Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission : action plan for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes - Impact assessment {COM(2008) 887 final} {COM(2008) 886 final {SEC(2008) 3084}
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: data protection, environmental protection, information technology, intelligent transport system, personal data, road safety, road transport, transport infrastructure, transport safety

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN 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 Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe 

and the 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in 
the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

{COM(2008) 887 final} 
{COM(2008) 886 final 
{SEC(2008) 3084} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6 

1.1.  What are Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)?............................................................ 6 

1.2. 

Target ........................................................................................................................... 6 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

Procedural issues and Consultation of interested parties ............................................. 7 

Expertise....................................................................................................................... 7 

Consultation of Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 7 

2.2.1.  Meetings with public authorities, industry 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? ....................................................................................................................... 18 

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 regarding congestion (avoidance), road safety, 
environmental nuisance and security of the transport system.................................... 26 

3.3.  Who is affected........................................................................................................... 28 

3.4. 

EU right to act and principle of subsidiarity .............................................................. 28 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 29 

General objective........................................................................................................ 29 

Specific objectives...................................................................................................... 31 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 32 

5.1. 

Policy Option A (baseline scenario): no additional new action ................................. 32 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

Policy Option B: Overcoming specific problems by concentrating on enabling 
actions and application fields, indirectly 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: Overcoming 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 extended 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 

3 

   EN 

 
This report commits only the Commission services involved in its preparation and does 
not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken 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 deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems 
(ITS) for road and their interconnections with other modes of transport. 

ITS  stands  for  Intelligent  Transport  Systems  which  apply  emerging  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, leveraging functionalities of existing operations 
and  services  by  boosting  their  effectiveness  and  cross-linking,  and  by  providing  better 
responses to user needs.  

ITS  applications  and  services  have  the  potential  to  increase  transport  efficiency,  safety 
and security, to reduce congestion and also to improve the environmental performance of 
the transport system. In addition, by supporting and improving effectiveness of transport 
operations, it can also be expected that ITS services will have a strong, positive influence 
on the competitiveness of the European manufacturing industries and on the economy in 
general. 

Broader  deployment  of  ITS,  in  particular  a  more  generalised  use  of  advanced 
instruments  such  as  interoperable  electronic  toll  payment  and  demand  management 
systems,  is  crucial  to  several  policies  which  the  European  Commission  proposes  to 
introduce,  in  particular  for  the  greening  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  use  are  among  the  economic,  social  and 
environmental  problems  that  need  to  be  addressed.  Innovative  solutions  in  road 
transport are clearly needed, but are currently not sufficiently developed nor deployed to 
face the challenges of fast-growing demand 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  basis  as  a  result  of,  inter  alia,  transport 
authorities increasingly but in an uncoordinated way exploring options to better manage 
their  transport  systems.  This  leads  to  a  patchwork  of  different  national,  regional  and 
local solutions without clear harmonisation; users need to adapt to each of them and that 
is endangering the integrity of the single market throughout the EU. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
As part of the current exercise, an intense effort 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 accelerate the uptake of ITS in Europe, the impact 
assessment considers three policy options, comparing their effects on specific objectives 
of interoperability, cooperation and (solving) privacy and liability issues.  

A 

B 

No additional new action (baseline scenario) 

Overcoming  problems  by  concentration  on  enabling  actions  and  application 
fields  (functional  open  ITS  platform,  optimal  use  of  road  and  traffic  data, 
continuity of services and addressing privacy & liability)  

B+  Option B extended with a comitology procedure. 

The main difference between B and B+ is the replacement of a High Level Group by a 
European  ITS  Committee  assisting  the  Commission  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 CO2 emissions 
most. 

Considering  both  their  direct  impact  (boosting  uptake  of  ITS)  and  indirect  impact 
(supporting economic, social and environmental policies) the preferred 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  directly  and  indirectly  foster  development 
and  consistent,  harmonised  deployment  of  ITS  in  Europe.  Option  B+  builds  on  broad 
concertation  and  cooperation  with  major  stakeholders  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  administrative  cost  and  should  result  in  rapid 
positive impacts on congestion, safety and emissions. 

The  proposed  legal  instrument  to  set  up  this  framework  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 

5 

   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  and  emerging 
information  and  communication 
technologies (ICT) can help to deliver safe, efficient, sustainable and seamless transport 
of  goods  and  people.  These  ICT  applications  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 dynamic traffic management with variable speed 
limits,  Parking  Guidance  &  Reservation,  Navigation  Devices  and  (Advanced)  Driver 
Assistance  Systems  like  Electronic  Stability  Control  or  Lane  Departure  Warning 
Systems. 

The ITS action plan covered by the present impact assessment report was announced in 
the  mid-term  review  of  the  European  Commission’s  2001  transport  White  Paper  as  the 
“launch of a major programme to roll out intelligent 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  System  (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  options  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 ITS 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 regarded as an ex-ante evaluation. 

1 

COM(2006) 314: “New technologies coming to market in the near future will gradually provide 
new  services  to  citizens  and  allow  improved  real-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 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Obvious links exist between this exercise and the Logistics2 and Urban Mobility Action 
Plans3 as ITS are also used as a tool to optimise logistics and urban mobility. Examples 
are  e-freight,  smart  freight  distribution  in  cities  and  security  of  commercial  and  public 
transport. 

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

2.1. 

Expertise 

This  impact  assessment  relies  on  results  from  various  work  carried  out  over  the  past 
years — EU research projects, support to deployment and customer surveys.  

Since 1988, the Commission has financed several research and development programmes 
on ITS which have delivered many useful results and products which in some cases are 
still  awaiting  full  exploitation.  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 been 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  roadmap  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 Ankerbold 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  personalities  from  the  following  stakeholder 
communities:  national  ministries  of  transport,  government-owned  development  and 
deployment  agencies  for  ITS,  a  city  authority,  a  membership-based  international 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 

COM(2007) 607. 
To be adopted in early 2009; cf. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/clean/green_paper_urban_transport 
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 impact on traffic safety 
and efficiency, www.eimpact.eu. 
http://www.easyway-its.eu. 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/esafety/forum/roadmaps/index_en.htm. 
JRC report on TRANSTOOLS simulations of ITS Action Plan, 3rd draft (04.06.08). 
COWI-ECORYS: Preparatory Study for an Impact Assessment on the EC ITS Action Plan, Final 
report, May 2008. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
organisation  bringing  partners  together  to  develop  ITS-based  services,  a  toll  motorway 
operator,  an  ITS-based  information  service  provider,  a  membership-based  organisation 
representing  the  heavy  road  transport  industry,  representatives  of  the  Directors  of  the 
National  Road  Authorities,  a  mobile  telecommunications  operator,  an  electronic 
components  supplier  to  the  automotive  industry  and  an  automobile  and  truck 
manufacturer.  These  interviews  led  to  a  first  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 200 participants in total.  

An eSafety forum9 (Ljubljana, 25 April 2008) was dedicated to the initiative, with some 
35 participants debating supplementary actions. 

Finally  Member  States’  delegates  discussed  the  rationale  behind  specific  actions 
presented at a meeting in Brussels on 26 May 2008.  

As  such  the  Commission’s  minimum  standards  for  stakeholder  consultation  have  been 
met. 

2.2.2.  Wider consultation of the public 

A  questionnaire-based  survey  using  the  internet  was  launched  at  the  end  of  February 
2008, which generated 34 replies. The analysis of this survey has been published on the 
Europa website10 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  assessment.  The  group  met  4  times  between  January 
and May 2008 and provided input to the impact assessment.  

In addition to this inter-service group, an ITS Steering Group was set up in April 2007 
with  Directors  from  five  different 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 
10 

www.esafetysupport.org/en/news/esafety_forum_comments_on_ec_its_action_plan.htm. 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/consultations/its_en.htm. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  ITS deployment needs to be accelerated especially in the fields of urban and 

freight transport.  

Stakeholders pointed out the following 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-level cross-sector coordination group is 
necessary  involving  all  players  and  establishing  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 cover cross-border enforcement, 
standards  on  Human-Machine  Interaction  (HMI)  (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 stakeholders wanted a range of fora with all 
major players present, from EU level to local/regional level. The leading in-car services 
(speed  alert,  eCall,  and  real-time  traffic  information)  need  a  coordinated  deployment 
group  of  stakeholders,  delivering  against  targets.  The  same  should  apply  for  road 
authorities  and  network  operators  in  their  domain.  A  platform  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  dedicated  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 reduce fatal casualties in traffic by an estimated 
5000 a year. (IP/08/786). 

EN 

9 

   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  process  a  number  of  criteria  were  applied. 
Priority ITS application domains/ dedicated applications to be addressed should:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

contribute  to  high  level  European  (policy)  objectives  in  fields  including  safety, 
efficiency and environmental impact of transport systems, 

present a clear benefit to society and citizens by facilitating mobility in general or 
by improving the performance of transport operations in a co-modal environment, 
and 

be mature enough to be rolled out in a consistent manner or to have the potential 
to act as a catalyst for ITS systems or to offer synergies between these;  

resulting  overall  in  following  priority  application  domains  related  to  EU-wide  ITS 
deployment and proposed dedicated measures: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

support  for traffic management and the interconnection of transport modes, 
in  order  to  optimise  the  use  of  the  existing  infrastructure  and  to  better  balance 
traffic demand over the networks. Dedicated measures include: support for wider 
deployment  of  (roadside-based)  ITS  infrastructure  for  information  services, 
provision  of  warnings  and  dynamic  speed  harmonisation;  the  development  and 
roll-out of interoperable road pricing and city access control mechanisms and the 
promotion of intermodality via provision of dedicated information and guidance 
to hubs; 

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; 

promotion  of  co-modality,  by  providing  dynamic  multi-modal  door-to-door 
travel  information,  interconnecting  multi-modal  travel  planners  and  developing 
instruments for internalising external costs 

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  support  to  deployment  of  Advanced  Driver 
Assistance  Systems,  e.g.  dynamic  guidance,  Intelligent  Speed  Adaptation  (ISA), 
Lane Departure Warning (LDW) 

improvement of road safety by fostering deployment of (autonomous) in-vehicle 
safety  enhancing  systems,  e.g.  Crash  Avoidance  Applications,  Intersection 
Support Systems, eCall etc.  

provision  of  more  reliable  Real  Time  Traffic  and  Travel  Information  (RTTI) 
services,  matching  user  expectations  by  supporting  efficient  travelling  and 
reducing safety risks 

EN 

10 

   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 distribution centres and e-freight. 

Where these domains fully comply with the ‘principles’ raised during the first batch of 
stakeholder interviews, they were also identified during the workshops as being equally 
important in their contribution to current (transport) policy objectives. 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  deployment  of  ITS  were  presented,  and  34 
replies were received. Most responses came from national public authorities:  

•  79 percent of respondents believe that the 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 consistent deployment of ITS.  

•  95 percent of respondents see ITS as an important tool to increase transport 
efficiency,  mobility  and  road  safety.  A 
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.  

large  majority 

judges 

•  79  percent  of  respondents  are  in  favour  of  one  common,  open  in-vehicle 

platform instead of separated platforms for each application.  

Most stakeholders consulted are of the opinion that the European Union should take more 
responsibility  for  further  deployment  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 industry 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  Board  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 better 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 linked to the problems described;  

•  the  link  with  other  EU  policies  such  as  internalisation  of  external  costs  has  been 

emphasised in 2.2.2; 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
•  the description and analysis of the policy options have been significantly improved, in 
particular  as  regards  the  choice  of  areas  and  criteria  applied;  the  comparison  of  the 
expected benefits and implementing costs gives more detail of potential synergies and 
trade-offs within the policy options; 

•  the  exact  nature  of  the  ITS  Committee  proposed  in  Option  B+  has  been  clarified  in 
4.3,  including  a  confirmation  that  an  analysis  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 assessment 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 allowing 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, which were taken up 
as follows: 

•  the problem definition has been strengthened by providing a new sub-chapter on how 

the problem drivers affect 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  justification  for  not  undertaking  a  full  cost-benefit  analysis  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 services in the last Inter-service group meeting in July 2008 

have been added (see above). 

3. 

PROBLEM 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  significant  part  in  achieving  (transport)  policy 
objectives and reducing the negative 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 cooperation 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 

12 

   EN 

 
ITS; proprietary ‘all in’ silo solutions prohibiting sharing of components have kept prices 
of  individual  ITS  applications  and  services  high,  affecting  potential  customers’ 

willingness to buy.  

As a consequence, inefficient use is made of the ITS potential to support achievement 
of (transport) policy objectives and to fight the enormous and increasing challenges 
posed  to  road  transport,  i.e.  congestion;  emissions,  pollution  and  energy  efficiency; 
accidents and security of transport operations.  

Fig. 2.1: ITS problem tree (Source: COWI preparatory study) 

–  Congestion:  official  estimates12  show  that  “road  congestion  costs,  including 
commuting  and  leisure  traffic  as  well  as  business  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, freight transport  growth in EU-27 has been 
2.8 %  per  year  and  passenger  transport  growth  1.7 %.  Freight  transport  demand  has 
increased  more  strongly  for  modes  offering  greater  flexibility,  in  particular  road 
transport (1995-2006: road freight +3.5 %, passenger +1.6 %). The increase of traffic 
demand  has  led  to  bottlenecks  in  corridors  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  long  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 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Negative impact on the environment, inefficient use of energy and dependency on 
fossil fuels: road transport has a significant impact on climate change: it accounts for 
72 % of all transport-related CO2 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  almost  6 %  over  the  1990-2005  period  and 
where road transport accounts for an increase of 29 %.  

EU-27 GHG Emissions in transport sector 

1 400

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

Other
Transport**

Railways

Navigation*

Civil Aviation*

Road Transport

l

t
n
e
a
v
u
q
e

i

2
O
C

s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

0

1990

1995

2000

2005

* 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  locations  —  even  if  technological  progress  and 
regulation have had a considerable impact in recent years. Technological progress has 
also  contributed  to  improvements  in  vehicle  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 
them,  and  better 
(autonomous) safety systems 

the  drivers’  workload  or  assisting 

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  little  willingness-to-pay  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 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
•  Silo solutions: 

–  Industry  and  private  players  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  individual  solutions  which  are  deployed  at  a  local 
level,  and  are  causing  a  fragmented  technological  spectrum  that  might 
endanger future harmonisation and standardisation; obvious examples are toll 
collection,  congestion  charging,  multi-modal  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  stakeholders  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 competition and limiting opportunities for 
innovation,  a  typical  market  failure.  For  example  this  is  the  case  when 
proprietary  road  charging  devices,  initially  set  up  as  part  of  a  BOT–like 
operation  for  a  dedicated  part  of  a  network  (to  be  created),  and  as  such 
benefiting  in  effect  from  almost  mandatory  installation  in  all  vehicles 
frequently entering the area, are exported to larger networks or are used as an 
instrument for adding on additional services (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 effective 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  many  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 framework 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 the 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,  solutions  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 

15 

   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 

16 

   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  sceptical  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  absence  of  clear  responsibilities  for  the 
provision, sharing or re-use of data and components, and 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  the  application  domains  mentioned  and 
hindering their uptake as follows:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

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 infrastructure 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 for interoperability of the system or 
continuity  of  the  services  is  therefore  very  difficult.  In  addition,  the 
necessary exchange of traffic data requires legal certainty on privacy 
and liability issues 

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 
their 
development  and  uptake  must  be  guaranteed  by  effective  cooperation 
among network operators, and data accuracy and reliability 

requires  effective  data  exchange  mechanisms: 

promotion of co-modality: the provision of dynamic multi-modal door-
to-door  travel  information  requires  data  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 

17 

   EN 

 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

safety  &  security  of  commercial 
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 

transport  operations: 

improvement  of  road  safety:  the  deployment  of  safety  enhancing 
systems, such as collision avoidance systems, is currently rather low and 
usually offered as an “extra”. An improvement of the situation could be 
expected as soon as the interoperability of the underlying technology or 
system  is  ensured  (e.g.  standardisation  efforts  on  eCall  are  on-going), 
and  a  sufficient  level  of  concertation  and  cooperation  among 
stakeholders is achieved (e.g. infrastructure providers need to agree with 
vehicle manufacturers on the data exchange mechanism);  

the 

traffic 

provision of more reliable Real Time Traffic and Travel Information 
(RTTI)  services: 
information  on 
lack  of  “seamless” 
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  which  hamper  the  uptake  of  such 
“seamless” RTTI (e.g. absence of agreements on the provision and use of 
data  between  private  and  public  stakeholders  and  no  clear  liability  in 
case of failure).  

efficiency  of  road  transport  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  exchange  of  reliable  data,  constitute  a 
barrier to the uptake of ITS solutions. 

3.1.3.  Relevance of ITS to (transport) policy and related objectives — why should the 

EU act? 

(1) 

As highlighted before, ITS clearly demonstrate a potential to support achievement 
of  (transport)  policy  objectives,  on  condition  that  they  are  rolled  out  in  a 
consistent, harmonised and synchronised way all over Europe. EU intervention is 
therefore  required  to  guarantee  interoperability,  to  ensure  continuity  across 
borders  and  modes,  and  to  foster  synergies  (implying  cost  reductions)  to  be 
obtained for both public and private 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 

18 

   EN 

 
•  Little  cross-border  traffic  management:  Traffic  management  is  mainly 
done  at  local,  regional  and  national  scale  and  seldom  cross-border  between 
neighbouring  countries.  Better  coordination  between  neighbouring  national 
or regional road authorities and interlinking of their respective traffic control 
centres,  rerouting  on  long-distance  corridors,  could  bring  considerable 
benefits to road users, especially 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  authorities  especially  when  looking  to  expand 
basic systems.  

•  Inappropriate  instruments  for  demand  management  /  access  control: 
several public authorities are interested in introducing charging 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  Stockholm:  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  minimum,  losing  potential  synergies  of  EETS 
with  other  applications  and  the  setting-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 potential 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  interoperability  and  seamless 
operation  of  the  services  cross-border  nevertheless  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 approach to guarantee safe use of ITS equipment 
in vehicles.  

•  Access  to  data,  enhanced  monitoring  and  use  of  latest  available 
information: ITS are by definition based on data. Typical areas include road 
infrastructure  and  works  data,  circulation  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 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the moment this type of data is spread over public and private actors and the 
coordination  and  data-sharing  between  them  is  not  optimal.  For  example 
traffic data collected for traffic management purposes by the road authorities 
are not always accessible by private information service providers. Vice versa 
there is no clear obligation, in cases where the private provider has detected a 
serious life-threatening incident, that this information be passed to the public 
authorities.  Private  service  providers  and  in  particular  digital  map  makers 
often  are  not,  or  too  late,  informed  about  new  traffic  regulations/limitations 
or  circulation  plans,  thus  creating  dangerous  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”  because  road  authorities  in  neighbouring 
countries  do  not  always  exchange  traffic  and  incident  data  in  an  efficient 
manner.  Pan-European  deployment,  common  quality  levels  and  possible 
harmonisation regarding operations procedures (what will be delivered?) are 
undermined  by  local  initiatives  and  absence  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-modal  journey  planners  are  not  yet 
operational  because  first  national  planners  have  to  be  completed  and  have 
then to be interconnected. There are institutional and organisational barriers 
to  assembling  the  data  from  the  different  private  and  public  transport 
operators. Special attention should be paid to disabled and 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 road data which is sometimes unreliable 
due to poor collaboration between the public and  private sectors 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  rules  on  which  routes  they  are  allowed.  A 
Commission  Recommendation14  (2001)  addressed  to  the  Member  States  to 
define  a  hierarchy  of  roads  was  not  sufficiently  taken  up.  Cheap  navigation 
devices  not  taking  account  of  vehicle  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 Information (TTI) services in Europe. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
accidents  and  damage  to  the  road  infrastructure.  Fast  take-off  of  navigation 
devices, followed by incorporation of GPS 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  phones  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  providers  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  traffic  management,  the  latter  being  the 
responsibility  of  the  road  authorities,  is  very  vague.  There  is  a  risk  of 
mismatch between messages given by in-vehicle devices and roadside signs. 

the 

this 

renders 

industry  particularly 

•  Inefficient  logistics  operations,  insecurity  of  commercial  transport:  The 
supply side of the transport market is dominated by medium- and small-sized 
enterprises.  While 
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  separate  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  reservation  and  security  services.  Lack  of 
information  on  modal  choices  and  transport  hubs  hinders  the  creation  of 
“green  transport  corridors”  where  goods  are  transported  via  the  most 
environmentally friendly transport mode. 

EN 

21 

   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, and therefore non-recurrent congestion too) 

These  applications  relate  to  personal  safety,  but  as  they  ideally  have  to  be  able  to 
function  in  all  Member  States,  interoperability  and  standardisation  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 prime candidates for Europe-wide deployment, 
include: 

•  In-vehicle  active  safety  applications  such  as  collision  avoidance  systems 
can considerably improve traffic safety, but are currently (only) offered as a 
“comfort  service"  in  upper  segments  of  the  market  owing  to  concerns  as  to 
responsibility and liability: who will be liable in cases of failure or misuse by 
the  customer;  how  to  avoid  unexpected interference  of  applications  running 
in parallel; can the ITS device take over 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  vehicles  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 limits are exceeded, is recognised to be 

15 

eBusiness watch 2008 (www.ebusiness-watch.org/key_reports/documents/BRO08.pdf). 

EN 

22 

   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  some  countries  it  is  very  difficult  to 
gather  all  data  from  the  different  administration  layers  (towns,  regions, 
departments, national roads etc.) The system is applied in Sweden in all state-
owned vehicles, and provided as an option 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  positioning  signals.  Extensive  testing  in 
field  trials  including  analyses  of  user  acceptance  and  possible  deployment 
schemes  has  been  organised  in  various  Member  States,  but  though  the  car 
industry is slowly offering the application, 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 application 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  cooperation  among  key  stakeholders  for  real 
operational  use.  Ongoing  discussions  on  the  overall  service  chain,  the 
institutional framework (who will handle the incoming messages), the overall 
benefits  and  the  related  necessary  investments  (who  will/  should  pay  for 
safety)  are  seriously  affecting 
in 
postponement of operational deployment; 

timeline  and  resulting 

initial 

the 

‘classical’ 

•  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  provide  a  solution  for  people  confronted 
with  high 
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. Potential 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  and  unproductive  repetitive  processes, 
lowering costs and making our enterprises more effective and therefore more 
competitive; 

•  innovation,  by  stimulating  cross-border  knowledge  transfer  on  effective 
deployment, cross-fertilisation and novel add-on services. In addition the ITS 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
market  itself  will  benefit  from  harmonisation  and  standardisation  efforts, 
while  synchronised  actions  will  lead  to  coordinated  deployment  and 
shortening of time to market for new services (reducing the 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 interoperable infrastructure pricing systems; 

•  the  encouragement  of  a  sustainable  use  of  resources  by  strengthening 
synergies  between  environmental  protection  and  growth  —  especially  by 
promoting the internalisation of external 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 for 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 deployment of ITS, resulting in an unchanged low level of 
market  take-up  and  making  it  hard  to  achieve  key  (transport)  policy  objectives  and, 
indirectly, to contribute to objectives regarding (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  would 
lengthy  processes  for 
interoperability (as the European Electronic Toll Service shows).  

lead 

to 

Fragmentation  on  the  public  side  would  result  in  a  slow  market  development  for  ITS, 
missing  the  opportunity  to  increase  European  industrial  competitiveness  and  provide 
chances  for  exporting  leading-edge  technology  solutions.  Market  prices  would  remain 
higher for the silo solutions. As a result customers would not be taking advantage of the 
potential of ITS for improved safety, comfort, cost efficiency and environmental impact. 

If interurban and urban road transport systems remain badly connected this would limit 
the  possibility  to  establish  co-modality,  given  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 

24 

   EN 

 
continuing to opt for ‘classical solutions’ (more 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  greening  of  transport  based  mainly  on  the 
internalisation  of  external  costs.  Indeed,  these  initiatives  presuppose  the  existence  of 
advanced  ITS  instruments  such  as  interoperable  electronic  toll  payment  and  demand 
management systems to tackle the worsening externalities problems. 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 marginal cost pricing. 
It  will  facilitate  the  implementation  of  differentiated  charges  according  to  location  and 
time. 

16 

COM(2008) 433. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2.3. 

Impact on main policy objectives regarding congestion (avoidance), road safety, 
environmental nuisance and security 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  slightly  above  the  general  transport  growth 
forecast.17 From 2006 to 2020 a further increase of 40 million vehicles can be expected.18 

Although the benefits of transport services are widely acknowledged, 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  —  private  and  professional  —  (congestion),  on  life 
(accidents),  on  health  (pollution,  noise),  on  energy  use  (consumption  of  energy  will 
continue  to  increase)  and  on  climate  change  (greenhouse  gas  emissions)  among  other 
things19.  

Over  the  past  years,  measures  to  reduce  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  infrastructure  charging,  vehicle  taxation,  congestion 
charging, and fuel taxation have been implemented with various degrees of intensity and 
coverage. The use of ITS could enhance the efficiency of some of these instruments. 

(2) 

Congestion 

The density of traffic in Europe has increased 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  (2006)  predicted  the  waste  of  an  extra  £22 
billion worth of time spent in congested traffic, which will reach 13 % of all time spent in 
traffic, by 2025. In the Netherlands, 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 

18 
19 

20 

ASSESS  study  for  the  mid-term  review  of  the  EC  2001  transport  White  Paper,  “Keep  Europe 
moving”, 2006. 
ProgTrans, European Transport Report 2007/2008. 
The  evolutions  of  these  nuisances  have  been  analysed  in  the  impact  assessment  on  the 
internalisation of external costs. SEC(2008)2208. 
European  Conference  of  Ministers  of  Transport  (2007):  Congestion:  A  global  challenge; 
CEMT/ITF(2007)6. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Fig. 2.4 Projected levels of road congestion (morning peak) in Europe in 2020. The congestion indicator 
provides the ratio between average speed and free speed. 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 insufficient use will be made of proven safety-
enhancing technologies and in-vehicle applications. 

(4) 

Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 

If nothing is done, CO2 emissions from transport overall are expected to grow a further 
15 % from 2010 to 2020.22 

Moreover,  air  quality  in  some  cities  and  other  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, since urban traffic generates 40 % of CO2 emissions 
and 70 % of other pollutant emissions from vehicles.23 

21 
22 

23 

COM(2006)74, European Road Safety Action Programme Mid-Term Review. 
European  Environment  Agency:  Climate  for  a  transport  change.  TERM  2007.  EEA  Report 
1/2008. 
European Parliament Communication 20080307 IPR 23284. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
(5) 

Security 

If no specific measures are taken, passengers will continue to suffer from lack of security 
on  public  transport,  road  hauliers  from  stolen  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  uncontrolled  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 lack 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 advanced  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  difficulties  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 the powers given to it by 
the Treaties and the objectives assigned to it (principle of conferral). 

In  application  of  the  Common  Transport  and  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 national, regional and local solutions 

•  national  policies  not  producing  the  interoperable  transport  system  that  is 
needed  for  a  European  Union  without  borders.  The  integrity  of  the  single 
market  must  be  ensured  so  that  national  solutions  are  not  developed  and 
implemented in different ways throughout the EU. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
(2) 

If  the  problem  falls  under  a  competence  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  principle  of  subsidiarity  because  they  address 
trans-national  aspects  that  cannot  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 trans-national deployment to achieve European 
and/or  harmonised  cross-border  services  for  traffic  and  travel  information  and  traffic 
management.  Secondly,  if  no  further  Union  action  were  taken,  Member  States  would 
continue  to  develop  individual  solutions,  causing  a  fragmented  technological  spectrum 
that might endanger future harmonisation and standardisation, or would lead to lengthy 
processes  for  interoperability  (as  the  European  Electronic  Toll  Service  shows).  The 
further deterioration of the road traffic situation would conflict with the requirements of 
the Treaty (especially Art. 70 “Common Transport 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  privacy)  and  scale  (e.g.  reducing  the  cost  of  ITS 
applications thanks to common specifications 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  applications,  as  this  specifically 
constitutes one of the issues identified as needing to be addressed. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES 

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  transport  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  continue  to  meet  society’s  economic,  social  and 
environmental  needs  whilst  minimising  their  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 

29 

   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  identified  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) 

(b) 

(c) 

the 

instruments 

for  effective 

framework  and 

transport  demand 
by  providing 
management:  extending 
interoperable 
instruments  defined  under  the  Directive  on  European  Electronic 
Toll Service (EETS), in order to have it commonly applicable for 
all  kind  of  roads  and  city  access  control,  will  facilitate 
cooperation among all (public or private) network operators  and 
(local) authorities, and will enable the introduction of tailor-made 
schemes; 

by contributing to the road safety objectives, 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; 

by indirectly addressing climate change and the improvement of 
energy  efficiency,  through  the  greening  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  transport  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 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
actual  network  status  and  the  forecast  situation  at  their  end 
destination.  ITS  also  contributes  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  possible  access  points,  in  particular 
where  travellers  enter  urban  areas  or  congested  areas  near  their 
final destination. 

(2) 

The  proposed  action  will  support  several  of  the  (microeconomic) 
objectives  of  the  renewed  Lisbon  Strategy  for  growth,  jobs  and 
competitiveness. 
Foremost it will contribute to the objective of facilitating the spread and 
effective use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) — 
where “the EU has been unable to reap the 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 and how it should support implementation 
of EU policies in the field of sustainable development, competitiveness and 
growth  and  to  limit  or  even  avoid  the  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  novel  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  potential  benefits  of  ITS  services  to  all  citizens,  including 
vulnerable and disabled road users and elderly 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 fostering a safe deployment of 
(autonomous) safety-enhancing applications and Advanced Driver Assistance 
Systems (more effective warning of imminent 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 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

5.1. 

Policy Option A (baseline scenario): no additional new action 

This  policy  option  (no  additional  new  action)  does  not  consider  any  new  proposals  — 
such  as  concentrating  efforts  on  certain  existing  actions  or  enhancing  concertation  in 
current activities in addition to what is ongoing or planned. 

Today’s approach is continued, consisting mainly of bottom-up research, little emphasis 
on  connecting  deployment  to  research  results, fragmented  efforts  to  align  stakeholders’ 
views or to concentrate their efforts and limited knowledge and awareness, 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 the public and private 
sectors and among Member States. Standardisation, suffering from the absence of public 
authorities’  representatives  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  question  (2020)  takes  into  account  following 
(proposed)  measures  by  the  Commission  spread  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,  particularly  addressing  Advanced  Driver 
Assistance Systems and (autonomous) in-vehicle safety applications. Existing 
fora  include  (or  build  on)  the  eSafety  forum  (focus  on  safety-enhancing  in-
vehicle  applications  and  Advanced  Driver  Assistance  Systems), 
the 
Intelligent Car Initiative (founded on support for research, harmonisation of 
technical  solutions  and  creation  of  awareness  in  relation  to  the  intelligent 
vehicle)  and  specific  Committees  addressing  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  project)  or  cities  (CIVITAS),  based  on 
responses  to  calls  for  proposals:  these  initiatives  merely  build  on  Member 
States/local  authorities’  preferences  but  suffer  from  a  rather  weak  global 
policy  orientation  and top-down  steering, and provide few incentives for an 
integrated approach 

•  isolated and in most cases time-consuming standardisation of technology and 

applications 

•  fragmented  consultation  of  stakeholders  via  fora,  projects  and  platforms,  in 
most  cases  demonstrating  limited  involvement,  in  particular  of  public 
authorities —logically hardly affecting the decision-making level.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
The instruments available to the Commission’s services will continue 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 required and appropriate. 

This scenario will lead to the situation described in Chapter 2 (what happens if nothing is 
done) and the following trends in selected application areas are expected: 

•  Real-time  Travel  &  Traffic  Information/  navigation  devices:  quite  good 
uptake of cheap navigation devices but mainly used with static road data, and 
therefore  often  providing  unreliable  guidance;  digital  maps  are  hardly  kept 
up-to-date  and  traffic  regulations  (circulation  plans)  are  not  systematically 
integrated.  Swift  introduction  of  mobile  phones  with  incorporated  GPS-
functionalities adds to an extrapolation of the problems described. Reliability 
of traffic information improves when telecom operators, digital map makers 
and  service  providers  join  forces  to  incorporate  information  collected  from 
travelling  vehicles  (=  Floating  Car  Data),  but  is  still  no  comparison  with 
public  authorities’  data  sources  and  agreed  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  urban  traffic  management  systems  suffers 
from  lack  of  integration  of  policy  priorities,  intensifying  congestion  and 
adding to safety problems  

•  innovative  ITS  services  keep  on  struggling  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 basically present a sound benefit/ cost ratio 
(cf. eImpact) and demonstrate a clear contribution to policy objectives, such 
as Intelligent Speed Adaptation27, eCall and Pay As You Drive. 

•  Implementation  of  electronic  toll  /road  charging  schemes  (devices)  enjoy  a 
strict ‘add on’ compliance to the EETS Directive (European Electronic Toll 
Service)  but  continue  to  demonstrate  little  customer-oriented  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 promote proprietary solutions.  

Conclusion: 

•  Though some success stories might emerge or continue, e.g. the surprisingly 
swift  and  broad  introduction  of  personal  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 

33 

   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 navigation 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  congestion,  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  remain  reluctant  to  invest  and  develop, 
customers will hesitate to buy and ITS will not be able to demonstrate its full 
potential, nor support achievement of policy objectives. 

5.2. 

Policy  Option  B:  Overcoming  specific  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, positioning, processing 
power and Human Machine Interface). Such 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 applications of public interest. This 
action  will  facilitate  the  integration  of  the  vehicle  into  the  transport  system 
and  support  the  introduction  of  cooperative  systems  in  the  longer  term,  by 
standardising the exchange of data between the infrastructure 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  operations  (effective  tracing  and  tracking  methods  for 
goods, reservation of secure rest areas, etc.); 

•  the  establishment  of  a  solid  European  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  Local  Authorities,  industry  players) 
tasked  with  providing  recommendations  on  options  to  be  taken  and 
discussing guidelines relating to ITS deployment; 

•  the  definition  of  a  framework  for  optimised  use  of  road  and  traffic  data 
(including  local  traffic  regulations  and  circulation  plans)  and  of  key  issues 
concerning  the  reliability  and  the  management  of  traffic  and  travel 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
information to be addressed by relevant public and private stakeholders. Key 
data will become available to all stakeholders in agreed or even standardised 
formats.  The  organisational  framework  and  the  rules  of  the  game  will  be 
made  clear  for  everybody,  avoiding  inappropriate  use  and  reducing  costs. 
Stakeholders will see the benefits of cooperation and the market will explore 
new  opportunities  for  developing  new  services  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  freight.  This  topic  addresses  the 
virtual borders between neighbouring operators and operating environments, 
directly  supporting  the  seamless  delivery  of  services.  By  exchanging 
experiences and data, and connecting equipment 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  responsibilities,  neither  providers  nor 
customers  are willing to  invest  or buy.  Though  the  whole  ITS  ecosystem  is 
affected,  issues  relating  to  deployment  of  in-vehicle  applications,  and 
(autonomous) safety-enhancing ones in particular, need to be addressed first.  

The  action  areas  targeted  under  Option  B  are  considered  to  constitute  or  affect  the 
fundamental  building  blocks  required  for  the  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 objectives and will indirectly support development 
and deployment of applications as part of the priority ITS domains which were identified 
previously during the stakeholder 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 

s
n
i
a
m
o
D
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l

p
p
A
y
t
i
r
o
i
r
P

Traffic Management 

Congestion 
(corridors & cities) 

Co-modality 

Safety & Security 
(Commercial transport) 

Road Safety 

Travel Information 
(RTTI) 

Efficiency 

+ 

+/0 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

+ 

++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

0 

+/0 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+/0 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

0 

35 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Logistic Operations 

Option  B  will  result  in  an  agenda  for  measures  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  and  mature  services,  at  lower  production 
and  operation  costs  and  with  higher  quality.  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, the establishment of a 
reinforced framework for concertation and coordination is central, because leading 
to a common vision on the deployment of ITS in Europe and resulting in synchronised 
actions. 

Relevance of chosen priority action areas: 

Identification and definition of these five main priority action areas took place during the 
consultation process (see 1 — Consultation of stakeholders), by comparing their potential 
effect  (=  the  impact  of  tackling  the  dedicated  topics  described)  on  the  key  objectives, 
being  interoperability,  cooperation,  solving  liability  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  identified,  none  of  them  could  be  removed  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 chains, and the need to 
establish close cooperation among stakeholders. Once the key issues identified have been 
solved  or  clarified,  stakeholders  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  supranational,  Europe-wide  solutions  and  on  setting  up 
supportive  initiatives  with  a  wider  scope.  These  include  targeted  financial  support  for 
research,  tests  or  pilots;  standardisation  mandates;  voluntary  agreements  (based  on  the 
work  in  the  ITS  High  Level  Group)  and  regulatory  work  where  required  on  identified 
targets and global tax or incentive 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  concertation  among  all  stakeholders  involved.  It  is 
expected  that  top-down  steering  will  be  constructive  and  effective,  resulting  in 
synchronised actions that will allow individual ITS services to penetrate the market in a 
more harmonised and better-supported way than in the baseline scenario.  

Option  B  will  make  optimal  use  of  the  instruments  available  to  the  Commission’s 
services  by  delivering  underpinned  requests  for  standardisation  and  identifying  and 
prioritising requirements for financial support and legislative work. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
5.3. 

Policy Option B+: Option B extended with a comitology procedure  

Description: 

Option B+ builds on the same measures as introduced under Option B but formalises the 
concertation and coordination aspect by replacing the ITS High Level Group with 

•  an  ITS  Comitology  Committee,  constituted  of  Member  States’  representatives  to 
in  well-defined  areas 
in  adopting  specific  measures 
assist 
(corresponding  to  the  basic  enabling  measures  of  Option  B)  via  a  comitology 
procedure, and  

the  Commission 

•  an  advisory  group  constituted  of  private  sector  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 States and develop an overall vision on 

ITS deployment in Europe 

•  oversee  the  development  of  harmonised  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  development  of  technical  requirements, 
guidelines,  specifications  and  conditions  to  ensure  a  harmonised, 
interoperable  and  open  development  and  deployment  of  ITS  for 
Roads in an integrated and coordinated 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  passengers,  including 
those  facilitating  the  interconnection  of  interurban  and  urban 
transport systems, 

Road safety and security 

The definition of an open functional platform for (in-vehicle) ITS 
Services 

EN 

37 

   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 addressed by other comitology committees, e.g. those 
responsible  for  EETS  (the  European  Electronic  Toll  service  Directive  2004/52/EC), 
digital  tachograph  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  2135/98)  and  vehicle  type-approval 
(Directive 2007/46/EC). However, if synergy could be obtained by integrating devices or 
services  falling  under  the  responsibility  of  different  committees,  common  meetings 
between them could be arranged.  

Concrete  legislative  proposals  to  be  decided  by  the  Commission  using  the  comitology 
procedure will however be underpinned by an additional and specific impact assessment.  

In  parallel  with  the  ITS  Committee  an  advisory  group  constituted  of  senior  ITS 
stakeholders  would  be  created.  This  forum  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  use  of  ITS  in  the  European  Community.  The 
advisory group would bring together about twenty representatives of relevant ITS service 
providers,  associations  of  users,  transport  and  facilities  operators,  manufacturing 
industry, social partners and 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  Committee,  to  decide  in  specific  areas 
(where necessary) will be strictly limited to those areas that require a supra-national 
approach and common guidelines and specifications in order to arrive 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 constitution of a European ITS Committee to assist 
the  Commission  in  dedicated  areas  of  action.  Option  B+  provides  the  best  chances  for 
moving  on  rapidly,  and  minimises  the  risks  of  not  delivering  the  expected  results,  by 
giving the Commission the possibility, after closely consulting all the stakeholders, to put 
forward proposals for legislation via comitology. Under such a scenario the Commission 

EN 

38 

   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 standardised 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 already 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 impacts 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  the  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  regarding  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  ITS  deployment  are  related  to  support  in 
achieving the following (transport) policy objectives: 

•  the economic impact: reduction of congestion on roads, competitiveness  (of 
industry,  cost  of  ITS  applications,  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  quality  and  noise,  energy 
efficiency  and  targets  related  to  co-modality  (passenger  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 

39 

   EN 

 
The time perspective under each option and indicator is considered to be from short to 
medium-term  (up  to  2020).  Longer-term  impacts  (beyond  2020)  typically  result  from 
increasing  awareness,  the  application  of  new  technologies,  the  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  assessment  does  not  attempt  to  assess  the  overall 
impacts of a better take-up of any of the very different ITS applications concerned. The 
present  exercise  is  rather  an  attempt  to  show  the  impact  of  possible  EU  measures  to 
influence the coordinated delivery 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  assessment.  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 results from previous EU-financed 
research  and  deployment  projects,  stakeholder  interviews,  desk  research  and  support 
from external consultants (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  addressed  and  different  process  alternatives  and 
delivery mechanisms to foster enhanced cooperation. 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 costs 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  decided.  The  support  of  the  private  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  recent  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 applications investigated are 
profitable from society’s point of view with benefit-to-cost ratios from 1.6 to 4. 

6.1.2.  Use of TRANSTOOLS simulations  

implementing 

the  effects  of 

The  transport  model  TRANSTOOLS  has  been  used  to  generate  additional,  quantitative 
the  various  policy  options. 
input  for  estimating 
TRANSTOOLS is a European transport network model covering passenger transport and 
freight,  as  well  as  intermodal  transport.  The  selection  of  model  features  is  based  on 
policy needs addressed by the European Commission services. The instrument combines 
various  modules  including  economic  indicators  (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 

29 

30 

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. 
World  Road  Association  (PIARC)  (2004)  ITS  Handbook,  2nd  ed.;  US  Department  of 
Transportation (2005): Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits, Costs and Lessons Learned. 
www.eimpact.eu > Presentations of the final conference 26 June 2008. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
able to simulate the evolution of transport and economic development related indicators 
according  to  various  scenarios,  and  was  proposed  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  deployment  of  ITS,  which  is  the  general  objective  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  achieving  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  objectives  of  Option  B,  by  comparing  its  expected  outcome 
against  the  ‘baseline  evolution’,  the  estimated  evolution  under  the  baseline  scenario 
(Option A) 

Having  been  introduced  at  a  very  early  phase  of  the  exercise,  TRANSTOOLS 
simulations  were  run  to  assess  the  scenarios  proposed  by  JRC,  namely  ‘clean  & 
efficient’,  ‘safe  &  secure’  and  ‘mobility  &  logistics’.  A  fourth,  combined  scenario 
integrates the measurement of these three scenarios. The main assumptions include lower 
accident  rates  due  to  further  penetration  of  advanced  safety  systems  (resulting  from  a 
previous JRC GALILEO study), electronic charging for trucks in most countries, urban 
pricing in major European capitals and lower 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  that  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  happening  with  market  forces  alone.  (cf.  JRC 
summary report31) 

6.1.3.  Uncertainty surrounding the impact analysis  

ITS  are  enabling  technologies  whose  deployment  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  implemented  in  a  coordinated  way  by  various 
independent stakeholders. The progress of these processes is difficult to predict. 

The effect of the instruments proposed in the context of this initiative, basically financial 
support,  legislation,  standardisation  and  support  for  voluntary  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  congestions,  lower  fuel  consumption/costs,  better 
reliability or improved safety enhance the attractiveness of driving. This might result in 
higher  road  transport  demand  both  for  passenger  and  freight  (induced  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 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6.2. 

Impact of Policy Option A — No additional 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 personal safety devices and services. 

6.2.1.  Direct impacts 

Under policy Option A, the set objectives are hardly approached: 

(a) 

interoperability and continuity of services: 

•  operational  deployment  of  ITS  services  is  still  hindered  by  limited  and 
difficult  access  to  the  necessary  traffic  and  travel  data,  especially  across 
borders and different modes, and unsolved legal and liability requirements 

•  pan-European  deployment, 

common  quality 

and  possible 
harmonisation regarding operations procedures (what will be delivered?) are 
undermined by local initiatives and the absence of Europe-wide concertation. 
As  a  result  consumers  are  confronted  with  discontinuities  in  services  they 
might be used to on their national or local network, and they might have to 
face a variety of user procedures and different ‘look and feel’ of similar ITS 
services, if they are provided at all 

levels 

(b) 

concertation and coordination: 

•  markets continue to suffer from a lack of vision and concertation among key 
stakeholders,  so  there  will  less  likelihood  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  —  especially  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  decisions  for  both  public  and  private 
funding.  In  the  absence  of  a  clear  vision  of  the  future  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 — considered 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 where the service is provided. As such 

EN 

42 

   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-enhancing  applications  and  life-
saving  services  will  result  in  continued  unacceptably  high  levels  of  road 
fatalities in the EU as a whole, generating high costs for society (medical, 
police intervention, material damage, etc.) 

In  2004,  Germany  alone  estimated  that  road  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-friendly  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  continue  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 from TRANSTOOLS simulations indicate: 

•  road traffic congestion, expressed as congested vs total driving 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  and  inland  waterways  combined)  to  increase 

from €128.6 billion (2007)  to €144.3 billion in 2020; 

•  fuel  consumption  (Mtoe)  and  emission  of  CO2  (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 
indirectly  supporting 
fields, 
on  enabling  actions  and  application 
development and wider deployment of ITS services 

Policy Option B is based on a reinforced framework for concertation and coordination, 
and focuses on ‘horizontal’ enabling actions: 

32 
33 

Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt), BASt-Info 2/2006. 
CE Delft et al. (2007): Handbook on estimation of external cost in the transport sector; available 
under http://ec.europa.eu/transport/costs/handbook/index_en.htm. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Definition of an open functional platform for (in-vehicle) ITS Services 

•  Cooperation among stakeholders  

•  Access to road and traffic data, optimisation 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 Option B have been identified as directly 
affecting the key objectives and therefore as core 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, limiting the use of resources at the EC level 
and for the whole ITS community. 

The key message is that we must seek a multiplier effect with the instruments available to 
the  Commission’s  services  and  obtain  synergies;  central  to  this  option  are  the 
establishment of a modular approach 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  functionalities  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 market 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  proprietary  data  protocols  and  transmission 
interfaces  and  present  a  variety  of  Human  Machine  Interactions  (HMI).  Although  this 
development  started  in  commercial  vehicles  (fleet  management  and  e-freight  systems), 
the market for devices with navigation or traveller support functionalities has expanded 
rapidly. 

This  action  focuses  on  a  universal  platform  with  open  functionalities,  equipped  with  a 
safe interface (command functions, screen) and offering an easy plug-in and connection 
for mobile devices. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
This modular concept will include positioning, communication, processing and possibly 
identification  capabilities;  the  re-use  of  functional  components  and  installed  equipment 
will lead to major savings for suppliers, service providers and customers. 

The  market  alone  cannot  be  expected  to  deliver  fast  and  coordinated  integration  of 
devices with these functionalities without EU cooperation and legislation. 

Fig 5.2: Relationship between actions and objectives (open platform) 

Specific targets under this action therefore include: 

–  the  development  of  standardised  functionalities  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 requirements, e.g. a vehicle identification tag to 
be used for certain environmental charges 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 applications 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  provision,  service  delivery  and  management  of  operational 
requirements.  The  concept  and  pilot  deployment  have  been  developed  and  tested  in 
research  projects  (GST34  —  General  System  for  Telematics),  which  addressed  security 
and  privacy  issues  as  well.  While  the  embedded  kernel  permits  technically  sound  and 
safe  deployment  and  connection  to  the  vehicle  (in  order  to  integrate  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 

45 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
provision  through  the  on-board  Human  Machine  Interaction  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  equipped  users  they  will  be  able  to 
compete effectively on the basis of quality and price, to provide tailor-made 
services better responding to users’ needs 

•  Customers will be able to freely select their service 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 longer requiring time-wasting appointments 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  applications  (ISA,  LDW,  ACC,  etc.,  all  in  the  €100-250  range)  thanks  to 
synergies and re-use of components, together 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  effectiveness  of  the  services  provided 
(warning,  routing  advice)  and  allowing  improvement  and  user-based 
approaches. 

(c) 

Longer-term perspective 

In  the  longer  term  this  initiative  will  support  the  development  of  cooperative  systems, 
building  on  standardised  data  exchange  between  vehicles  and  ‘communication  portals’ 
along the roadside. 

Such  applications  would  allow  faster  warnings  of  ambient  driving  conditions  and 
unexpected  queues  and  cut  costs  for  road  operators  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 

46 

   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  investments;  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) aware of the potential of ITS to 
help  achieve  policy  objectives,  lacks  knowledge,  especially  at  senior  level, 
and  is  not  driven  by  the  need  to  realise  economies  of  scale  or  create 
synergies: in case of need, 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  national  and  regional/  local 
authorities. Any measure in this field must therefore be directed 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  enabling:  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 sector involved, would help provide a clear 
vision  of  the  future  of  European  transport  policy  and  the  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  leading  role  for  public  sector  investments.  Targeted 
investments  by  the  public  sector  are  considered  to  be  a  major  driving  force  for 
private  sector  initiatives  and  developments,  especially  where  piggy-backing 
would enhance synergies and deliver cost reductions. 

The role of the High Level Group would be 

•  to  exchange  information,  best  practices  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 industry-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 and initial investments required for long-

term growth in ITS deployment 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
•  to produce recommendations for standardisation 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  field  include:  training  and  dissemination, 
especially  to  authorities  and  decision-makers;  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  costs  and  benefits  of  ITS  early  deployment 
projects and the establishment 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 advisory role vis-à-vis the EC, it is not 
clear  if  the  initiative  will  bring  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 (which 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 basis for allocating traffic to the most 
appropriate road segments, and to encourage 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  strategies  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  composed  of  representatives  from 
national  transport  and  industry  ministries,  which  turned  out  to  be  most 
helpful  for  exchanging  views  but  failed  when  it  came  to  agreeing  on  clear 
actions to be taken or on common specifications to be adopted. 

Conclusion: The direct impact on key objectives can be estimated as follows: 

Interoperability 

Cooperation 

Privacy & liability 

EN 

48 

   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  responsibilities  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 authorities 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 applications, and mechanisms to add real-time 
information.  For  example,  speed  information  applications  adjusted  dynamically 
by  integrating  real-time  information  on  traffic  and  road  conditions  (slippery 
roads, identified obstacles and traffic queues 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 transport modes will enhance co-modality and 
foster the greening of freight corridors. A major prerequisite for appropriate ITS 
instruments  providing  seamless  support  to  travellers  and  hauliers  is  real-time 
access to data, and agreed formats for data exchange and data integration. 

Conclusion: The direct impact of this action on key objectives can be estimated as 
follows: 

Interoperability 

Cooperation 

Privacy & liability 

EN 

49 

   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: who is the owner, how can the data be used/ not used; 

what happens if data provided cause nuisances, even accidents?  

•  deployment  of 

safety-enhancing 

risk  of 
inappropriate use, what happens in case of failure? The action also deals with 
ownership of services, and aspects of security and privacy of data (exchange 
of data being the core of ITS). 

(in-vehicle)  applications: 

Typical ITS applications that will benefit from solving these issues include Lane 
Departure  Warning,  Collision  Avoidance  and  Emergency  Braking  Systems. 
Broad market take-up will lead to a drastic 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 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  less  risk  of  driver  inattention:  concentrating  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  Administration  (NHTSA)  and  the  Virginia  Tech 
Transportation  Institute  (VTTI),  driver  inattention  is  a  leading  factor  in 
most crashes and near-crashes. Nearly 80 % of crashes and 65 % of near-
crashes  involved  some  form  of  driver  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 (and environment): McKeever (1998) estimated that 26 % 
of fatal and 30 % of injury crashes could be prevented by a general deployment 
of in-vehicle, infrastructure-based or cooperative ITS systems in the US, while 
an OECD (2003) report conservatively predicted a reduction of almost 40 % for 
both  categories  combined.  Examples  of  autonomous  in-vehicle  systems  to  be 
considered  include  Electronic  Stability  Control  (ESC),  Automatic  Crash 
Avoidance (ACA), Lane Departure Warning (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 safety applications, they are more likely to 
consider buying combined comfort/ safety-enhancing applications (e.g. intelligent 
speed adaptation combined with information on black spots).  

One  such  service  that  would  definitely  profit  from  a  ‘package  introduction’  is 
eCall36, 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 the overall value chain:  

35  
36  

TRACE Project N° 02773, Deliverable D4.1.1 – D6.2, review of crash effectiveness of ITS. 
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 

51 

   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,  expected  to  result  in  a  70 %  deployment 
rate in new cars by 2020 (see Fig. 5.4). 

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

eCall functionality

Non eCall functionality

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

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 telematics platform drastically reduces 
costs  and  increases  eCall’s  attractiveness;  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 extended across networks and modes to provide 
seamless support to travellers (and hauliers); consistency of messaging, thanks to 
optimal sharing of data and enhanced cooperation, and a set of agreed minimum 
rules to be respected by all players will avoid confusion and reduce unnecessary 
kilometres driven, reducing emissions and fuel consumption. 

interaction  between 

Dynamic information and personalised routing support and guidance will result in 
transport  modes, 
enhanced 
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  congestion  and  smoother  traffic  conditions 
resulting  from  dynamic  speed  harmonisation  and  ‘green  waves’  into  the  city 
centres  

individual  and  collective 

EN 

52 

   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 

53 

   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-route  reservation  for  public  transport, 
while user needs and customer satisfaction can be better addressed 

More  reliable  real-time  travel  and  traffic  information  (RTTI)  will  enhance 
efficient  and  flexible  route  planning,  allowing  time  savings  and  minimising 
nuisance  on  sensitive  parts  of  the  road  network,  by  reducing  the  need  for 
transport.  

US  studies  show  up  to  25 %  reduction  in  travel  time/congestion  when 
implementing  adequate  navigation  strategies  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  financial  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  implementation  of  public  sector  applications  and 
policy-led  provisions  relating  to:  respect  for  social  regulations  (resting/driving 
times),  the  transport  of  live  animals,  the  internalisation  of  external  costs, 
requirements  for  dangerous  goods  monitoring  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  Electronic  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  strategies  and  the  internalisation  of 
external  costs  strategies.  Deployment  of  applications  building  on  the  high-
precision positioning offered by Galileo 

37  

COM(2007) 607 Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(g) 

Efficiency gains, competitiveness: 

An  open,  interoperable  platform  would  facilitate  add-on  services  to  e.g.  fleet 
management  systems,  contributing  to  the  effectiveness  of  daily  transport-linked 
operations, making our enterprises more competitive and indirectly enlarging the 
ITS market, enhancing competition (internal market) 

Priority  from  the  infrastructure  side  will  be  given  to  the  Trans-European  Road 
network  and  the  main  hubs  (ports,  airports,  and  railway  freight  yards);  a  swift 
market  take-up  of  interoperable  in-vehicle  platforms  will  however  reduce  the 
need  for  roadside-based  investments  and  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 about 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 result 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 … 

Option B: 
ITS Action Plan with 
emphasis on enabling 
actions, synergies and 
coordination 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t

e
p
m
o
C

n
o

i
t
s
e
g
n
o
C

n
o

i
t
c
u
d
e
R

s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
C

t

h
w
o
r
G

f

y
t
e
a
S
d
a
o
R

t

n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
S

e
g
n
a
h
C
e

t

a
m

i
l

C

y
t
i
l

a
u
Q

r
i

A

i

e
s
o
N

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E
y
g
r
e
n
E

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Risk: relying on a voluntary High Level Group for 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 separate 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 envisaged under Option B, but replaces the 
High Level Group by a an ITS Committee constituted by Member States’ delegates 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  an  advisory  group  bringing  together  senior  key  representatives  from  all  industrial 
sectors. 

The rationale behind this is that the High 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’  delegates  would  be  invited  to  discuss  among 
peers  the  issues  that  are  considered  relevant  and,  among  other  things,  to  decide  on 
priorities  for  Europe-wide  deployment  of  ITS,  on  harmonisation  of  services  and 
minimum  requirements  for  these  (voluntary  approach)  and  on  priorities  for  legislative 
work, standardisation and possibly EC funding. 

The main gain would come from a better concertation among Member States, leading to 
faster decision-making procedures and shorter times for processing legislative work, for 
example. 

Additional  added  value  is  expected  in  the  area  of  awareness-raising  and  possible  ‘soft’ 
measures (voluntary agreements, joint set-up of demonstration and trial projects, etc.) 

Dedicated application domains where the Committee (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  management  operations,  information  services, 
deployment  of  typical  Advanced  Driver  Assistance  Systems  (navigation,  Speed 
Alert,  Lane  Keeping  Systems)  and  autonomous  (in-vehicle)  safety  enhancing 
applications, e.g. 

–  Speed  Alert  analysed  all  elements  relative  to  the  deployment  of  intelligent 
it 

vehicle  adaptation  and  provided  recommendations  how 
implemented throughout Europe  

to  have 

–  Rosatte38  is  expected  to  provide  a  framework  for  the  collection,  processing 
and  integration  of  road  data  at  all  administrative  levels,  and  to  establish  a 
procedure for accelerating the incorporation 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  map  for  having  these  services  operational 
and implemented throughout Europe. 

38  

ROSATTE  (7FP)  addresses  a  common  ROad  Safety  ATTributes  Exchange  infrastructure  in 
Europe, which should facilitate access to accurate and up-to-date road data required for advanced 
ITS applications, including their integration in digital maps. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  line  with  this  action,  the  EIC  could  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 widely 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 voluntary basis by all Member States  

(2) 

Continuity of ITS services for freight and passengers, including those facilitating 
the interconnection of interurban and urban transport systems, as e.g. required for 
cross-border multi-modal travel planners 

 A  number  of  projects  (eMotion40,  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  concertation  and  coordination,  leading  to 
consistent,  harmonised  (and  prioritised)  deployment  of  services  throughout 
Europe 

EasyWay, an ITS for Roads deployment project supported by the EC, is preparing 
specifications  and  minimum  requirements  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  appropriate  body  to  endorse  these  and  a 
mechanism  to  have  the  specifications  incorporated  into  the  national  deployment 
schemes 

The  Committee  proposed,  bringing  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 Operation Tests and large-scale trials where major public 

investments are required. 

39  

40  

41  

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). 
eMotion (FP6, RTD): analyses of the organisational, legal, economic and technical framework of 
a Europe-wide multimodal traffic information service, including proof of concept. 
i-Travel (FP7, RTD): research project aiming at realising the always-connected traveller. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  EIC  would  also  be  mandated  to  process  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  and  the  environment  will  be  introduced 
earlier than in the other policy options, leading to quicker savings on travel times, 
accidents and emissions. 

Industry would benefit from the clear policy and vision which will be defined by 
the  Committee  and  could  piggy-back  on  the  mandatory  introduction  of  specific 
ITS  measures  of  public  interest.  Value-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  decreasing  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 predict 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  reduction  of  administrative  costs  thanks  to  a 
better  consultation  and  concertation  process  with  Member  States,  and  better  chances  to 
raise awareness of ITS among (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 … 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

n
o
i
t
s
e
g
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
u
d
e
R

s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
C

h
t
w
o
r
G

y
t
e
f
a
S
d
a
o
R

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
S

e
g
n
a
h
C
e
t
a
m

i
l

C

Option B+: 
Option B plus 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

y
t
i
l

a
u
Q

r
i

A

+ 

i

e
s
o
N

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E
y
g
r
e
n
E

+ 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comitology 

6.5. 

Administrative costs  

The  policy  Options  B  and  B+  are  mainly  concerned  with  the  creation  of  the  right 
framework conditions for coordination. For these options, the administrative costs for the 
European Commission are taken into account at this stage. As it is not certain if and how 
the  concrete  measures  and  instruments  will  take  shape,  with  the  assistance  of  the  ITS 
Committee or High Level Group, the implementation costs are difficult to estimate. It can 
only be done at a later stage (cf. 5.1.1) 

Administrative costs for EC intervention will relate to setting up (a framework for) more 
intense  concertation  and  coordination  among  stakeholders;  defining  and  managing 
financial  support  for  research,  real-life  testing  and  Europe-wide  deployment;  defining 
functional requirements and organising 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  costs  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 immediately result in savings of billions of euros, 
but the relevant implementation costs need to be taken into account. 

Implementation  costs  for  other  parties  could,  for  example,  include  (1)  the  required 
investments  in  roadside-based  and  in-vehicle  equipment  (setting  up  and  operating 
services is considered to be part of a business process, where benefits cover all implied 
costs), (2) the implementation of legislative work at national level and (3) participation in 
concertation  bodies  and  (4)  collective  planning  /  managing  of  standardisation,  and 
deployment of services including testing/evaluation. 

Public 

carried by 

Industry 

Citizens 

Types of costs 

Infrastructure linked ITS 

In-vehicle linked ITS 

Coordination 

Standardisation 

Administrative 

Tab. 5.2: Types of costs likely to be attributed (grey 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 

59 

   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… 

Option A 

Option B 

Option B+ 

Interoperability 

Cooperation 

Privacy & liability 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

Tab. 6.1: Comparison of policy options against evaluation criteria (direct impact on objectives) 

Under  Option  A,  non-existent  progress  in  domains  related  to  interoperability  (and 
synergies, leading to cost reductions) and to privacy and liability issues is very likely. As 
for  concertation  and  cooperation  among  stakeholders,  it  is  currently  happening  through 
existing fora, but remains fragmented and misses the critical mass to trigger change and 
evolution.  Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  expected  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  higher  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 deployment of ITS; it would be assisted by 
a dedicated European ITS Committee, constituted by delegates from all Member States, 
and  a  separate  advisory  group  bringing  together  (high-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 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
7.1.2. 

Indirect impacts: 

Economy 

Society 

Environment 

Impacts on … 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
C

n
o
i
t
s
e
g
n
o
C

n
o
i
t
c
u
d
e
R

Option A 

Option B 

+ 

+ 

Option B+ 

++ 

++ 

s
r
e
m
u
s
n
o
C

+ 

+ 

y
t
e
f
a
S
d
a
o
R

+ 

++ 

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

+ 

+ 

h
t
w
o
r
G

+ 

+ 

y
t
i
r
u
c
e
S

+ 

++ 

e
g
n
a
h
C
e
t
a
m

i
l

C

+ 

+ 

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E
y
g
r
e
n
E

y
t
i
l

a
u
Q

r
i

A

i

e
s
o
N

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

Tab. 6.2: Comparison of policy options against evaluation 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.  Compared  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-related criteria of reduced congestion, higher 
road safety and less impact of road transport 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  Commission  through  the  comitology  procedure. 
The  main  advantage  of  Option  B+  is  a  faster and more harmonised deployment  of ITS 
services. The positive impacts anticipated 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 reduce CO2 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 particular regarding cooperation and the potential 
to  speed  up  agreements  on  particular  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  would  be  a  Directive.  A  Directive  is  the 
appropriate  instrument,  as  the  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 European ITS Committee, the technical details in 
support of the implementation of the Directive. A regulation would be too prescriptive, 
considering  that  many  of  the  required  actions  and  the  level  of  deployment  of  ITS  vary 
from  country  to  country.  Only  a  Directive  will  enable  Member  States  sufficiently  to 
adjust the framework established according to their individual needs. 

EN 

61 

   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 contribution by intelligent transport systems to the overall goals 
of efficiency, safety and a cleaner environment. 

These  actions  are  of  an  enabling  and  cross-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 Action 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  made  by  2012  and  that  this  report  should  also 
provide the opportunity to propose possible further actions. 

General objectives 

(Quicker) Take-up of ITS for roads 

Indicators 
(cid:131)  Deployment and level of services for ICT 

infrastructure, traveller information, 
traffic management and freight and 
logistics services 

(cid:131)  Penetration rate of ITS applications in 
new/existing vehicles (market shares) 
(cid:131)  Number of national and local demand 

management and access control schemes 
introduced  

(cid:131)  Number of new service providers in the 

ITS market 

(cid:131)  Definition of a functional open platform 

for (in vehicle) deployment of ITS 

(cid:131)  Measures to achieve/ ensure connectivity 

of nomadic devices in a safe way 

(cid:131)  Solutions for vehicle-specific 

requirements, e.g. vehicle identification 

Achievement of interoperability regarding 
applications and services; synergies to be 
obtained 

EN 

62 

   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  

(cid:131)  Production of a vision document 
(cid:131)  Coordination mechanism in place 
(cid:131)  Detailed strategies for tackling main 

barriers 

To solve privacy and liability issues 

(cid:131)  Definition of a general framework 

Improved quality of seamless traffic 
management and real-time Traffic and 
Travel Information (RTTI) services 

Improvements in road and personal safety  

describing service ownership, risks and 
responsibilities of providers and 
customers 

(cid:131)  Establishment of a code of practice 

relative to the sharing and re use of data 
linked to deployment of ITS  

(cid:131)  Ratio of average speed to free speed 
(cid:131)  Change in journey time and average 

speed during peak hours  

(cid:131)  Number of multi-modal journey planners 
(cid:131)  Availability of multi-modal and/or real-

time information  

(cid:131)  Total logistics costs to shippers 
(cid:131)  Modal split for passenger and freight 

transport 

(cid:131)  Energy savings and emissions avoided 
(cid:131)  Greenhouse gas emissions (fuel 

consumption) 

(cid:131)  Indicators on air pollution43 
(cid:131)  Harmonised noise indicators44 
(cid:131)  Market share of cars equipped with safety 

systems 

(cid:131)  Number of (road) traffic accidents 
(cid:131)  Number of road fatalities and injured 

43  
44  

Directive 2004/461/EC specifies the air quality monitoring and reporting in the Member States. 
Directive 2002/49/EC on Environmental Noise requires authorities to draw up noise maps using 
harmonised indicators. 

EN 

63 

   EN