential market 
opportunities, but struggles with a non- obvious business case  and reluctant 
consumers, and in some cases with issues  related to protection of intellectual 
property, required sharing of knowledge  and unsolved liability issues 
• the public sector  is not (or not sufficiently) aw are of the potential of ITS to 
help achieve policy objec tives, lacks knowledge, especi ally at senior level, 
and is not driven by the need to r ealise economies of scale or create 
synergies: in case of nee d, solutions are simply bought. 
Feedback and analyses have demonstrated  that the lack of knowledge is most 
significant at the level of Member States and their na tional and regional/ local 
authorities. Any measure in this  field must therefore be di rected particularly at the 
public sector, which is suffering from current initiatives being fragmented, 
inconsistent across Member States and unevenly matched with the various policy 
aims and applications.  
Setting up stronger concertation is enab ling: it will for example support the 
implementation of EU transport policies and allow other actions  to become more 
successful. 
The installation of an ITS High Level Group (ITS HLG) with representatives 
from all sectors, including the public sect or involved, would help provide a clear 
vision of the future of Eur opean transport policy and th e role of ITS in this. A 
commonly agreed road map for Europe -wide deployment would reduce current 
uncertainties regarding the exploitation and market prospects for ITS and will 
clarify and support a leadi ng role for public sector investments. Targeted 
investments by the public sect or are considered to be a major driving force for 
private sector initiatives and devel opments, especially where piggy-backing 
would enhance synergies and deliver cost reductions. 
The role of the High Level Group would be 
• to exchange information, best practi ces and cost/benefit details on ITS 
deployment 
• to establish a general vision for ITS, and of the roles of all stakeholders 
• to discuss issues hampering industr y-led deployment of ITS services 
• to discuss social challenges and how they can be addressed by ITS, or by 
revising current deployment strategies 
• to discuss the joint (pilot) projects an d initial investments required for long-
term growth in ITS deployment 
 
EN 48   EN • to produce recommendations for stan dardisation requirements and funding.. 
Installing the HLG will boost the public  sector’s awareness and knowledge, 
hopefully leading to greater involvement in ITS deployment schemes. Typical 
measures to be considered in this fi eld include: training and dissemination, 
especially to authorities and decision-m akers; support for consensus building at 
both technical and policy-oriented levels  and development of a toolkit for the 
assessment of ITS investments. 
In addition a European database of cost s and benefits of ITS early deployment 
projects and the establishmen t of an ITS infrastructure assessment procedure, as a 
precondition for EU (or even national) funding for building or operating (cf. 
ERTMS funding in TEN-T), can be envisaged. 
However, since the HLG would have an a dvisory role vis-à-vis the EC, it is not 
clear if the initiative will br ing together the real key players, especially from 
industry — what would be their interest? 
Another question will relate to the mechanisms for selecting the participants, 
especially on the public sector side (whi ch Member States’ representatives would 
be most appropriate, how to deal  with the other Member States) 
In cases where concerted and strong action is required from the public sector, it is 
doubtful whether the recommendations from  the HLG can be processed swiftly 
without further concertation among all EU members, or whether a ‘soft’ approach 
will ultimately deliver what is required.  
Earlier Commission attempts to improve the uptake of ITS by ‘soft’ measures 
have failed e.g.: 
• the Commission Recommendation of 2001 inviting Member States to 
establish harmonising requirements for traffic and travel information at 
national, regional and local level and to produce a categorisation of roads. 
This action was intended to provide a ba sis for allocating traffic to the most 
appropriate road segments, and to enc ourage potential synergies that should 
result from closer cooperation with the private sector in specific application 
areas. As the recommendation was not  sufficiently followed, map makers 
were never informed about general or  local traffic stra tegies and as a 
consequence many issues identified in  2001 are still open today, and have 
become worse since then (see 2 and 4.2)  as navigation devices have become 
more common. 
• the voluntary ITS High Level Group co mposed of representatives from 
national transport and industry ministri es, which turned out to be most 
helpful for exchanging views but faile d when it came to agreeing on clear 
actions to be taken or on comm on specifications to be adopted. 
Conclusion : The direct impact on key objectives  can be estimated as follows: 
 Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
 
EN 49   EN Establishment 
of a HLG +/- (*) + 0/+ (*) 
(*) the fact that stakeholders will discuss ITS-related issues will enhance understanding, and might 
indirectly support achievement of interoperability and the solving of privacy / liability issues. 
(3) Enhancing cooperation, defining respons ibilities by the establishment of a 
framework for optimised collection, exchange and integration of road and 
traffic data , addressing the core of most of ITS services 
Better coordination between the public authoriti es at all levels is  a prerequisite to 
enable seamless traffic management and traffic information, leading to better-
informed drivers, who will be able to avoid congestion and accidents.  
A better integration of available content and databases will extend the 
functionalities of existing services and should improve their level of quality (accuracy, coverage, completeness, etc. ); to complement improved access to 
compiled data, there should be procedures  for faster upgrading of digital maps 
that serve as a basis for in-vehicle app lications, and mechanisms to add real-time 
information. For example, speed informa tion applications adjusted dynamically 
by integrating real-time information on traffic and road conditions (slippery roads, identified obstacles and traffic que ues ahead) will be much more efficient 
and effective.  
Conclusion:
 The direct impact of this action on key objectives can be estimated as 
follows: 
 Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
Framework for road 
and traffic data + + (**) 0/+ (*) 
(*) the fact that stakeholders will discuss ITS-related issues will enhance understanding, and might 
indirectly support solving of privacy / liability issues. 
(**) being a prerequisite for this action 
 
(4) Ensuring continuity of services  across borders and modes  
Extension of services to  interfacing networks, e.g. urban/ interurban road 
networks or across complementary trans port modes will enhance co-modality and 
foster the greening of freight corridors. A major prerequisite for appropriate ITS 
instruments providing seamless support to tr avellers and haulie rs is real-time 
access to data, and agreed formats for da ta exchange and data integration. 
Conclusion:  The direct impact of this action on key objectives can be estimated as 
follows: 
 Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
 
EN 50   EN Continuity of 
services + 0/+ (**) 0 
(**) being a prerequisite for this action 
 
(5) Addressing privacy and liability issues  linked to ITS services  
This concerns especially the following ITS-related items:  
• the use of shared data: w ho is the owner, how can the data be used/ not used; 
what happens if data provided cause nuisances, even accidents?  
• deployment of safety-enhancing (in- vehicle) applications: risk of 
inappropriate use, what happens in case  of failure? The action also deals with 
ownership of services, and aspects of s ecurity and privacy of data (exchange 
of data being the core of ITS). 
Typical ITS applications that will benefit from solving these issues include Lane 
Departure Warning, Collision Avoidan ce and Emergency Braking Systems. 
Broad market take-up will lead to a drasti c reduction in the number of accidents. 
Conclusion:  The direct impact of this action on key objectives can be estimated as 
follows: 
 Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
Addressing privacy 
and liability issues 0 0/+ (**) + 
(**) being a prerequisite for achieving this action 
 
Overall conclusion  on the direct impact of the actions under Option B:   
 Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
Option B ++ + + 
(**) being a prerequisite for achieving this action 
 
6.3.2.  Indirect impact 
The impact of the 5 priority actions on achieving (transport) policy objectives is expected 
to be as follows:  
(a) Road safety 
Road safety will benefit in multiple ways: 
 
EN 51   EN • less risk of driver inattention: co ncentrating applications on a single 
platform with a unique, certified interface (HMI) will ensure safe 
control/delivery of services and in future allow services to be prioritised as a function of driving conditions (e.g. temporary inactivation of navigation 
assistance in critical driving circumstances)  
According to a landmark research  report released by the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administrati on (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech 
Transportation Institute (VTTI), driver inattention is a le ading factor in 
most crashes and near-crashes. Nearly  80 % of crashes and 65 % of near-
crashes involved some form of driv er inattention within three seconds 
before the event. Primary causes of driver inattention are distracting 
activities, such as mobile  phone use, and drowsiness. 
• safer traffic due to a reduction of drivers’ workload, especially in the 
commercial transport sector 
• (autonomous) safety-enhancing applications will penetrate the market 
more rapidly  
According to the TRACE project35 several studies indicate  the great potential of 
ITS to enhance safety (a nd environment): McKeever (1998) estimated that 26 % 
of fatal and 30 % of injury  crashes could be prevente d by a general deployment 
of in-vehicle, infrastructure-based or cooperative ITS systems in the US, while 
an OECD (2003) report conservatively pr edicted a reduction of almost 40 % for 
both categories combined. Examples of autonomous in-vehicle systems to be 
considered include Electronic Stabili ty Control (ESC), Automatic Crash 
Avoidance (ACA), Lane Departure Warn ing (LDW) systems, alcohol locks and 
eCall (emergency call). 
Take-up of safety-enhancing applications  will certainly improve if there are 
synergies, lower costs or ‘package deals’: while it is not always clear if customers would be willing to pay for separate safe ty applications, they are more likely to 
consider buying combined comfort/ safety-e nhancing applications  (e.g. intelligent 
speed adaptation combined with information on black spots).  
One such service that would definitely profit from a ‘package introduction’ is 
eCall
36, a safety-enhancing service proposed by the industry and the subject of a 
Commission communication — but  still struggling with mixed interest from key 
stakeholders and doubts on th e overall value chain:  
                                                 
35  TRACE Project N° 02773, Deliverable D4.1.1 – D6.2, review of crash effectiveness of ITS. 
36  COM(2005) 431 of 14.9.2005: Bringing eCall to Citizens, COM(2006) 723 of 23.11.2006: 
Bringing eCall back on track – Action Plan. 

 
EN 52   EN Fig 5.3 eCall 
 
eCall aims at reducing the number of  fatalities by accelerating and supporting 
post-crash (medical) assistance; under the current eSafety initiative deployment of 
eCall is based on a voluntary scheme, e xpected to result in a 70 % deployment 
rate in new cars by 2020 (see Fig. 5.4). 
050100150200250300350
2007 20092011 20132015 20172019
20212023eCall functionality
Non eCall functionality
 
Fig. 5.4: Estimated evolution of eCall in Europe — in Mio of new cars (Source: e-Safety) 
If eCall were to be deployed on 100 % of vehicles, it is expected to trigger a 
decrease in fatalities by 5 to 15 % across EU-27 by 2020 (2400-7477 persons), 
and a reduction in severe injuries by 10 to 15 % (30 000-45 000; low impact vs. 
high impact case). Though eCall presents a cost-benefit ratio between 1.3 and 8.5 
according to a SEiSS study, it is not clear that implementation targets will be 
achieved. Add-on deployment on an open te lematics platform drastically reduces 
costs and increases eCall’s attractivene ss; therefore such an approach should 
considerably speed up the implementation rate of eCall. 
(b) More effective traffic management, urban mobility and co-modality for 
passengers: 
Traffic management strategies will be more easily extended to interfacing 
networks, e.g. urban/ interurban road networks, across complementary transport 
modes, in order to enhance co-modality. Appropriate ITS instruments building on 
real-time data exchange will be extende d across networks and modes to provide 
seamless support to travellers  (and hauliers); consistenc y of messaging, thanks to 
optimal sharing of data and enhanced cooperation, and a set of agreed minimum 
rules to be respected by all players w ill avoid confusion and reduce unnecessary 
kilometres driven, reducing emissions and fuel consumption. 
Dynamic information and personalised routi ng support and guidance  will result in 
enhanced interaction between indivi dual and collective transport modes, 
including public transport for passengers, while connections to rail and inland 
waterways for freight and city logistics are optimised. Road users will benefit from predictable journey times, less c ongestion and smoother traffic conditions 
resulting from dynamic speed harmonisation and ‘green waves’ into the city 
centres  
 
EN 53   EN As a result traffic demand will be better balanced, use of existing infrastructure 
will be optimised and the negative impact of  the transport system as a whole will 
be reduced. Public sector investments will be optimised. 
 
EN 54   EN (c) Better use of information, better RTTI: 
The actions will foster better use of information , including those related to the 
collection of data at the level of the vehicle (free-flow conditions, incidents, 
meteorological circumstances) and provide  mechanisms for displaying (possibly 
personalised) messages inside the vehicle. As a result new services  will emerge, 
e.g. dynamic parking guidance and en-rout e reservation for public transport, 
while user needs and customer satisfaction can be better addressed 
More reliable real-time travel and tr affic information (RTTI) will enhance 
efficient and flexible route planning, allowing time savings and minimising 
nuisance on sensitive parts of the ro ad network, by reducing the need for 
transport.  
US studies show up to 25 % reducti on in travel time/congestion when 
implementing adequate navigation strate gies based on correct and timely road 
status information. 
(d) Efficiency of transport logistics: 
A widespread application of typical ITS-linked e-freight measures is expected to 
result in time savings of 10 % and fina ncial savings of 8 %, while productivity 
rates should increase by 3-10 % and freight  logistics costs would decrease by 2-
3 %37.  
(e) Implementation of other (transport) policy objectives: 
Synergies  will be obtained at all levels, reducing costs for both providers and 
subscribers and allowing easy implementa tion of public sector  applications and 
policy-led provisions relating to: respect fo r social regulations  (resting/driving 
times), the transport of live animals, the internalisation of external costs, requirements for dangerous goods monito ring where necessary, electronic fee 
collection, the next generation of digital tachographs and eCall. 
GNSS applications driven by standard incorporation of Galileo
 enabling 
functionalities will emerge and trigger a new generation of location-based services and related applications. 
(f) The extension of the European Elec tronic Toll Service (EETS) and the 
combination/ integration of functionalities: 
Actions will be focussed on ensuring the interoperability of infrastructure and in-
vehicle equipment, extending EETS to cities,  access control issues, facilitating the 
implementation of demand management st rategies and the internalisation of 
external costs strategies . Deployment of applicat ions building on the high-
precision positioning offered by Galileo 
                                                
 
37  COM(2007) 607 Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan. 
 
EN 55   EN (g) Efficiency gains, competitiveness: 
An open, interoperable platform would f acilitate add-on serv ices to e.g. fleet 
management systems, contributing to the effectiveness of daily transport-linked 
operations, making our enterprises more co mpetitive and indirectly enlarging the 
ITS market, enhancing competition (internal market) 
Priority from the infrastructure side w ill be given to the Trans-European Road 
network and the main hubs (ports, airpor ts, and railway freight yards); a swift 
market take-up of interoperable in-veh icle platforms will however reduce the 
need for roadside-based investments a nd will leverage the functionalities of 
services and operations by road  authorities and operators. 
Additional input was obtained from TRANSTOOLS  simulations (Scenario 4 — 
Combined measures):  
• road congestion would decrease by a bout 2.5 % and accident costs by 7.2 %; 
• fuel consumption ( decrease of up to 4.1 %) and exhaust emissions would also benefit; 
• enhanced cooperation and synergies would re sult in an additional reduction of -1.1 % 
of overall external costs . 
The overall appreciation of the indirect impacts of policy Option B compared to Option 
A is shown in the following table: 
 Economy  Society  Environment  
Impacts on …  
Congestion 
Reduction  
Competitiveness  
Consumers  
Growth  
Road Safety  
Employment  
Security  
Climate Change  
Air Quality  Noise
 
Energy Efficiency  
Option B : 
ITS Action Plan with 
emphasis on enabling 
actions, synergies and coordination
 + + + + + + + + + + 
 
Risk:  relying on a voluntary High Level Group fo r achieving Europe-wide harmonisation 
of services and synchronised  deployment in all Member States does however present a 
clear risk of being unable to control the sepa rate processes or to implement the required 
strategies. 
6.4. Impact of policy Option B+: Option B extended with a comitology 
procedure 
The B+ policy option builds on the actions en visaged under Option B, but replaces the 
High Level Group by a an ITS Committee constituted by Member States’ delegates 
 
EN 56   EN and an  advisory group bringing together senior key repr esentatives from all industrial 
sectors. 
The rationale behind this is that the Hi gh Level Group envisaged under policy Option B, 
building on voluntary participation, might not result in a more policy-driven approach 
towards ITS, nor will it guarantee a better  involvement of the public sector in the 
deployment of ITS. 
6.4.1.  Direct impacts: 
Under policy Option B+ Member States’ dele gates would be invited to discuss among 
peers the issues that are considered releva nt and, among other th ings, to decide on 
priorities for Europe-wide deployment of  ITS, on harmonisation of services and 
minimum requirements for these (voluntary ap proach) and on priorities for legislative 
work, standardisation and possibly EC funding. 
The main gain would come from a better c oncertation among Member States, leading to 
faster decision-making procedures and shorte r times for processing legislative work, for 
example. 
Additional added value is expected in the ar ea of awareness-raising and possible ‘soft’ 
measures (voluntary agreements, joint set-up of demonstration and trial projects, etc.) 
Dedicated application domains where the Co mmittee (EIC) would be active were listed 
in 4.3 above, and address topics including: 
(1) The optimal use of road, traffic and travel  data (framework, and the collection and 
provision of traffic plans) 
Some projects already completed or in hand have yielded valuable input on data 
required for effective traffic manageme nt operations, information services, 
deployment of typical Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (navigation, Speed Alert, Lane Keeping Systems) and aut onomous (in-vehicle) safety enhancing 
applications, e.g. 
– Speed Alert analysed all elements rela tive to the deployment of intelligent 
vehicle adaptation and provided r ecommendations how to have it 
implemented throughout Europe  
– Rosatte
38 is expected to  provide a framework for the collecti on, processing 
and integration of road data at all ad ministrative levels, and to establish a 
procedure for accelerating the incorporat ion of such data in digital maps 
The Committee (EIC) would however be able to discuss the findings of the 
projects and agree on a general road ma p for having these services operational 
and implemented throughout Europe. 
                                                 
38  ROSATTE (7FP) addresses a common ROad Safe ty ATTributes Exchange infrastructure in 
Europe, which should facilitate access to accurate an d up-to-date road data required for advanced 
ITS applications, including their integration in digital maps. 
 
EN 57   EN In line with this action, the EIC coul d address a minimum set of data, the 
information to be disseminated for free by all service providers, and principles for 
coherence of messages, as discussed at  a European summit organised under the 
German presidency39: especially data affecting safety-linked situations (road 
status, unexpected queues/ obstacles) and the need for a general agreement on the information to be disseminated as wide ly as possible under all circumstances. 
The Committee should discuss the modalities  of such an agreement in order to 
have it detailed and endorsed on a vo luntary basis by all Member States  
(2) Continuity of ITS services for freight a nd passengers, including those facilitating 
the interconnection of interu rban and urban transport sy stems, as e.g. required for 
cross-border multi-modal travel planners 
 A number of projects (eMotion
40, iTravel41, etc.) explore the most effective 
approaches to foster real cross-mode multimodality and to realise the idea of the always-connected traveller. 
The Committee could examine how the outcome of these projects can be 
extrapolated to deployment projects, and how deployment throughout Europe can 
be fostered. 
(3) Mechanisms to ensure European ITS c oncertation and coordination, leading to 
consistent, harmonised (and prioritised ) deployment of services throughout 
Europe 
EasyWay, an ITS for Roads deployment pr oject supported by the EC, is preparing 
specifications and minimum re quirements for a number of selected key services 
to be deployed in a harmonised way throughout Europe. The consortium is struggling in the absence of an a ppropriate body to endorse these and a 
mechanism to have the specifications in corporated into the national deployment 
schemes 
The Committee proposed, bri nging together delegates from all Member States, 
would provide an excellent institute to fulfil this task and ensure correct 
incorporation (as minimum requirements)  in national deployment guidelines. 
In line with this task the EIC should discuss:  
– common principles for the assessment and C/B analyses of ITS deployment, 
and the indicators to be used to  allow comparison of impact, or 
– priorities for Field Opera tion Tests and large-scale trials where major public 
investments are required. 
                                                
 
39  Communication from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to the European 
Commission of 27 June 2007 (eSafety Conference in Berlin, 5-6 June 2007). 
40  eMotion (FP6, RTD): analyses of the organisationa l, legal, economic and technical framework of 
a Europe-wide multimodal traffic information service, including proof of concept. 
41  i-Travel (FP7, RTD): research project aimi ng at realising the alwa ys-connected traveller. 
 
EN 58   EN The EIC would also be mandated to pro cess part of the legislative work as 
defined in the terms of the mandate to the Committee. 
As for the effectiveness of procedures and administrative costs, the EIC would 
allow a shortening and simplification of the legislative process for new actions related to ITS, and for the amendment of existing ones. Several ITS applications having an impact on congestion, safety a nd the environment will be introduced 
earlier than in the other policy options, l eading to quicker savings on travel times, 
accidents and emissions. 
Industry would benefit from the clear po licy and vision which will be defined by 
the Committee and could piggy-back on the mandatory introduction of specific 
ITS measures of public interest. Valu e-added services, for example, can 
introduced more easily on the back of existing equipment. Consumers would 
benefit from an earlier and wider availability of services related to driving safety and comfort. Economies of scale and d ecreasing prices would make services 
available for small and economy cars too. 
Overall conclusion  on the direct impact of actions under Option B+:
  
 Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
Option B+ 
(Option B plus 
comitology)  ++ ++ + 
 
6.4.2.  Indirect impacts: 
TRANSTOOLS turned out to be unable to predic t developments under the B+ scenario. 
A major impact of Option B+ would however be the avoidance of the risks linked to 
working with a High Level Group of mixed nature, and the opportunity to ensure and speed up the implementation of policies. 
An incidental gain would be the further re duction of administrative  costs thanks to a 
better consultation and concerta tion process with Member States, and better chances to 
raise awareness of ITS am ong (senior-level) delegates from the public sector.  
Conclusion
: The indirect impacts of policy Option B+  reflecting these additional 
advantages are estimated as follows (compared to Option A): 
 Economy  Society  Environment  
Impacts on …  
Congestion 
Reduction  
Competitiveness  
Consumers  
Growth  
Road Safety  
Employment  
Security  
Climate Change  
Air Quality  Noise
 
Energy Efficiency  
Option B+ : 
Option B plus ++ ++ + + ++ + ++ + + + 
 
EN 59   EN Comitology  
 
6.5. Administrative costs  
The policy Options B and B+ are mainly co ncerned with the creation of the right 
framework conditions for coordination. For thes e options, the administ rative costs for the 
European Commission are taken in to account at this stage. As it is not certain if and how 
the concrete measures and instruments will ta ke shape, with the assistance of the ITS 
Committee or High Level Group, the implementati on costs are difficult to estimate. It can 
only be done at a late r stage (cf. 5.1.1) 
Administrative costs for EC intervention will relate to setting up (a  framework for) more 
intense concertation and coor dination among stakeholders ; defining and managing 
financial support for research, real-life te sting and Europe-wide deployment; defining 
functional requirements and orga nising their standardisation,  conducting legislative work 
and monitoring progress in the various domains. These costs will be slightly higher for policy Option B+ because of the extra cost of setting up the comitology committee. 
However these extra co sts of about €70 000/year
42, to organise 4 meetings with 
representatives from 27 Member States, are very low compared to the benefits to be 
gained thanks to reductions  in congestion, accidents and pollution. Indeed, a 1 % 
reduction of these external costs will immediatel y result in savings of  billions of euros, 
but the relevant implementation cost s need to be taken into account. 
Implementation costs for other parties could,  for example, include (1) the required 
investments in roadside-based and in-veh icle equipment (setting up and operating 
services is considered to be part of a business process, wh ere benefits cover all implied 
costs), (2) the implementation of legislative wo rk at national level and (3) participation in 
concertation bodies and (4) collective pla nning / managing of standardisation, and 
deployment of services in cluding testing/evaluation. 
Types of costs carried by 
 Public Industry Citizens 
Infrastructure linked ITS    
In-vehicle linked ITS    
Coordination    
Standardisation    
Administrative    
Tab. 5.2: Types of costs likely to be attributed (g rey shading indicating who bears the types of costs 
indicated) 
                                                 
42 European ITS Committee: 27 participants x € 650 = € 17.550 per meeting for the reimbursement 
of travel expenses; for four meetings per year the total amount equals € 70.200; advisory group: € 650 per participant per meeting, 20 participants x € 650 = € 13.000 per meeting for the 
reimbursement of travel expenses; for four expert meetings per year the total amount equals € 
52.000. 
 
EN 60   EN 7. COMPARISON OF POLICY OPTIONS  
To summarise, the short-listed policy options are: 
• Option A : no additional new action taken, as the baseline scenario against which the 
other options have been assessed 
• Option B: concentration on enabling actions and coordination 
• Option B+: Option B extended with a comitology procedure (establishing a European 
ITS Committee) 
The present impact assessment should point out  which actions are most effective, and the 
following tables give an overview on how the options have scored according to the evaluation criteria (compared to Option A). 
7.1.1.  Direct impacts 
Impacts on… Interoperability Cooperation Privacy & liability 
Option A  
    
Option B  ++ + + 
Option B+  ++ ++ + 
Tab. 6.1: Comparison of policy options against evaluation criteria (direct impact on objectives) 
Under Option A, non-existent progress in do mains related to interoperability (and 
synergies, leading to cost reductions) and to pr ivacy and liability issues is very likely. As 
for concertation and cooperation among stake holders, it is currently happening through 
existing fora, but remains fragmented and misse s the critical mass to trigger change and 
evolution. Under these circumstances, it is e xpected that ITS will remain in its current 
position: an instrument with high potential but unable to support achievement of policy 
objectives because penetration and take-up are too marginal. 
Option B and B+, with much better scores on all three criteria, present a serious 
improvement over Option A, with Option B+  scoring even highe r on concertation and 
fostering cooperation.  
Under Option B+ the Commission will be able  to effectively steer and manage the 
complex processes related to a policy-driven de ployment of ITS; it w ould be assisted by 
a dedicated European ITS Committee, constitu ted by delegates from all Member States, 
and a separate advisory group bringing together (h igh-level) representatives from all 
industrial sectors. The Commission will have  the possibility, whenever necessary, to 
realise progress in dedicated (enabling) areas of content directly affecting ITS 
deployment.  
 
EN 61   EN 7.1.2.  Indirect impacts: 
 Economy  Society  Environment  
Impacts on …  
Congestion 
Reduction  
Competitiveness  
Consumers  
Growth  
Road Safety  
Employment  
Security  
Climate Change  
Air Quality  Noise
 
Energy Efficiency  
Option A            
Option B + + + + + + + + + + 
Option B+ ++ ++ + + ++ + ++ + + + 
Tab. 6.2: Comparison of policy options against evaluat ion criteria (impacts on achievement of policies) 
First of all, the analysis confirms that for both Options B and B+ EU action can have an 
added value contributing to most of the policy objectives. Compar ed to a baseline 
scenario of no additional new actions, both policy options will deliver a positive overall impact. 
No weighting is applied, but the transport-re lated criteria of reduced congestion, higher 
road safety and less impact of road transpor t on the environment (greener transport) are 
considered important. 
The main difference between B and B+ is the replacement of a High Level Group by a 
European ITS Committee assisting the Comm ission through the comitology procedure. 
The main advantage of Option B+ is a fast er and more harmonised deployment of ITS 
services. The positive impacts anticipated on co ngestion, road safety and emissions will 
thus be reached earlier. That is why this opt ion is more effective: Option B+ will save 
more lives and more time otherwis e spent in congestion, and reduce CO
2 emissions most. 
7.1.3.  Conclusion 
Overall, Option B+ can be regarded as the preferred option , because it will result in 
better impacts than the other options, in part icular regarding coope ration and the potential 
to speed up agreements on pa rticular issues hampering ITS deployment and to bring 
about harmonised deployment  of ITS throughout Europe. 
The proposed legal instrument to set up this  framework for Europe-wide deployment of 
ITS, including the European ITS Committee w ould be a Directive. A Directive is the 
appropriate instrument, as th e obligations imposed to the Member States recognise the 
different levels of ITS use and deployment,  allowing them to concentrate on their 
priorities for implementing, while at the same time leaving the power and responsibility to the Commission to define, with the Europ ean ITS Committee, the technical details in 
support of the implementation of the Directiv e. A regulation would be too prescriptive, 
considering that many of the required actions  and the level of de ployment of ITS vary 
from country to country. Only a Directive will enable Member States sufficiently to 
adjust the framework established acc ording to their individual needs. 
 
EN 62   EN 8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
In the course of this impact assessment a series of actions have  been evaluated which 
should create better conditions for a faster take-up and deployment of ITS for roads and 
as such enable a stronger cont ribution by intelligent transport systems to the overall goals 
of efficiency, safety and a cleaner environment. 
These actions are of an enabling and cro ss-cutting nature. They do not influence the 
general objective or most of the specific objectives directly. For monitoring activities this means that only the outputs with  regard to the operational objectives can be assessed 
easily. The impacts on the specific and general objectives are indirect, so that in some 
cases it will be difficult to separate them out  from other influences in the field. But it is 
important to stress that a prime goal of the Ac tion Plan is to achieve positive results from 
ITS deployment faster  and create the conditions to achieve them at all. 
The following table gives an indication of  possible indicators of progress towards 
meeting the objectives. Monitoring will be  required not only to assess whether the 
measures are on track but also to review the evolution of the global context and to 
determine whether additional measures might be required.  
It is proposed that a progress report be ma de by 2012 and that this  report should also 
provide the opportunity to pr opose possible further actions. 
 
General objectives Indicators 
(Quicker) Take-up of ITS for roads  Deployment and level of services for ICT 
infrastructure, traveller information, 
traffic management and freight and 
logistics services 
 Penetration rate of ITS applications in 
new/existing vehicles (market shares) 
 Number of national and local demand 
management and access control schemes 
introduced  
 Number of new service providers in the 
ITS market 
Achievement of interoperability regarding 
applications and servi ces; synergies to be 
obtained  Definition of a functional open platform 
for (in vehicle) deployment of ITS 
 Measures to achieve/ ensure connectivity 
of nomadic devices in a safe way 
 Solutions for vehicle-specific 
requirements, e.g. vehicle identification 
 
EN 63   EN  
Specific objectives Indicators 
Setting up of an efficient 
concertation/cooperation mechanism 
between all ITS stakeholders in order to provide a clear vision on how ITS should be deployed on a Europe-wide scale and how it should support implementation of EU 
policies   Production of a vision document 
 Coordination mechanism in place 
 Detailed strategies for tackling main 
barriers 
To solve privacy and liability issues  Definition of a general framework 
describing service ownership, risks and 
responsibilities of providers and 
customers 
 Establishment of a code of practice 
relative to the sharing and re use of data 
linked to deployment of ITS  
Improved quality of seamless traffic 
management and real-time Traffic and 
Travel Information (RTTI) services  Ratio of average speed to free speed 
 Change in journey time and average 
speed during peak hours  
 Number of multi-modal journey planners 
 Availability of multi-modal and/or real-
time information  
 Total logistics costs to shippers 
 Modal split for passenger and freight 
transport 
 Energy savings and emissions avoided 
 Greenhouse gas emissions (fuel 
consumption) 
 Indicators on air pollution43 
 Harmonised noise indicators44 
Improvements in road and personal safety   Market share of cars equipped with safety 
systems 
 Number of (road) traffic accidents 
 Number of road fatalities and injured 
 
                                                 
43  Directive 2004/461/EC specifies the air quality monitoring and reporting in the Member States. 
44  Directive 2002/49/EC on Environmental Noise requires authorities to draw up noise maps using 
harmonised indicators.