COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analysis of Member States reports Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Implementation of Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport
Date: 2019-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, data protection, delegated legislation, information technology, intelligent transport system, personal data, protection of privacy, road safety, road transport, technical specification

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.10.2019  SWD(2019) 373 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Analysis of Member States reports Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  Implementation of Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport {COM(2019) 464 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

Directive 2010/40/EU 

A - ANALYSIS OF 2014 REPORTS ON NATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS .................................... 2 

1. 

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 2 

2.  GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................. 2 

3.  DETAILED ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................... 3 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

Priority area I: Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data............................................. 3 

Priority Area II: Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services ................. 9 

Priority Area III: ITS road safety and security applications .......................................... 11 

Priority Area IV: Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure ....................... 15 

4.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 17 

5.  SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT PROGRESS REPORTS ........................................................................... 17 

B - ANALYSIS OF 2017 REPORTS ON NATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS .................................. 19 

1. 

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 19 

2.  GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................... 19 

3.  DETAILED ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................... 20 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

Priority area I: Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data........................................... 22 

Priority area II: Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services ................ 27 

Priority area III: ITS road safety and security applications ........................................... 29 

Priority area IV: Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure ....................... 32 

3.5.  Other initiatives / highlights ............................................................................................... 33 

4.  KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIS) .................................................................................. 35 

4.1.  Deployment KPIs ................................................................................................................. 35 

4.2.  Benefit KPIs ......................................................................................................................... 37 

4.3. 

Financial KPIs ..................................................................................................................... 38 

5.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 39 

6.  SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT PROGRESS REPORTS ........................................................................... 41 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
A - ANALYSIS OF 2014 REPORTS ON NATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The  present  document  summarises  the  analysis  of  the  national  progress  reports  of  20141, 
provided by the Member States as per Article 17(3) of Directive 2010/40/EU2.  

The  guidelines  for  reporting,  adopted  as  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  13.7.20113 
indicate  that  "The  reports  to  be  provided  under  Article  17(3)  of  Directive  2010/40/EU, 
hereinafter  referred  as  ‘the  progress  reports’,  should  follow  the  same  structure  as  the  initial 
report and should highlight the progress made since the previous report."  

This  analysis  takes  also  into  account  reports  received  in  2014  and  2015  regarding  the 
implementation  of  the  already  adopted  specifications  for  the  priority  actions  of  the  ITS 
Directive and the reports provided under the eCall Decision No 585/2014/EU. 

This summary constitutes an overview of these national reports, based solely on their content 
and on the Commission’s understanding of these reports. It includes examples and highlights 
on the implementation of the different specifications adopted under the ITS Directive. Further 
specific analysis of the implementation of the related Regulations and of the eCall Decision 
may be carried out as necessary. 

2. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 

Twenty-nine national progress reports have been received (28 Member States and Norway4). 
Approximately half of them  did  meet  the deadline of the 27 August  2014. Reception of the 
remaining reports spanned until September 2015, therefore this analysis gives a picture of a 
relatively wide period. 

Many  reports  provided  some  figures  on  past  and  future  investments  in  ITS  research  and 
deployment,  or  on  equipment  and  operating  costs,  or  on  the  number  of  equipment  or  on 
project  costs.  Several  reports  mentioned  extensive  figures  and/or  detailed  maps  (e.g.  Czech 
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, United Kingdom), sometimes only at project level, and 
in  the absence of a  general  framework for those  figures, it was however  not  always easy to 
interpret  and  compare  them  or  to  see  the  evolution  since  2011.  In  this  respect,  as  already 
stated  for  the  2011  reports,  the  availability  of  comparable  performance  indicators  and 
percentages would have facilitated a benchmarking and monitoring of ITS deployment across 
Europe. 

1 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/its_national_reports_en.htm  
2 OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1 
3 OJ L 193, 23.7.2011, p.48 

4 Norway’s 2014 and 2017 reports have been shared by Norway on a voluntary basis, and are taken into account 
in the following analyses. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
3. DETAILED ANALYSIS 

In  general  the  national  reports  provided  a  good  overview  of  the  Member  States’  (best) 
practices.  In  comparison  to  the  situation  reported  in  2011,  the  analysis  shows  a  general 
progress in all four priority areas. Unsurprisingly, all of the Member States that had already 
taken  action  in  the  development  and  deployment  of  ITS  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  ITS 
Directive have continued to be very active and advanced. Other countries having reported less 
activity in 2011 reported in general more activities in the 2014 reports. 

The  analysis  of  the  national  reports  was  structured  along  the  four  priority  areas  of  the  ITS 
Directive. The level or intensity of activity in each of the four priority areas was assessed on 
the  basis  of  the  information  contained  in  the  reports  with  a  detailed  comparison  of  the 
progress reported in 2011. This assessment resulted in the development of 8 European colour 
coded maps reflecting the Member States’ level of activity in each priority area in 2011 and 
2014, based on the following codes and definitions: 

These  maps  have  the  objective  to  highlight  general  trends  in  terms  of  level  of  activity  and 
evolution  thereof  from  2011  to  2014  for  each  priority  area  of  the  ITS  Directive  rather  than 
trying to reflect very accurately the detailed situation in each individual Member State. 

Across the four priority  areas it can be assessed  that progress  has been  made in  all areas in 
comparison to 2011 with a consolidation of Member States’ activities in priority areas I and 
II, a catching up in area III and emerging activities in several Member States for priority area 
IV. 

3.1.  Priority area I: Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data 

As stipulated in Annex I of the ITS Directive, priority area I is specifically focused upon the 
availability, accessibility and exchange of public and private road, travel and traffic data used 
for multimodal travel information, real-time traffic information services and digital maps. 

Activities in priority area I are the most documented in the reports, as illustrated in figure 1. 
Most  of  the  provided  examples  relate  to  the  development  of  national  journey  planning 
services which exist in a number of Member States. In most cases, the inclusion of dynamic 
data  is  still  limited.  Reports  include  information  regarding  national  operations,  only  limited 
examples of cross-border services in Europe have been reported. A number of Member States 
have reported activities regarding Open Data but highlighted this is still limited for fare and 
ticketing  data.  Progress  is  also  noted  in  several  Member  States  with  regards  to  the 
development  and  uptake  of  DATEX  II  for  road  and  traffic  data.  Examples  of  interesting 
initiatives (not exhaustive, in alphabetic order) and evolution since 2011 are listed hereafter. 

3 

 
 
 
Figure 1 : Priority Area I – Evolution 2011-2014 

In  Austria,  a  number  of  activities  have  been  undertaken  including  integrating  traffic 
information  displayed  in  route  planners  (ASFINAG,  ÖAMTC,  VOR,  etc.),  providing 
information to to travellers on trains position, number of trains in service and the next stops of 
a  given  train  (ÖBB  Zugradar),  provision  of  journey  planners  including  public  transport, 
cycling,  walking  and  motorised  individual  traffic  (AnachB)  as  well  as  providing  ‘on  trip’ 
information (including traffic information) and digital maps (Basemap Austria).  

In Belgium, public transport providers share schedules and real-time data to optimise waiting 
times and connections. Real-Time travel times will be available for the road network by 2017. 

In Cyprus, a real-time traffic information service was developed that is provided freely to the 
public via the website www.traffic4cyprus.org.cy. 

In Czech Republic, several detailed maps showing the deployment of different ITS services 
at  national  level  (traffic  information,  CCTV,  dynamic  traffic  control,  road  weather  systems, 
VMS, weight-in-motion etc.) are available on the Czech Space Portal5. Czech Republic also 
reports  extensive  lists  for  deployments  of  road  related  ITS  infrastructure  and,  under  the 
construction  of  a  new  eRDIS  content  management  system,  an  automatic  voice  traffic 
information  system  has  been  tested,  for  motorways  and  expressways,  to  provide,  by  2015, 
traffic news via all channels of distribution using ITS. 

In  Denmark,  a  new  traffic  information  ITS  systems  has  been  deployed  along  many  key 
motorways. A traffic and travel information service, Travikinfo, is available.  

In Estonia, a national road registry has been developed and the road information centre has 
been  upgraded  to  handle  dynamic  traffic  signs.  The  nationwide  travel  planner  has  been 
upgraded  supported  by  a  Utris  database  which  offers  public  transport  travel  information. 
Public transport stops are being upgraded with real time information. 

In  Finland,  a  new  service  called  "sujuva"  was  deployed  in  2014  that  produces  real-time 
traffic information that covers 5600 km of roads and the information is based on anonymous 
positioning  through  mobile  devices.  The  data  is  available  via  digitraffic.fi.  A  new  service 

5 http://www.czechspaceportal.cz  

4 

2011 2014    Average value = 1.8 Average value = 1.55  
 
                                                           
called  liikennetilanne.fi  (traffic  situation)  combines  information  collected  from  traffic  onto 
one map base. The service was deployed in the beginning of 2014 with  internet and mobile 
applications.  The  service  offers  information  on  disruptions  of  road  traffic,  on  road  works, 
weather and road conditions, traffic flows, camera pictures and weight limitations caused by 
frost heave. 

In  France,  the  "Tipi"  information  system  will  be  the  unique  access  point  for  the  road 
operators’ data on the whole national network providing data in DATEX II. France will also 
set up a national access point listing all service providers and the characteristics of their data 
(content, geographical coverage, access conditions). 

The  coverage  of  regional  Multimodal  Information  Systems  was  almost  completed  between 
2011 and 2014. 

2011 

2014 

In  Germany,  a  mobility  data  marketplace  has  been  established  and  foreseen  as  the  single 
point of access for Germany in terms of the delegated regulations for b), c) and e). Guidelines 
have  been  established  for  the  area-wide  collection  of  traffic  related  data  and  events:  The 
guidelines are expected to be finalised beginning of 2015, implementation until end of 2015. 
A quality management system for the collection and processing of data for ITS services has 
been established.  

In  Hungary,  the  uptake  of  DATEX  II  for  real-time  traffic  information  systems  is  well 
documented.  

In Ireland, a cross-border intermodal journey planner covering both the Republic of Ireland 
and  Northern  Ireland  is  available  on  line  at  www.transportforireland.ie.  It  includes 
information on arrivals and departures in real time, fares, taxis and a cycle planner, as well as 
a  dynamic  map  of  all  public  transport  services  in  Ireland.  In  terms  of  Real  Time  Passenger 
Information (RTPI), the system continues to be developed throughout the country, with signs 
operational in the Greater Dublin Area and other larger cities.  

In  Italy,  a  database  relating  to  traffic  and  mobility  data  and  a  public  Institution  Index  of 
information on infrastructures and traffic (IPIT) has been established. 

In Latvia, a traffic information service (ww.lvceli.lv) has been established.  

In Lithuania, a multimodal public transport journey planning database system (VINTRA) has 
been established and has been adapted to integrate RTTI requirements. 

In  the  Netherlands,  data  on  traffic  (including  parking)  and  on  public  transport  are  made 
available  through  the  national  data  warehouse  (NDW)  for  motorways/highways/urban-
through-route traffic information, the national data project for public transport (NDOV), and 
through  regional  initiatives  such  as  (cities)  Open  Parking  Data,  or  Open  Data  FWD.  The 
MMRI  project  related  to  multimodal  travel  information  has  stimulated  5  journey  planners 
providing  real-time  information.  For  standardisation,  platforms  such  as  MOGIN  (discussion 
5 

 
 
 
 
 
platform  on  MObility  and  Geo  Information  in  Netherlands),  BISON  (open  platform  on 
national information standards for public transport travel info), DVM Management Exchange 
(open platform on open standard for dynamic traffic management) are used.  

In Norway,  the development of a new system to integrate interfaces for traffic operators in 
TMC  is  being  planned.  The  NPRA  operates  an  existing  traffic  information  service  which 
includes traffic safety information. A national public transport schedule database, including a 
register of stops has been established. A timetable for a country-wide travel planning for all 
types  of  scheduled  public  transport  is  being  planned.  A  road  weather  information  system 
(Vegvear) has been implemented and is under continuous development. In February 2014 the 
NPRA started using DATEX II as the standard exchange format for RTTI.  

In Portugal, a National Data Warehouse with a web platform based on EU standards (Alert-
C, RDS-TMC, DATEX  II) is  currently  being  established. Multimodal travel  information  on 
public passenger transport is established with 3 websites in operation at national level and the 
metropolitan area of Lisbon. 

In  Slovakia,  a  central  technical  register  of  road  data  shall  be  provided  by  the  Ministry  of 
Transport, Construction and Regional Development and operated by the Road Administration 
through  the  Road  Databank.  A  Traffic  Reporting  Service  Information  System  (TRS  IS)  has 
also been established. 

In Spain, Seasonal Traffic Management linked to the summer crossing of foreign vehicles. 

In  Sweden,  a  RDT  database  for  traffic  regulations  and  rules  has  been  established.  It  is 
connected  to  a  digital  map  of  the  Swedish  National  Road  Database.  A  technical  platform 
(oppnadata.se) for publishing open data has been developed. 

In  the  UK,  many  transport  datasets  have  been  published  (NaPTAN  i.e.  350000  transport 
access nodes in GB, rail timetables, roadworks data covering 90% of England, bus timetables 
in GB PRM data, next buses API and in the future rail real-time information from the national 
rail Darwin API etc.). The metadata search and discover facility that is part of data.gov.uk and 
which is already used for the INSPIRE datasets should be used for the datasets made available 
under  the  ITS  Directive  priority  actions.  Strong  regional  activities  (Scotland,  Northern 
Ireland, Wales) on RTTI and travel information /journey times delivering through VMS, web, 
apps, RSS feeds, twitter, internet radio service.  

An  interesting  evolution  took  place  in  UK  in  September  2014,  stemming  from  the  new 
accessibility  of  transport  datasets:  as  the  Open  Data  Strategy  for  Transport  was  very 
successful  and  triggered  many  new  apps,  the  state-funded  Transport  Direct  was  stopped, 
private services based on these datasets being judged henceforth sufficient. 

Preparation of specifications pertaining to priority actions referred to in point (a) ) of 
Article 3 of the ITS Directive6  
When the national reports were submitted in 2014 it was clear that a lot of preparatory work 
for  this  priority  action  has  been  achieved  with  many  examples  of  practical  projects  or 

6  
shorthand hereafter as “specifications (a)”, “specifications (b)”etc. 

Specifications  pertaining  to  the  various  points  of  Article  3  of  the  Directive  will  be  referred  to  in 

6 

 
 
                                                           
institutional frameworks used at national level that are addressing some of the challenges to 
be overcome in this priority area, including opening up access to travel data, developing local 
and national journey planning services.  

At the time of writing, the technical specifications are currently being developed with experts 
nominated  by  Member  States  and  it  is  known  that  further  advancements  have  been  made 
including  activities  related  to  national  data  standardisation  and  the  provision  of  linking 
national and regional travel information services. 

Highlights  on  the  implementation  of  specifications  (b)7:  the  provision  of  EU-wide  real-
time traffic information services 

Member  State  National  reports  show  implementation  procedures,  for  the  provision  of  real-
time  traffic  information,  already  being  addressed,  although  differently  in  shape  and  pace 
across Europe. 

Two of the most developed approaches branch from the Netherlands and Germany. Both the 
Mobility Data Market Place in Germany or the Netherlands National Data Warehouse provide 
interfaces to integrate and re-use different types of data, making it then available for e.g. radio 
broadcasters, navigation systems and app-developers. 

In  2013,  Real  time  traffic  data  became  available  as  open  data  in  the  Netherlands  National 
Data Warehouse database, followed by the status data, in  2014, which describes the current 
traffic situations. 

The  United  Kingdom  proposes  to  use  the  existing  Government  metadata  search  and 
discovering  facility,  a  repository  hosting  data  in  native  directories  and  allowing  for 
comprehensive search capability, available to the whole UK public sector as well as to private 
organisations that wish to register their metadata for access by third parties.  

Sweden  and  Austria  show  increasingly  interest  on  the  topic  of  access  to  data,  seen  as  an 
enabler  for  the  development  of  new  applications,  e.g.  taking  into  account  the  UK  example. 
Sweden  has  created  a  platform  for  Open  Data.  Smart  phone  App  UNTERWEGS in  Austria 
provide  on  trip  information,  including  traffic  information  while  driving  and  the  ÖAMTC 
Smartphone  App  provides  information  on  Park&Ride  facilities,  public  car  parks  (prices, 
opening hours and number of available parking lots) and traffic situation. 

More classical approaches, based on their National Traffic Management/Control Centers, are 
then  presented  across  several  Member  States  for  the  provision  of  RTTI  on  the  main  road 
corridors, along motorways, such as the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Greece or Spain. 

Under  the  concept  for  "a  Connected  Island  to  provide  better  urban  and  inter-urban 
connectivity" Malta presented a 2 phase project, MODUS, to be implemented in selected road 
sections,  nationwide  and  across  all  modes  of  land  transport  and  road  users.  It  includes  the 
definition of procedures for the provision of EU-wide real time traffic and travel information 

7 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/962 of 18 December 2014 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU 
of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic 
information services - OJ L 157, 23.6.2015, p. 21  

7 

 
 
                                                           
services, addressing notably the provision of traffic information services by the private sector 
and the provision of traffic regulation data by the transport authorities. 

Highlights  on  the  implementation  of  specifications  (c)8:  data  and  procedures  for  the 
provision, where possible, of road safety related minimum universal traffic information 
free of charge to users 

21 Member States presented reports specifically addressing the implementation of priority (c), 
while 4 other Members States referenced it their national reports under the ITS Directive. 

Initial  feedback  reflects  Member  States'  broader  acknowledgment  and  understanding  of  the 
specifications implementation principles, allowing for some ruling flexibility, which leads on 
to a variety of approaches. 

Regarding  the  designated  national  body  for  the  assessment  of  compliance,  Finland  and 
Sweden  plan  to  designate  self-governing  National  related  Transport  Agencies,  while  the 
majority of the other Member States recognise those competences to fall within the Ministry 
of Transport, often (Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Norway or Spain) within departments 
different from the ones actually providing the information within the overarching Ministry of 
Transport, as to ensure independence and impartiality. 

An  interesting  example  comes  from  the  Republic  of  Croatia  stating  to  be  following  a 
consultation  with  the  neighbouring  Member  States,  for  the  possibility  of  appointing  a  joint 
body. 

So  far,  17  Member  States  have  already  designated  their  National  Body,  or  plan  to  do  so 
shortly.  

As  far  as  national  access  points  are  concerned,  there  seems  to  be  an  understanding  across 
several  Member  States  (e.g.  France,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania)  to  reuse  the  organization  in 
charged with Traffic Management.  

Also accordingly to point 2 in Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation No 886/2013, Member 
States are asked to provide reports on the progress of the specification implementation. 

In this respect, most Member States already show evidence to provide DATEX II compliant 
information on a full list of road safety-related events or conditions at the designated national 
access, or via DATEX II nodes, both in public and/or private road operators, therefore able to 
exchange the data they collect and making it available. 

As an example between two neighbouring countries, Spain, via its national body, DGT, uses 
DATEX II as the standard format for exchange of traffic management information, while in 
Portugal, despite no national body was yet assigned, all the 16 private road concessioners use 
DATEX II nodes for exchange data in compliance with EU Regulation. 

Finally,  Member  States  show  little  progress  on  the  assessment  of  compliance  with 
requirements, due most probably to the still very early stage of implementation. 

8 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, 
of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users - OJ L 247, 18.9.2013, p. 6  
8 

 
 
                                                           
3.2.  Priority Area II: Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services 

As stipulated in Annex I of the ITS Directive, priority area II is specifically focused upon the 
provisions 
traffic 
information/management control centres, ITS framework architecture, tracking and tracing of 
freight, integrated multimodal ticketing. 

freight  management  services 

traffic  and 

to  support 

including 

Some  reports  provide  interesting  elements  with  respect  to  priority  area  II  such  as  work 
undertaken  on  the  setting  up  national  traffic  management  control  centres  and  also  urban 
control  centres. Regarding ticketing, some efforts have been made by Member States in  the 
field  but  as  efforts  in  priority  area  1  have  shown,  most  of  the  efforts  are  concerned  with 
information  and  planning.  Reporting  on  activities  regarding  ITS  application  for  freight  is 
limited.  Examples  of  interesting  initiatives  (not  exhaustive,  in  alphabetic  order)  are  listed 
hereafter. 

Figure 2 : Priority Area II – Evolution 2011-2014 

In Belgium,  a nation-wide integrated ticketing system for public transport and rail has been 
established (MOBIB). 

Czech Republic  has deployed  an extensive amount of road related  ITS  infrastructure along 
core  motorways  in  the  country  including  emergency  stations,  rotating  cameras,  looping  on-
road  sensors  for  permanent  automatic  traffic  counts,  roadside  weather  stations,  variable 
message signs and electronic security systems in bridges. Participation in the POSSE project 
is  reported,  fostering  the  use  of  open  specifications  and  standards  for  traffic  management 
(together  with  German  OCA,  and  English  UTMC),  and  a  project  on  enhancing  the  use  of 
parking capacity for HGV on motorways using predictive models 

In  France,  a  blueprint  for  dedicated  lanes  for  buses  (and  possibly  other  modes  like  car-
sharing, taxis or electric vehicles) has been developed on the national road network in the Ile-
de-France region. 

In  Germany,  an  ITS  framework  architecture  for  public  transport  has  been  established  and 
recommendations  have been elaborated for  four identified areas:  1) quality  management  for 
9 

2011 2014    Average value = 2.1 Average value = 1.9  
 
 
information  logistics  in  public  transport,  2)  passenger  information  in  public  transport;  3) 
incident  management  in  public  transport  and  link  to  individual  transport;  4)  electronic, 
multimodal and interoperable ticketing system for public transport. 

In Greece, the Athens Traffic Management Center (TMC) is operational and controls the use 
of use of variable message signs and interventions in the signal control strategies.  

In  Ireland,  an  Integrated  Smart  Card  Ticketing  known  as  Leap  Card  is  expanding  rapidly 
with over a half of a million sold of which nearly 100.000 are student tickets. The service has 
been  expanded  to  Cork  on  a  pilot  basis  and  will  soon  be  available  in  Galway,  with  further 
cities in the horizon. NTA is in the process of procuring a supplier for the required Near Field 
Communications  interface  to  support  the  use  of  mobile  phones  to  read  Leap  Cards  and  top 
them up. 

In  Lithuania,  activities such  as  automated  traffic  light  management  systems,  electric  queue 
management systems are under operation and a Traffic control and enforcement system based 
on Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras is under preparation.  

In  Malta,  the  definition  of  an  ITS  framework  architecture  for  urban  transport  mobility, 
including an integrated approach for travel  planning, transport demand, traffic management, 
emergency management, road pricing, and the use of parking and public transport facilities is 
currently being elaborated.  

In  Poland,  the National  Traffic Management System (NTMS  – KSZR) project  involves the 
use of intelligent transport systems in the area of traffic management on national roads. 

In Spain, Traffic Management Centres have been set up. 

In Slovakia, telematic systems on motorways and expressways and ITS in regional and larger 
towns  in  Slovakia  have  been  established  to  support  the  removal  of  road  infrastructure 
collision  points  through  the  use  of  intelligent  transport  systems;  structural  solutions  giving 
preference  to  public  transport  vehicles  (reserved  lanes,  preference  at  crossroads  etc.)  and 
technical  solutions  in  support  of  traffic  flow  and  safety  (monitoring  systems,  intelligent 
crossroads systems, variable traffic signs etc.). 

In  Sweden,  activities  and  deployment  of  dynamic  lane  management  and  incident 
management,  and  variable  speed  limits  in  urban  areas,  and  traffic  management  plans  in 
vicinity of big cities are documented.  

In the UK,  it is  documented  that there are  3000  VMS on the highways.  Motorway  Incident 
Detection  and  Automated  Signalling  (MIDAS)  solution  has  been  shown  to  reduce  rear  end 
accidents by around 7% and this has resulted in a 13% reduction in serious injuries related to 
such  incidents.  The  UK  is  also  very  active  in  the  field  of  ‘Smart  Motorways’  utilising  data 
collection  and  traffic  management  technologies  to  make  better  use  of  existing  road  space, 
reduce congestion and add capacity, by using variable speed limits, dynamic use of the hard 
shoulder as a running lane at busy times, and on newer schemes, permanent conversion of the 
hard shoulder to a running lane. 

10 

 
 
3.3.  Priority Area III: ITS road safety and security applications 

As  stipulated  in  Annex  I  of  the  ITS  Directive,  priority  area  III  is  focused  upon  activities 
related to eCall and the data exchange between vehicles and emergency call response centres, 
safety  of  Human-Machine-Interface,  use  of  nomadic  devices,  security  of  in-vehicle 
communications, measures to improve the safety and comfort of vulnerable road users for all 
relevant  ITS  applications,  advanced  driver  support  information  systems  and  the  availability 
and exchange of truck parking information and reservation data. 

The vast majority of Member States report activity for priority area III, and many focused 
on the (preparation of) deployment of eCall and to a lesser extent services for safe and secure 
parking for trucks and other commercial vehicles. Most reports mention only the provision of 
information and far less activity is reported on the reservation of parking places. Some reports 
mention  bicycle  parking  while  others  install  alcohol-locks  (voluntarily  or  mandatory)  and 
enforcement systems such as weight-in-motion. Examples of interesting initiatives are listed 
hereafter. 

Figure 3 : Priority Area III – Evolution 2011-2014 

Belgium has conducted first eCall field tests in 2013/2014. 

In Bulgaria, the interoperability of the 112 eCall centre in Sofia with Belgium, Croatia and 
Romania has been tested successfully. 

In  Croatia,  establishment  of  the  eCall  system  and  information  services  for  safe  and  secure 
parking for trucks and commercial vehicles and the corresponding reservations system. 

In  Denmark,  traffic  information  (traffic  density,  present  and  predicted  travel  time,  average 
speed)  and  management  systems  (variable  message  signs  used  for  warnings  and  speed 
harmonisation) are present on ever more roads. 

Estonia  plans  automated  traffic  surveillance  and  accident  management  system  upgrades. 
Initiatives to share private parking lots and secure bicycle parking, bike sharing and charging 
electric bicycles. 

11 

2011 2014    Average value = 2.4 Average value = 2.2  
 
 
Finland  participated in  the HeERO 1 project  for testing eCall. The NOSCIFEL programme 
exchanges secured information on goods transport and logistics. 

In France, the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks 
and commercial vehicles is envisaged for the whole national road network. 

Germany  invested  175Mio  €  in  traffic  management  systems  and  is  progressing  with  eCall 
deployment. Up to 200km of roads will be equipped with Truck parking guidance systems. 

Greece  plans  actions  on  the  provision  of  information  of  road  safety  related  information  to 
motorists and the deployment of the eCall system is underway. 

Hungary reports work on Static &  Real-Time  Information  Services for parking systems  on 
Trans-European  Transport  Networks  (TEN-T)  corridors  and  the  build-up  of  eCall  base 
infrastructure. 

Italy  is  developing  the  national  eCall  system  and  ITS  systems  for  the  management  and 
monitoring of dangerous goods. 

Latvia considers the implementation eCall as a high national priority. 

Lithuania worked on technical specifications for final eCall installation. 

Luxemburg plans a computerised system for one parking area. 

Malta observes guidelines for parking services. 

The  Netherlands  completed  HeERO  1  harmonised  eCall  pilot  project.  Weight-in-motion, 
AOS (anti-accident), Secure Lane (camera tracking) and DRIPS (dynamic route information 
panel) systems reported large benefits for society. 

Norway plans to deploy the pan-European eCall service as of 1 January 2017 and 32 new rest 
places are to be built in 2014-2023. 

In Poland, 17 centres of rescue information started dealing with all 112 calls - both 'classical' 
and eCall. On-going installation of a central enforcement system – including speed cameras, 
weigh in motion, red light violation, etc. 

Portugal established the legally binding requirements to engage the national stakeholders and 
set up a platform to implement eCall. 

Romania  participated in  HeERO (Harmonised eCall European Pilot) and is  installing video 
surveillance systems, focused on urban areas. 

Slovakia focuses on precise positioning of transport incidents and redesigning accident black 
spots. 

Slovenia implemented eCall on motorways, integrated into existing traffic information system 
and studies future possible functionalities (e.g. video calls planned, prototypes for automatic 
language  recognition).  Some  (free  of  charge)  public  parking  places  are  secured  with  video 
surveillance. 

Spain was involved in the project HeERO2 testing the harmonised European eCall system. 

12 

 
 
The DGT is working on the establishment of a common set of minimum requirements for the 
provision of Intelligent Safe and Secure Truck Parking Information via VMS and web/apps. 

In  Sweden,  since  2012,  alco-locks  are  used  as  part  of  penalty  and  treatment  for  people 
convicted for drunk driving. It is also voluntarily implemented in some commercial fleets. 

Sweden led an Impact Assessment proving the positive socio-economic effects of eCall. 

Sweden has set up a project for introducing the specification on secure truck parking, but does 
not foresee to provide truck parking on commercial basis nor reservation services. 

UK  invested  in  enforcement  (speed  cameras,  3D  scanners,  Weigh  in  Motion  (WIM)  and 
Automatic Number Plate Recognition) and in Scotland PSAP1 is almost 112 eCall ready. 

In  2013  TfL  published  Safe  Streets  for  London:  speed  cameras  along  the  A13,  pedestrian 
countdown timers, digital speed limit map, ITS trial on London buses planned in 2015, trials 
on collision detection, blind spot technology to be fitted on HGVs. 

Highlights  on  the  deployment  of  112  eCall  in  the  PSAPs  (Public  Safety  Answering 
Points)9 

Based on the reports of the ITS Directive, which almost all mentioned the need to implement 
eCall, and on the reports due under article 3 of Decision No 585/2014/EU (unfortunately only 
11  reports  received  by  the  end  of  February  2016),  the  following  picture  can  be  drawn,  as 
shown in figure 4: 

  Five  Member  States  are  technically  ready  at  PSAP  level:  Czech  Republic,  Croatia, 
Lithuania,  Romania,  Slovenia.  Some  activities  may  still  be  necessary  regarding  in 
particular conformance testing. 

  Twelve  Member  States  participate  also  currently  in  the  two  2014  CEF  projects  I-

HeERO10 and eCall.at11. 

  Several  other  Member  States  (Estonia,  Denmark,  France,  Hungary,  Netherlands, 

Latvia) indicated on-going work and timeline in accordance with the deadline. 

  Other  Member  States  (Hungary,  Poland,  Spain,  Sweden),  although  showing 
sometimes a very high level of activity (in particular through participation in HeERO I 
or  II  pilots),  did  not  give  concrete  information  about  the  timeline  for  real 
implementation. 

  Remaining Member States (Belgium, Malta, United Kingdom except for Scotland) did 
not  report  any information about  concrete plans  for implementation  of eCall in  their 
PSAPs. 

  Thanks  to  the  HeERO  I  and  II  pilots,  and  now  with  the  I-HeERO  and  eCall.at  CEF 
projects, 19 Member States benefited from EU funding for the implementation of the 
112 eCall in their PSAPs. 

9http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/ecall_en.htm  
10https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/projects-by-country/multi-country/2014-
eu-ta-0582-s  
11https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/projects-by-country/austria/2014-at-ta-
0259-m  

13 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 4: Deployment of 112 eCall in PSAPs in 2015 

Things  are  of  course  moving  fast  in  this  domain,  as  the  deadline  set  in  the  eCall  Decision 
comes nearer, and as this figure is based on data sometimes already ancient, the situation may 
have improved at the date of publication of this analysis. The information received until now 
shows a rather general commitment of the Member States towards the deployment of eCall in 
the PSAPs, but of course does not give yet a full picture of their future compliance with the 
deadline of 1st October 2017. 

Highlights  on  the  implementation  of  specifications  (e)12:  provision  of  information 
services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles 

Member States’ reports on these activities show steadily development across Europe.  

The  German  MDM  Mobility  data  marketplace  shall  become  the  point  of  access  of  truck 
parking  information.  Until  end  of  2015  up  to  200km  of  segments  were  reported  to  be 
equipment with Truck parking guidance systems. 

Spain  is  working  on  the  establishment  of  a  common  set  of  minimum  requirements  for  the 
provision of Intelligent Safe and Secure Truck Parking Information via VMS and web based 
applications. 

Sweden has set up a study for introducing the specification on secure truck parking. Sweden 
wants to make the best use of European initiatives on ITP - Intelligent Tuck Parking, but does 
not foresee to provide truck parking on a commercial basis nor reservation services.  

12  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  885/2013  of  15  May  2013  supplementing  ITS  Directive 
2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services 
for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - OJ L 247, 18.9.2013, p. 1  

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Note:  the  European  Commission  is  managing  a  European  Access  Point  for  Truck  Parking 
Data to enable continuity of services. The European Access Point for Truck Parking aims to 
provide  access  to  static  safe  &  secure  truck  parking  data  in  DATEX  II  format.  Already  in 
March  2016,  three  Member  States  (Austria,  Germany  and  Netherlands)  have  provided  and 
published DATEX II truck parking data on the European Access Point. 

3.4.  Priority Area IV: Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure 

As  stipulated  in  Annex  I  of  the  ITS  Directive,  priority  area  IV  is  focused  upon  ITS 
applications  on  open  in-vehicle  platforms  and  the  development  and  implementation  of 
cooperative systems  including vehicle to  vehicle, vehicle to  infrastructure and infrastructure 
to infrastructure communication. 

Overall less activity is reported in priority area IV than in other areas, though considerably 
more than in 2011. Some Member States are far more active, notably those that are involved 
in  large  C-ITS  pilot  deployment  activities,  where  others  are  apparently  waiting  till  the 
effectiveness  and  efficiency  have  been  proved  on  such  much  larger  scales.  Others  report 
increased  interoperability  or  digitisation  of  tolling  systems  and  some  mention  the  EETS 
directive. Finally some Member States report testing activities in automation, which also has 
an impact on infrastructure. Examples of interesting initiatives are listed hereafter. 

Figure 5 : Priority Area IV – Evolution 2011-2014 

Austria  is  very  active  in  the  field  of  cooperative  services  and  systems  with  demonstration 
activities  in  Greater  Vienna  and  participation  in  the  C-ITS  Corridor  Rotterdam-Frankfurt-
Vienna. 

Croatia  launched  the  national  programme  for  monitoring  of  cooperative  systems  in  road 
traffic in the European Union. 

Czech  Republic  has  completed  a  project  regarding  increasing  road  safety  by  the  use  of 
cooperative systems, looking into questions of design and implementation of V2V and V2I. 

Estonia intends to implement dynamic traffic regulation with adjustable speed limits. 

15 

2011 2014    Average value = 3.2 Average value = 3.0  
 
 
France  supports  standards  on  (real-time)  connectivity  of  vehicles  (New  ISO  Work  Item 
Proposal N3401 "Extended vehicle Methodology") and is also very active in testing of C-ITS 
systems,  SCORE@F  and  COMPASS4D  were  finalised,  and  SCOOP@F,  a  large  pilot 
deployment project was launched, including large scale testing in 2016 of Co Sy in different 
configurations  (motorway,  road,  urban),  in  view  of  possible  national  deployment  as  from 
2017.. 

Germany is a partner in the C-ITS-Corridor Rotterdam – Frankfurt/Main – Vienna, where the 
first C-ITS applications for road works construction trailers will be implemented. 

In Greece, the interoperable Tolling System (GRITS) allows the use of the same transponder 
at all electronic toll lanes of the participating motorways. 

In  Hungary,  the  electronic  distance-based  toll  system  (DTS)  has  been  introduced  on  6,500 
km of the Hungarian public road network (motorways, highways, main roads). 

Ireland  has  tolling  interoperability  in  place  for  some  time,  also  taking  into  account  the 
requirements of EETS, and is evaluating Ghost Driver Signs pilots. 

Latvia reported some implementation actions, such as roadside sensing and traffic control. 

Netherlands is very active in the area of cooperative systems and field operational tests (e.g. 
COMPASS4D,  FREILOT,  Brabant  In-Car  II,  SENSOR  CITY  Mobility,  APT,  GREEN 
WAVE TEAM) are transitioning to actual implementation in the C-ITS corridor Rotterdam – 
Frankfurt/Main – Vienna. 

In Norway, the integration of different ITS in an open in-vehicle platform is being tested and 
the AutoPASS tolling system is interoperable also cross-border. A test site for C-ITS systems 
has been set up in one city and cooperative weight in motion for trucks has been implemented. 

Poland reports an extension of electronic tolling. Some regional projects related to integrated 
public transport management, red light violations and connectivity. 

In  Portugal  some  concession  holders  have  developed  solutions  and  implemented  pilot 
projects but no links with the EU activities at this stage. 

Slovakia  operates  a  satellite  tolling  system,  whose  data  on  traffic  flows  could  be  used  for 
real-time traffic information, as well as planning transport upgrades and evaluating measures 
taken. 

Slovenia has some pilots on cooperative traffic management at local level (e.g. using DSRC 
for signal bus priority & better info at bus stops in Ljubljana). 

In  Sweden,  the  Drive  Me  project  will  demonstrate  the  benefits  of  autonomous  vehicles 
around  Gothenburg,  and  advance  the  research  on  how  cars  can  handle  different  traffic 
scenarios.  A  pre-study  concluded  that  partly  autonomous  driving  is  within  the  limits  of 
current legislation. 

In the UK, several initiatives on Cooperative Systems and autonomous vehicles: on-demand 
transport services, feasibility study on heavy vehicle platooning, Oxford Driverless Car Trials, 

16 

 
 
smart  pedestrian  crossing  and  GNSS  analysis  of  cyclists  movements  through  London, 
£10million Prize Fund announcement for a city for Driverless Cars. 

4. CONCLUSION 

The  general  trend  is  a  positive  evolution  of  the  deployment  of  ITS  at  national  level,  for  all 
four  priority  areas.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  clear  how  national  activities  can  be  linked  to  a 
general improvement in terms of overall interoperability of services across the EU, this could 
deserve a more specific reporting exercise which may be beyond the reach of purely national 
reporting.  

In addition, it is difficult to provide a clear picture at a specific date of this deployment, as the 
reports  were  transmitted  for  a  period  extending  over  a  whole  year,  and  also  because  the 
reports  on  the  specifications  were  also  due  to  different  dates.  This  particular  issue  would 
advocate for a future simplification/aggregation of reporting duties in a future revision of the 
ITS legal framework. 

In accordance with the recommendations set in the analysis of the 2011 reports, the progress 
reports  provided  much  more  information  compared  to  the  2011  version,  which  allowed 
sometimes a better ranking for some Member States which were perhaps under-rated in 2011, 
but sometimes entailed artificial progression due to underestimated initial status. 

Some  limitations  of  the  initial  reports,  e.g.  the  overlaps  concerning  the  activities  related  to 
priority area I and II, still remain in the progress reports and therefore would perhaps benefit 
from more guidance before the drafting of the next reports. 

Regarding specifically eCall, most of the Member States show a strong willingness to deliver 
the upgrade of their PSAPs  infrastructure in  time. Nevertheless,  the information  provided is 
often not sufficient to be able to judge if this will be really the case, and appropriate follow-up 
will certainly be needed. 

Priority area IV, which was clearly lagging behind in 2011, witnesses the emergence of many 
pilot  projects  for  cooperative  systems,  which  may  confirm  the  appropriateness  of  the 
definition of a common legal and technical framework in order to ensure interoperability and 
continuity at EU level. 

5. SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT PROGRESS REPORTS

13 

In the light of the analysis of the 2014 national progress reports, the following remarks can be 
made in view of the follow-up reports due in 2017: 

●  The  analysis  by  the  Commission  would  be  facilitated  if  Member  States  could 
more  systematically  follow  the  structure  of  the  Guidelines  on  reporting  and 

13  These  suggestions  have  been  shared  in  2016  with  the  representatives  of  the  Member  States  to  the  ITS 
Committee, and triggered follow-up work to prepare the 2017 reports. 

17 

 
 
                                                           
clearly  distinguish  the  four  different  priority  areas  of  Directive  2010/40/EU. 
Within  these  priority  areas,  a  distinction  between  the  six  priority  actions  of  the 
ITS Directive is also recommended. As this aspect was already mentioned in the 
analysis of the 2011 reports, a solution to overcome this issue would perhaps be to 
agree with Member States on a common report structure for 2017. 

●  Many Member States followed the indications given in the context of the analysis 
of previous reports and hence shared more details about their national initiatives. 
In some cases, however, this has led to overly rich information being provided for 
a  given  series  of  numerous  projects,  without  providing  an  overall  picture  at 
national level, in particular for the amount of equipment or investment figures. A 
common  report  structure,  associated  with  common  Key  Performance  Indicators 
(KPIs), may help in solving this issue by setting a common reporting framework, 
to be used on a voluntary basis. 

_____________ 

18 

 
 
B - ANALYSIS OF 2017 REPORTS ON NATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The  present  document  summarises  the  analysis  of  the  national  progress  reports  of  201714, 
provided by the Member States as per Article 17(3) of Directive 2010/40/EU15.  

The guidelines for reporting, adopted as Commission Implementing Decision of 13.7.201116 
indicate  that  "The  reports  to  be  provided  under  Article  17(3)  of  Directive  2010/40/EU, 
hereinafter  referred  as  ‘the  progress  reports’,  should  follow  the  same  structure  as  the  initial 
report and should highlight the progress made since the previous report."  

This analysis takes also  into account reports to be provided in 2016 and 2017 regarding the 
implementation  of  the  already  adopted  specifications  for  the  priority  actions  of  the  ITS 
Directive. In particular, Member States had to report on Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/962 
by  13  July  2017  and  on  Delegated  Regulations  (EU)  885/2013  and  886/2013  by  8  October 
2017. These reports were sometimes integrated in the general report on the implementation of 
the  ITS  Directive  or  provided  separately.  Regarding  eCall,  reports  due  under  Decision 
585/2014/EU were taken into account,  as well as information  provided in the 2017 national 
progress reports. 

This summary constitutes an overview of these national reports, based solely on their content 
and  on  the  Commission’s  understanding  of  these  reports.  Nevertheless,  for  some  Member 
States  the  participation  in  EU-funded  projects  was  taken  into  account  even  if  they  did  not 
specifically mention it in their reports. Although this summary addresses the implementation 
of the different specifications adopted under the ITS Directive, this does not preclude further 
specific analysis of the implementation of the related Regulations and of the eCall Decision 
585/2014/EU. 

2. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 

Twenty-nine national progress reports have been received (28 Member States and Norway). 
Approximately one third of them did meet the deadline of the 27 August 2017. Reception of 
the remaining reports spanned until November 2018. 

In  line  with  the  recommendations  of  the  analysis  of  the  2014  reports,  for  the  first  time,  a 
common  reporting  template17  was  proposed  by  the  Commission  services,  integrating  the 
reporting obligations under the ITS Directive, but also the reporting obligations deriving from 
the  different  specifications  for  the  priority  actions  adopted  as  Delegated  acts  supplementing 
the  ITS  Directive.  In  the  same  reporting  template,  Member  States  were  invited  for  the  first 

14 Published on http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/its_national_reports_en.htm  
15 OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1. 
16 OJ L 193, 23.7.2011, p.48. 
17 Template available on https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/its_national_reports_en  

19 

 
 
                                                           
time to report on common deployment, benefits and financial ITS Key Performance Indicators 
(hereafter also referred to as “KPIs”)18. 

Thirteen national reports used the common reporting template, sometimes completed by other 
reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  specifications  for  the  priority  actions.  Regarding  the 
KPIs,  the  input  of  the  Member  States  was  rather  limited  (11  Member  States  and  Norway 
reported  at  least  partly on deployment KPIs, 4  at  least  partly on benefit KPIs and 8  at  least 
partly  on  financial  KPIs).  As  this  was  the  first  time  that  Member  States  were  invited,  on  a 
voluntary basis, to provide KPIs, no comparison could be made with previous reports and this 
input can be considered as a starting point for the analysis of future reporting exercises. To be 
noted the strong correlation (75%) between the use of the common reporting template and the 
provision of KPIs. 

3. DETAILED ANALYSIS 

In  general  the  national  reports  provided  a  good  overview  of  the  Member  States’  (best) 
practices.  In  comparison  to  the  situation  reported  in  2014,  the  analysis  shows  a  general 
progress in all four priority areas.  

The  analysis  of  the  national  reports  was  structured  along  the  four  priority  areas  of  the  ITS 
Directive. The level or intensity of activity in each of the four priority areas was assessed on 
the  basis  of  the  information  contained  in  the  reports  with  a  detailed  comparison  of  the 
progress reported in 2014. This assessment resulted in the development of two colour coded 
tables  reflecting  the  Member  States’  level  of  activity  in  each  priority  area  in  2017  and 
assessing the progress since 2014, based on the following codes and definitions: 

Colour code for level of activity (2017): 

Colour code for progress (2017 vs 2014) 

1 
2 
3 
4 

1 = very active = services deployed countrywide 

2 = active = many projects and/or strategy in place 

3 = less active = some projects 

4 = no activities reported 

1 
2 
3 
4 

Value 1 = Excellent progress 

Value 2 = Good progress 

Value 3 = Some progress 

Value 4 = No progress 

These  tables  have  the  objective  to  highlight  general  trends  in  terms  of  level  of  activity  and 
evolution  thereof  from  2014  to  2017  for  each  priority  area  of  the  ITS  Directive  rather  than 
trying to reflect very accurately the detailed situation in each individual Member State. To be 
noted that in very few cases, demotion in a priority area was justified by the discontinuation 
of activities (or at least absence of reporting) after 2014. 

18 Description of KPIs on https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/its_national_reports_en  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The following table shows as well the level of deployment of National Access Points (NAPs) 
at the time of writing of this report. The red colour highlights a lack of information and/or a 
lack of deployment of the NAPs in several Member States. An up-to-date and detailed list of 
the NAPs is also available on the Commission’s website19.  

Colour code for National Access Points 

19 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/nap_en  

21 

ADCNNMPriority area IPriority area IIPriority area IIIPriority area IVPriority area IPriority area IIPriority area IIIPriority area IVAustria11222222Belgium12221232Bulgaria22332333Croatia23243324Cyprus23242224Czech Republic12121222Denmark12222222Estonia22232223Finland11222222France12222321Germany11222222Greece22232223Hungary22222222Ireland22232323Italy12323332Latvia34343424Lithuania11232223Luxembourg23232323Malta23243424Netherlands11121122Norway11221232Poland21232123Portugal23223322Romania22243324Slovakia22232423Slovenia22222222Spain12221122Sweden11222222United Kingdom11222222Level of activity 2017Progress 2017/2014ExistingWork in progressNo informationNot applicable 
 
 
 
                                                           
3.1.  Priority area I: Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data 

As stipulated in Annex I of the ITS Directive, priority area I is specifically focused upon the 
availability, accessibility and exchange of public and private road, travel and traffic data used 
for multimodal travel information, real-time traffic information services and digital maps. 

Priority  area  I  was  generally  the  best  documented,  indicating  that  most  Member  States  are 
actively  pursuing  work  in  this  area.  Initiatives  that  were  commonly  reported  related  to:  real 
time  traffic  information,  development  of  apps,  dynamic  public  transport  information, 
multimodal  journey  planners  and  electronic  ticketing  systems,  as  well  as  work  to  improve 
data collection, management and publication processes. These types of projects aim to enable 

22 

MMTIS National Access PointRTTI National Access PointSRTI National Access PointSSTP National Access PointSSTP EU Access     PointDelegated Regulation 1926/2017Delegated Regulation 962/2015Delegated Regulation 886/2013Delegated Regulation 885/2013Delegated Regulation 885/2013(action ‘a’)(action ‘b’)(action ‘c’) (action ‘e’)(static data - action ‘e’)AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited KingdomCountry name 
 
 
 
improved  travel  planning,  better  navigation  services  and  may  allow  for  more  informed 
decisions while planning (and during) travel. 

Some countries reported on their infrastructure projects, which are helping to provide better 
and  more  accurate  data  collection  and  sharing.  For  example,  these  include  large-scale  EU 
funded  projects  for  the  installation  of  cameras  for  traffic  monitoring,  weather  monitoring 
equipment, automatic traffic counters and electronic information boards. 

Activities related to setting up the National Access Points (NAPs) for the various types of data 
covered by priority actions a, b and c are also advancing, with many projects noting the use of 
the  DATEX  II  standard  for  data  exchange.  An  overview  of  reporting  on  the  Delegated 
Regulations is provided below. 

Progress since 2014 

Since 2014, many countries have made significant progress within this priority area and have 
made significant steps towards implementing the NAPs required for priority actions a, b and 
c.  Several  Member  States  reported  on  their  participation  in  the  EU  funded  CROCODILE  2 
project20  (Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, 
Italy,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia),  which  has  helped  to  ensure  the  necessary 
infrastructure is in place to enable data exchange based on DATEX II and helped also in some 
cases to set up the national access point. This has contributed to the work for priority actions 
b,  c  (and  also  e).  CROCODILE  2  also  resulted  in  2500  km  of  corridor  motorway  being 
equipped  with  technology  allowing  data  collection,  including  CCTV,  road  weather  stations 
and sensors. 

Besides  the  work  carried  out  to  comply  with  the  delegated  regulations,  many  other  projects 
have taken place/are taking place throughout the EU to ensure that road, traffic and travel data 
is  better  utilised.  A  few  examples  are  mentioned  below,  together  with  their  timescales  and 
funding where available. These have been selected due to their innovative features, large scale 
or because they represent significant progress since 2014. ITS projects that are very common 
across Member States are also mentioned where relevant. 

  Improved  data  collection  infrastructure  and  variable  message  signs  have  been 

installed in Member States, sometimes for the first time: 

o  Bulgaria established its first automated traffic data collection system in 2014, 
comprising 120 automated counter stations, helping to obtain real-time traffic 
information.  Two  other  projects  have  since  allowed  a  further  200  automatic 
count points to be installed along the TEN-T network, primary and secondary 
roads. 

o  A  joint  Latvian/Estonian,  Smart  E67  EU-funded  project,  involved  the 
installation of roadside ITS equipment and upgrading of the traffic information 

20 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2014-eu-tm-0563-w  

23 

 
 
                                                           
centre  run  by  VAS  Latvijas  Valsts  ceļi  (Latvian  State  Roads).  This  included 
the  first-time  deployment  of  variable  message  signs  and  multifunctional  live 
video surveillance. 

o  Poland  has  installed  various  weather  warning  systems  and  variable  message 

signs.  

o  Norway implemented real time travel time registration in Norway's four largest 
cities. A web camera service offers road users a picture of the traffic situation 
and driving conditions from more than 500 cameras and will soon offer a video 
streaming service with image updates every second. Inclusion of friction data 
from  vehicles  in  the  road  weather  information  system  (Vegvaer)  has  been 
tested within the Nordic Way project. 

o  Belgium has several projects underway in Brussels to improve data collection 
and  provide  real-time  parking  information.  The  Parking  Guidance  project 
(2008-2017,  €4.5m)  involves  placing  dynamic  signs  to  list  how  many  spaces 
are  available,  while  the  Metropolitan  Area  Network  Brussels  (MANBRU, 
2017-2018,  €3m)  is  developing  fibre  optics  to  help  show  available  parking 
spaces to road users. 

  Several reports mentioned the work to improve the exchange of ITS-related spatial 
road  data  between  road  operators  and  the  providers  of  digital  maps  which  has 
been  carried  out  during  the  TN-ITS  project21.  This  activity  (involving  Belgium, 
Finland,  Ireland,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom  and  Norway,  and  private  digital  maps 
providers)  within  the  EU-funded  EU  ITS  Platform  (EU  EIP)22  project  has  helped  to 
ensure that  data updates  (e.g. speed limits  and other traffic regulations) from trusted 
public  data  providers  can  be  directly  incorporated  into  ITS  digital  maps  used  for 
navigation  and  other  ITS  services.  This  project  has  been  followed  (since  January 
2018) by a CEF Programme Support Action (TN-ITS GO) involving the before-listed 
beneficiaries and nine additional Member States. 

  New  techniques,  such  as  floating  car  data,  have  been  explored  for  collecting  real-
time  traffic  data  and  using  this  to  more  accurately  predict  journey  times  or  for 
statistical  use  (e.g.  parameter  setting  for  extra  ordinary  queuing).  Denmark  and  the 
Netherlands have implemented projects which are showing promising results. 

  Many countries reported developing nationwide journey planners, which often offer 

multimodal capabilities. For instance: 

o  Estonia has set up http://www.peatus.ee, a multimodal journey planner for all 

of Estonia, with plans to implement cross-border functionalities. 

21  Relevant  standardisation  activities  (based  on  the  TN-ITS  specification)  have  also  taken  place  within  CEN 
TC278 WG7 (the ITS spatial data working group) 
22 https://eip.its-platform.eu/, involving Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom 

24 

 
 
                                                           
o  In Finland Helsinki Region Transport HSL and the Finnish Transport Agency 
FTA have developed an open journey planner platform https://digitransit.fi/en/ 
which  is  the  basis  for  several  journey  planners  both  in  Finland  and  other 
countries. 

o  In  Norway,  a  new  national  multimodal  travel  planner  was  to  be  launched  in 

November 2017. 

o  Lithuania developed a new route planning system based on the Public transport 
Multimodal  Journey  Planning  Database  System  (IS  Vintra),  available  on: 
http://www.visimarsrutai.lt/. 

Solutions  for  connected  traffic  signals,  which  can  exchange  data  with  vehicles  were 
mentioned in the Dutch and Swedish reports. Notably, in the Netherlands around 1,250 traffic 
control systems (one quarter of those in the Netherlands) are expected to have been replaced 
with intelligent traffic control systems (that can communicate with approaching vehicles and 
cyclists) by the end of 2017. This is being achieved through the Partnership Talking Traffic, a 
€90m project running until 2020 to develop innovative traffic applications, including the use 
of low latency C-ITS messages and services. 

Implementation  of  specifications  (a)23:  provision  of  EU-wide  multimodal  travel 
information services 

As  the  Delegated  Regulation  for  priority  action  a  ((EU)  2017/1926)  has  only  entered  into 
force  in  November  2017  and  Member  States  were  required  to  report  on  activities  related  to 
this  specification  only  by  1  December  2019,  little  information  is  included  in  the  national 
reports.  

However, several Member States already started to establish National Access Points, as listed 
in  the  list  of  NAPs  maintained  by  the  Commission.  This  work  is  being  supported  by 
individual CEF Programme Support Actions for 17 Member States. 

Implementation  of  specifications  (b)24:  the  provision  of  EU-wide  real-time  traffic 
information services 

One  of  the  main  purposes  of  specifications  (b)  is  to  foster  the  market  to  further  develop 
services for the provision of real-time traffic information by re-using public sector data made 
available throughout the National Access Points. During the observed period, implementation 
of  specifications  has  followed  different  procedures,  priorities  and  levels  of  commitment, 
across the Member States. The stocktaking for these different approaches also shows that the 
implementation is progressing, although slower than expected. Several dimensions have been 
reported to explain the current implementation landscape:  

23 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1926 of 31 May 2017 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to  the  provision  of  EU-wide  multimodal  travel 
information services - OJ L 272, 21.10.2017, p. 1 
24 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/962 of 18 December 2014 supplementing Directive 
2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of EU-wide real-time 
traffic information services - OJ L 157, 23.6.2015, p. 21 

25 

 
 
                                                           
 

 

 

the  spatial  dimension  (i.e.  relevant  road  network,  interfaces  with  other  urban  and 
interurban areas/networks, coverage of ITS services),  

the operating environment dimension (i.e. network characteristics and topology, road 
status, traffic characteristics, ITS infrastructure/equipment),  

the  organisational  dimension  (i.e.  allocation  of  resources  and  responsibilities,  ITS 
processes/workflows),  

 

the financial dimension (i.e. investment, maintenance, operation). 

17 Member States + Norway have reported to have set up their NAP, while 5 other are taking 
action to do so shortly. Several technical aspects to make the data and metadata available and 
publishable  needed  to  be  addressed,  such  as  the  profiling  for  static  and  dynamic  data  or 
procedures  to  give  access  to  data  updates.  Many  Member  States  are  taking  part  in  different 
Programme  Support  Actions  (e.g.  DATEX  II  and  TN-ITS)  to  overcome  some  of  these 
barriers.  Member  States  also  often  refer  to  the  EU  EIP  guidance  in  terms  of  quality 
assessment. Some Member States have reported the need to go through consultation process, 
addressing  the  different  national  stakeholders  (e.g.  service  providers,  road  operators  and 
motorway companies) before being able to agree on the terms for defining the quality criteria 
and the methods of evaluation. These have been long and complex negotiation procedures and 
may have benefited from a harmonised approach. 

In  order  to  undertake  the  assessment  of  compliance  of  the  relevant  stakeholders  with  the 
requirements  of  the  Regulation,  several  Member  States  have  reported  to  be  using  the 
harmonised self-declaration template, developed by EU EIP and TISA. Random checks of the 
correctness  of  these  declarations  are  still  very  limited  and  at  a  very  early  stage  of 
implementation. 

Implementation  of  specifications  (c)25:  data  and  procedures  for  the  provision,  where 
possible, of road safety related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to 
users 

As  for  specifications  (b),  different  activities  have  helped  Member  States  with  the 
implementation  of  specifications  (c),  in  particular  at  technical  level;  harmonised  self-
declaration  template;  DATEX  II  profiling;  the  metadata  catalogue  produced  by  Austria, 
Germany  and  the  Netherlands  and  a  proposal  for  a  common  quality  framework  produced 
within the EU EIP project. Most of these tools have been referenced in the Member States’ 
reports,  clearly  showing  EU  added  value  as  an  outcome  of  voluntary  Member  States 
cooperation towards the implementation of the specifications. 

Almost all National Access Points set up for specifications (c) are also used for specifications 
(b). The collection of road safety-related traffic information by public sources is progressing 
in good pace across the EU. Most Member States have put in place the DATEX nodes and are 

25 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  with  regard  to  data  and  procedures  for  the  provision,  where 
possible,  of  road  safety-related  minimum  universal  traffic  information  free  of  charge  to  users  -  OJ  L  247, 
18.9.2013, p. 6  

26 

 
 
                                                           
making  accessible  the  data  they  collect,  formatted,  at  the  NAPs.  Most  of  them  reported  to 
cover the eight data categories presented in the specifications along the TEN-T Corridors. 

Only one third of the Member States and Norway reported to have in place a national body26. 
The Member States’ reports show that progress with the implementation is unbalanced, with 
most  coming  from  the  public  sector  side.  Very  few  declarations27  have  been  received  from 
private  entities,  some  of  which  operate  globally  and  provide  information  services  that  fall 
within the remit of the specifications (c). 

3.2.  Priority area II: Continuity of traffic and freight management ITS services 

As stipulated in Annex I of the ITS Directive, priority area II is focused on the provisions to 
support  traffic  and  freight  management  services  including  traffic  information/management 
control  centres,  ITS  framework  architecture,  tracking  and  tracing  of  freight,  integrated 
multimodal ticketing. 

towards 

improvement  of 

Priority  area  II  has  attracted  a  significant  amount  of  attention  from  Member  States  and  a 
diverse  range  of  activities  have  been  carried  out  within  this  area.  Several  countries  have 
through 
worked 
modernisation activities, a new system architecture, or via the use of improved data sources. 
These  have  aimed  to  improve  reliability  and  efficiency.  On  the  infrastructure  side,  the 
installation  of  traffic  light  systems  to  prioritise  public  transport  and  emergency  vehicles  in 
cities is also becoming more widespread. 

traffic  management  systems,  either 

their 

Several projects within this priority area showed a significant intermodal element, particularly 
for more effectively linking up road and rail transport. These types of activities have mainly 
aimed  to  provide  a  more  seamless  travel  experience.  This  has  been  targeted  by  the 
development of multimodal smart/e-ticketing for public transport, as well as other measures. 
A few countries also reported activities related to intermodal terminals for freight transport. 

There has been considerable activity in freight management services, which has been mainly 
driven  by  the  increasing  digitalisation  of  freight.  For  example,  the  national  reports  showed 
evidence  of  the  development  of  innovative  tools  and  online  systems  for  road  freight 
information  and  management.  These  are  primarily  aimed  at  improving  the  efficiency  and 
transparency  of  freight  solutions.  Again,  there  was  evidence  of  some  projects  with  an 
intermodal element, aimed at helping the continuity of services across the EU. 

Progress since 2014 

26  According  to  Article  9  of  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  886/2013,  Member  States  shall  designate  an 
impartial and independent national body competent to assess whether the requirements set out in Articles 3 to 8 
are  fulfilled  by  public  and  private  road  operators  and  service  providers  and  broadcasters  dedicated  to  traffic 
information 
27  According  to  Article  9,  public  and  private  road  operators,  service  providers  and  broadcasters  dedicated  to 
traffic information shall provide the designated national bodies with their identification details and a description 
of the information service they provide, and submit a declaration of compliance with the requirements set out in 
Articles 3 to 8. 

27 

 
 
                                                           
Many countries provided explanations of projects that have started since 2014 in their national 
reports,  which  helped  to  demonstrate  the  progress  that  has  been  made  across  the  EU.  ITS 
themes  common  across  countries  are  listed  below,  together  with  examples  of  national 
activities.  These  projects  were  selected  due 
level  of 
investment/scale,  or  because  they  represent  significant  progress  for  the  Member  State  since 
2014.  

innovative  nature, 

their 

to 

  Several  reports  mentioned  the  continued  work  of  the  EU  EIP  project,  which 
encourages better knowledge management and contributes to the effective use of ITS 
standards and specifications across the EU. 

  Some Member States reported also on the recent FRAME NEXT project (funded as a 
Programme Support Action under the CEF programme) started in June 2017 with the 
objective  to  further  develop  a  European  ITS  architecture  and  involving  Austria, 
Germany,  France,  Hungary,  Czech  Republic,  The  Netherlands,  Norway,  Sweden, 
Poland, United Kingdom. 

  As mentioned in many reports, and building on work from previous years, the cross-
border  deployment  of  Traffic  Management  Services  has  continued  across  TEN-T 
Corridors. These large-scale projects have a range of aims including facilitating cross 
border connectivity, reducing congestion, improving safety, ensuring interoperability, 
and enhancing harmonised and continuous services. For example:  

o  Arc  Atlantique  corridor  Phase  2  focussed  mainly  on  deploying  traffic 
management  and  traffic  information  ITS  services,  to  enhance  harmonised 
services on 11,000 km of network, and improve operational and cost efficiency 
on 10,000 km of network (2014-2017; participating countries: Belgium, Spain, 
France,  Ireland,  Netherlands,  United  Kingdom;  €115m  funding,  of  which 
€23m EU funding)28. 

o  MedTIS II implements ITS on a continuous 8,600 km stretch of motorway on 
the  Mediterranean  TEN-T  corridor.  Deployment  is  focussed  on  road  data 
collection  and  monitoring,  upgrade  of  traffic  control  centres,  enhancement  of 
alert  services  and  related  traveller  information  (2014-2018;  participating 
countries:  France,  Italy,  Portugal,  Spain;  €53m  funding  of  which  €10.7m  EU 
funding)29. 

  Several  countries  reported  upgrading  their  national  traffic  management  systems, 
including  Bulgaria  (various  modernisation  projects),  Finland  (as  part  of  the  LOU 
project  -  €30m  for  the  road  traffic  management  system),  Poland  (National  Traffic 
Management System on the TEN-T network – stage I project: Implementation: 2016-
2020,  then  2019-2023  –  system  integration.  Total  funding  €145m)  and  Sweden 
(Traffic Management System, NTS, for the period 2018-19, €13.5m). 

A  few  innovative  logistics  projects  were  also  mentioned.  These  projects  aimed  to  support 
digitisation of freight management and improve efficiency. 

28 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2014-eu-tm-0597-w 
29 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2014-eu-tm-0588-w 

28 

 
 
                                                           
a.  Netherlands has implemented several projects for better data sharing. For instance, the 
Neutral Logistic Information Platform (NLIP) is a state-of-the-art information channel 
for maximising data availability within the logistics flow, by linking several existing 
information  platforms,  which  should  eventually  be  integrated.  By  2020,  90%  of  the 
Dutch supply chain should be connected (€6m per year). The electronic consignment 
note  is  another  area  of  focus  –  digitisation  of  this  essential  documents  can  generate 
cost savings and lower the risk of fraud. 

b.  Greece has been working on the New Cooperative Business Models and Guidance for 
Sustainable  City  Logistics  (NOVELOG)  project  and  the  Green  Intermodal  Freight 
Transport  (GIFT)  projects,  which  aim  to  optimise  freight  transport  and  reduce  the 
environmental footprint. 

c.  InterCor  involves  France,  Belgium,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom  and 
extends  functionally  services  built  earlier  within  SCOOP@F  or  the  corridor 
Rotterdam-Frankfurt-Vienna  to  additional  C-ITS  services  in  the  logistics  field  for 
heavy goods vehicles. 

d.  Finland and Estonia have worked together on the FinEstSmartMobility project, which 
implemented  a  smart  guidance  for  heavy  goods  vehicles  at  ports  for 
the 
Helsinki/Tallinn ferry connection. The project aims to integrate multimodal transport 
between  cities  and  across  borders  and  reduce  the  transport  time  for  passengers  and 
cargo. 

3.3.  Priority area III: ITS road safety and security applications 

As stipulated in Annex I of the ITS Directive, priority area III is focused on activities related 
to eCall and the data exchange between vehicles and emergency call response centres, safety 
of  Human-Machine-Interfaces,  use  of  nomadic  devices, 
in-vehicle 
communications, measures to improve the safety and comfort of vulnerable road users for all 
relevant  ITS  applications,  advanced  driver  support  information  systems  and  the  availability 
and exchange of truck parking information and reservation data. 

security  of 

The analysis of the 2017 national reports indicated that fewer activities have been carried out 
within this priority area compared to priority areas I and II. This is a similar picture to what 
was observed in previous years. However, significant overlaps were noticed between priority 
areas III and IV, as many of the cooperative ITS services being implemented have been safety 
focussed (but are generally reported in the priority area IV section). 

Progress since 2014 

Concerning  the  types  of  projects  reported,  eCall  related  work  was  by  far  the  most  widely 
reported.  This  was  likely  influenced  by  Decision  585/2014/EU,  which  mandated  the 
deployment  of  eCall  PSAP  infrastructure  in  Member  States  (see  below).  The  next  most 
frequently  reported  projects  related  to  safe  and  secure  truck  parking,  which  indicates  that 
setting priority actions in the Directive has helped to direct Member States’ activities within 
this area. 

29 

 
 
Since  2014,  many  countries  have  focussed  their  activities  on  ensuring  that  the  necessary 
Public  Safety  Answering  Point  (PSAP)  infrastructure  is  in  place  to  properly  deliver  eCall. 
Many  countries  reported  on  the  EU-funded  Infrastructure  Harmonised  eCall  European  Pilot 
(I_HeERO30) project,  which enabled PSAPs  in  11 Member States (Belgium,  Cyprus, Czech 
Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Slovenia)  to 
install  the  necessary  hardware,  software  and  organisation  to  receive  and  handle  eCalls.  The 
project also helped to perform PSAP Conformity Assessments, which is a legal obligation for 
all  PSAP  handling  eCalls  based  on  112.  I_HeERO  built  on  the  HeERO  and  HeERO  2 
projects, in which many other Member States also participated. Austria reported also on the 
EU-funded eCall.at31, which focussed on the implementation and certification of 9 PSAPs in 
Austria. 

As well as eCall related projects, other large-scale EU-funded ITS projects have been reported 
relating at least partly to priority area III. These include: 

  NEXT –  ITS  2 aimed to improve the efficiency,  safety  and security  of the Northern 
part  of  the  Scandinavian-Mediterranean  CEF  corridor.  Traffic  management  centres 
were upgraded and ITS services such as real-time traffic and weather monitoring and 
variable speed limits were installed (2015-2017; €35.9m, of which €7.2m EU-funded; 
involved Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden)32. 

  Ursa Major 2 is aiming to improve the safety and efficiency of freight traffic mainly 
along the Rhine-Alpine CEF core corridor. The project is working on enhancing truck 
parking  services  and  supporting  navigation  services,  in  line  with  priority  action  e 
(2014-2018, €92.3m of which €18.5m EU-funded; involved Austria, Germany,  Italy, 
Netherlands)33. 

  CROCODILE  2  (also  reported  under  priority  area  I)  is  aiming  to  ensure  more 
coordinated  traffic  management  services.  It  is  directly  contributing  towards  the 
development of national access points, particularly for priority actions b, c and e, and 
installed  additional  truck  parking  places  equipped  with  technology  to  be  integrated 
into the dynamic ITP information system. 

Besides these EU-level projects, a number of national level projects were also included in the 
national  reports.  As  for  other  priority  areas,  these  examples  have  been  selected  due  to  their 
innovative features or because they represent significant progress since 2014: 

  Speed  limit  enforcement  projects  were  mentioned  in  several  reports  (e.g.  Belgium, 
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Sweden). These involved the installation 
of  traffic  cameras/photo  radars,  average  speed  check  cameras,  devices  to  detect  red 
light running and the necessary software for automatic data processing. 

30 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2014-eu-ta-0582-s  
31 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2014-at-ta-0259-m  
32 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2014-eu-tm-0310-w  
33 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/2014-eu-tm-0365-w  

30 

 
 
                                                           
  Lithuania  developed  a  Multifunctional  traffic  enforcement  system  (MTES) 
deployed on three high volume road sections to check e.g. if the road user charge has 
been paid, if a vehicle is insured and has valid technical supervision certificate. 

  Large  animal  detection  projects  were  carried  out  in  both  Estonia  and  Finland.  For 
example,  in  Finland,  a  pilot  was  carried  out  as  part  of  the  Aurora  test  ecosystem,  to 
reduce  the  number  of  reindeer  accidents  that  occur  (currently  4,000  per  year  on 
Finland's roads and railways). After a successful pilot, a real service that provides real-
time reindeer warnings to drivers through in-car navigation systems and mobile apps 
using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and mobile technology, was opened 
to public in 2017 and is still running. 

  Dangerous  goods  monitoring  has  been  improved  in  Italy  via  use  of  a  National 

Logistics Platform (PLN) to collect and exchange data. 

Other  types  of  projects  carried  out  include  for  instance  implementing  digital  audio 
broadcasting (DAB) to allow serious incident warnings to be broadcast in tunnels (Belgium) 
or  safer  crossings  at  level  nodes  of  the  railway  network  (Greece).  As  already  mentioned, 
countries  with  quite  advanced  C-ITS  activities  also  mentioned  their  safety-focussed  C-ITS 
work in this section of the report (e.g. Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden). 

Another  finding  was  that  very  few  Member  States  reported  carrying  out  projects  that  were 
focussed  on  security  applications.  However,  two  countries  (Netherlands  and  Sweden) 
included security aspects as part of their national ITS strategies. 

Deployment of 112 eCall in the PSAPs34 

The  delegated  regulation  (No  305/2013)  for  this  priority  action  provides  specifications  for 
Member States to upgrade Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) infrastructure to enable the 
harmonised  provision  of  an  interoperable  EU-wide  eCall  service.  As  stated  in  Decision 
585/2014/EU,  Member  States  were  required  to  have  their  PSAP  infrastructure  ready  for 
receiving and handling eCalls by 1st October 2017. By 1 October 2017, 23 countries reported 
that  their  PSAP  infrastructure  was  ready  for  eCall.  Of  these,  the  Netherlands  stated  that  a 
provisional  system  is  in  place  and  Spain  indicated  eCall  may  not  be  fully  ready  in  some 
regions. Infrastructure in four countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany and Slovakia) was still 
under  development;  of  these,  Germany  and  Slovakia  expected  to  be  ready  by  March  2018, 
while Belgium and Bulgaria did not provide a date. Hungary did not provide information. In 
November 2017, Norway was still preparing a technical solution to be implemented in one or 
more of the 12 emergency centres by April 2018. 

The situation has improved in the course of 2018 and at the date of writing of this report (30 
November  2018),  only  one  issue  seemed  to  remain,  based  on  the  declarations  of  Member 
States, i.e. the lack of deployment for Ceuta and Melilla in Spain. 

34 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/ecall_en.htm  

31 

 
 
                                                           
Implementation  of  specifications  (e)35:  provision  of  information  services  for  safe  and 
secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles 

The  delegated  regulation  for  this  action  was  adopted  in  2013  and  provides  specifications  to 
ensure the compatibility, interoperability and continuity of information services for safe and 
secure  parking  places  for  trucks  and  commercial  vehicles.  Static  data  (e.g.  location 
information,  total  number  of  parking  places  for  trucks)  should  be  accessible  through  a 
national  or  international  access  point,  while  Member  States  are  responsible  for  establishing 
and  managing  a  single  NAP  containing  dynamic  data  (such  as  the  availability  of  parking 
spaces). 

At the request of Member States, the Commission has also set up a European Access Point for 
truck parking data, accessible through the European Union Open Data Portal36, providing also 
a  visual  overview 
is 
complementary  to  the  National  Access  Points  and  Member  States  can  publish  their  truck 
parking data either on the European or the National Access Point, or on both. 

the  TENTec  Portal37.  This  European  Access  Point 

through 

At  the  date  of  writing  of  this  report  (30  November  2018),  thirteen  countries  have  set  up 
operational NAPs for truck parking information and/or published their data on the European 
Access Point. However, the extent of the data available is quite variable. For example, some 
NAPs offer a limited amount of dynamic data, whereas others only provide static data. The 
remaining  countries  are  still  in  the  design/development  phase  of  their  NAP.  Five  Member 
States have decided not to take any action as they consider that the Delegated Regulation is 
not applicable due to the absence of safe and secure parking information services. 

3.4.  Priority area IV: Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure 

As  stipulated  in  Annex  I  of  the  ITS  Directive,  priority  area  IV  is  focused  upon  ITS 
applications  on  open  in-vehicle  platforms  and  the  development  and  implementation  of 
cooperative systems including vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure and infrastructure-
to-infrastructure communication. 

Priority area IV has two actions specified in the ITS Directive: 

  The  definition  of  necessary  measures  to  integrate  different  ITS  applications  on  an 

open in-vehicle platform. 

  The  definition  of  necessary  measures  to  further  progress  the  development  and 
vehicle-to-infrastructure, 

(vehicle-to-vehicle, 

of 
implementation 
infrastructure-to-infrastructure) systems. 

cooperative 

35  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  885/2013  of  15  May  2013  supplementing  ITS  Directive 
2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services 
for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles - OJ L 247, 18.9.2013, p. 1 
36 http://open-data.europa.eu/en/data/dataset/etpa  
37 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html  

32 

 
 
                                                           
Many  new  research  and  deployment  activities  have  been  reported  in  priority  area  IV,  in 
particular for C-ITS, leading to a catch up with other priority areas for many countries.  

The work in this area is still in the early phases of deployment. Early pre-deployment projects 
(e.g.  the  C-ITS  corridor  Rotterdam-Frankfurt-Vienna,  SCOOP@F,  NordicWay)  have  been 
used to further develop the policies and standards required to ensure interoperable cooperative 
systems  across  the  EU,  which  are  being  further  harmonized  and  deployed  through  the  C-
Roads platform and projects supported by the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF). 

Progress since 2014 

The following reported examples demonstrate the type of work and progress in this area: 

  The C-Roads38 Platform was developed to address interoperability needs noted in the 
summary  of  the  analysis  of  the  2014  national  reports.  The  Platform  gathers  national 
and  cross-borders  projects  and  aims  to  address  the  lack  of  harmonisation  and 
standardisation  in  C-ITS  deployment,  which  was  considered  a  key  obstacle  to  EU-
wide  deployment  and  interoperability.  The  Platform  enables  and  encourages 
collaboration  between  the  existing  C-ITS  projects  that  are  taking  place  in  some 
Member States, and facilitated the agreement of common standards and specifications 
for these and future projects. The core countries involved includes Austria, Belgium, 
Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Netherlands, 
Norway,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden  and  United  Kingdom.  Associated 
members (Ireland, Switzerland) are involved in projects conducted by core members, 
as well as some associated international actors such as Austroads, an Australian road 
transport association. 

  Several  C-ITS  EU  Research  Projects,  involving  many  local  authorities  and  other 
actors,  were  reported,  in  particular  C-Mobile,  CO-GISTICS,  COMPASS4D,  Auto 
C-ITS.  These  projects  look  at  diverse  aspects  of  C-ITS  (e.g.  improving  safety  for 
urban  areas,  truck  logistics  in  cities  in  terms  of  energy  efficiency,  enhancing 
interoperability for autonomous vehicles). The projects are run at EU level rather than 
in  specific  regions.  Involvement  in  these  projects  is  considered  a  lower  level  of 
activity  than  the  nationally  driven  projects  identified  above,  but  are  still  important 
contributors to the priority area IV actions. 

3.5.  Other initiatives / highlights 

Besides projects within the four priority areas, many countries also included details of other 
projects  that  did  not  sit  clearly  within  one  of  the  priority  areas.  These  included  projects  in 
rapidly developing ITS themes, such as vehicle automation and Mobility as a Service (MaaS), 
as well as in areas not covered by the ITS Directive (but covered by the ITS Action Plan) such 
as electronic tolling. 

38 https://www.c-roads.eu  

33 

 
 
                                                           
The most frequently reported ITS themes in the 2017 national reports are listed below – these 
are accompanied with selected examples of projects: 

  Mobility as a service (MaaS) 

The new Finnish Act on Transport Services forces key stakeholders to open their information 
and  ticketing  interfaces  which  in  turn  enables  aggregation  of  various  mobility  services  into 
comprehensive, attractive and cost-efficient offerings brought to the customers by Mobility as 
a Service operators (MaaS operators). Finland mentioned many pilots  and activities and the 
emergence of several MaaS operators. France, Netherlands and Spain also mentioned work in 
this area, while Sweden has developed a MaaS roadmap and set up the KOMPIS (Combined 
Mobility as a Service) pilot project (2016-2020). 

  Driverless vehicles 

Sweden  has  started  DriveMe  (2014  onwards),  the  world’s  first  large-scale  autonomous 
driving pilot project, with first pilot cars on Gothenburg roads in 2017. Sweden also created a 
Strategic Vehicle Research and Innovation partnership (2016 onwards - €90m/year) within the 
public-private  FFI  ((Fordonsstrategisk,  Forskning  och  Innovation),  which  funds  R&D  that 
focuses on energy, environment, safety and automation.  

Portugal and Estonia reported setting up autonomous vehicle expert groups. Estonia has also 
made it possible to operate self-driving vehicles in the country, as long as a driver is present. 
Several  other  countries  such  as  Belgium,  Finland,  Germany,  Netherlands,  Spain  and  United 
Kingdom  also  reported  on  legal  frameworks  for  testing  or  for  autonomous  vehicle  trials. 
France, Germany and Luxembourg launched in September 2017 a cross-border collaboration 
project  that  aims  at  facilitating  the  development  and  experimentation  of  automated  and 
connected  driving  technologies  in  relation  to  intelligent  transport  systems  and  electric 
mobility. 

  Drones in transport 

Netherlands has begun to investigate the use of drones for traffic monitoring and surveillance. 

  Electronic tolling 

Portugal, as part of the OPTIMUM project (proactive charging schemes for freight transport, 
2015-2018)  has  tested  variable  pricing  for  freight  vehicles,  with  calculations  based  on  real-
time  transport  network  conditions.  This  is  aimed  to  reduce  congestion  and  improve 
environmental conditions. 

Greece  also  reported  several  electronic  tolling  projects,  spanning  several  stretches  of 
motorway. 

  Smart city projects 

Finland has carried out several “smart city” projects in major cities across the country. These 
have aimed to use increased connectivity to deliver better transport systems. 

34 

 
 
  Knowledge sharing initiatives 

France launched the Mobilité 3.0 initiative, which aims to bring together all actors within the 
smart mobility sector to facilitate knowledge exchange and accelerate deployment. 

  Data security, protection and liability issues 

Netherlands has set up the Smart Mobility Community for Standards & Practices. This aims 
to  facilitate  cooperation  and  knowledge  sharing  so  that  Smart  Mobility  solutions  can  be 
implemented at a larger scale. 

4. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIS) 

For  the  first  time  in  2017,  a  section  on  KPIs  was  included  in  the  Commission’s  common 
template  for  the  ITS  national  reports.  As  noted  earlier  in  this  report,  reporting  of  KPIs  has 
been  mixed,  with  not  all  Member  States  providing  information.  A  summary  of  the  values 
reported  by  type  of  indicator  (deployment,  benefit  or  financial)  is  presented  in  the  next 
sections.  

An assessment of the progress made has not been carried out because KPIs were not reported 
in previous years’ reports and it has not been possible to derive KPIs based on the information 
available in previous reports. 

4.1.  Deployment KPIs 

Deployment  KPIs  were  provided  by  12  countries  (Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic, 
Denmark,  Greece,  Spain,  Finland,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Netherlands,  Norway  and  Sweden)  in 
their  national  reports.  However,  not  all  countries  provided  information  for  all  seven 
deployment KPIs, with the least reported indicators being freight information (5 countries). 

Some  countries  broke  down  the  KPIs  into  different  categories.  For  example,  the  KPI  for 
information  gathering  infrastructure/equipment  was  broken  down  into:  weather  monitoring 
(Denmark,  Finland,  Sweden),  traffic  volume  (Finland,  Sweden),  permanent  fixed  traffic 
monitoring  (Denmark),  temporary  fixed  traffic  monitoring  (Denmark)  and  mobile/probe 
traffic monitoring (Denmark) and travel time (Finland). In some cases, KPIs (such as incident 
detection) were disaggregated into tunnels and the rest of the road network. 

The level  of disaggregation  by road type also  varied. Some countries provided KPIs for the 
whole  TEN-T  road  network,  while  other  countries  provided  individual  KPIs  for  varying 
degrees of disaggregation (for example, combinations of TEN-T network, TEN-T core, TEN-
T comprehensive, other motorways, urban roads). 

Due to the limited number of countries reporting on KPIs, it is difficult to use these to gain an 
accurate picture of ITS deployment across the EU. The broad definitions of each KPI and the 
variability  in  how  the  KPIs  were  reported  also  make  comparisons  between  countries  more 
challenging,  particularly  due  to  the  different  levels  of  disaggregation  chosen  by  Member 

35 

 
 
States,  with  many  KPIs  showing  a  range  of  values  between  0%  and  100%.  Some  useful 
conclusions could nevertheless be drawn specifically for deployment KPIs. 

This  section  provides  a  short  summary  (by  KPI)  for  the  twelve  countries  that  reported 
deployment KPIs (a table summarising the KPI values for each Member State can be found in 
annex I). 

Information gathering infrastructure/equipment (road KPI) 

Reporting of this KPI varied significantly across Member States, with some providing more 
detailed  information  than  others.  For  example,  some  countries  (Austria,  Denmark,  Finland, 
Sweden) decided to break the KPI down into several sub-categories (such as cameras, weather 
monitoring,  permanent  fixed  traffic  monitoring,  temporary  fixed  traffic  monitoring, 
mobile/probe traffic monitoring and traffic volume services), while other countries (Belgium, 
Spain,  Greece,  Netherlands)  did  not  provide  a  breakdown  by  ITS  service.  However,  the 
available  information  indicates  that  the  TEN-T  network  in  the  reporting  countries  generally 
has a high level of coverage of information gathering infrastructure (above 75%). 

Incident detection (road KPI) 

Coverage of the TEN-T network with ITS used to detect traffic incidents varied significantly 
among  Member  States  that  reported  on  this  KPI.  The  values  reported  ranged  from  0.4% 
(Denmark)  to  100%  (Netherlands,  Hungary)  for  the  TEN-T  network,  with  the  remaining 
countries  somewhere  between  these  values.  Two  countries  provided  a  separate  KPI  for 
incident  detection  in  tunnels  (Austria  -  100%  of  381  km  -  and  Denmark  -  80%  of  6.1  km), 
while  some  countries  (Finland  and  Sweden)  specified  values  for  manual  and  automated 
incident detection. 

Traffic management and traffic control measures (road KPI) 

The national reports indicated that the deployment of ITS to enable traffic management and 
control measures varies considerably among countries. All countries reported on this KPI for 
the TEN-T network, high-level road network, or motorways, apart from Sweden, which only 
provided  a  value  for  urban  roads.  The  values  reported  ranged  from  0%  (Ireland  motorways 
and TEN-T comprehensive) to 100% (Netherlands), with a range of values in between these. 
Sweden  reported  a  KPI  of  27%  for  urban  roads.  In  addition,  Denmark  provided  values  for 
tunnels (100% of 6.1 km). 

Cooperative-ITS services and applications (road KPI) 

Half  of  the  reporting  countries  did  not  provide  a  C-ITS  KPI  or  provided  a  null  value, 
considering that technology was only at pilot stage even if sometimes numerous pilot projects 
were  in  progress.  For  the  other  countries,  the  values  reported  were  low  except  for  Finland. 
Denmark also noted that the KPI is intended to be for road-based ITS infrastructure, while the 
main project in the country (NordicWay) is based on cellular communication technology and 
so has no road-based infrastructure. 

36 

 
 
Real-time traffic information (road KPI) 

Compared  to  other  KPIs,  the  reporting  of  real-time  traffic  information  was  relatively 
consistent for the all countries. Coverage was generally very high, with all countries reporting 
100% for the TEN-T road network, apart from Greece and Ireland. The Czech Republic also 
provided detailed information by type of service. 

Dynamic travel information (multimodal KPI) 

Four countries (Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary and Norway) did not report on this KPI. 
For the other countries, the method of reporting varied, with some countries providing values 
for transport nodes and/or the TEN-T network. Sweden also disaggregated the data by nodes 
with fixed devices (13%) and by nodes with mobile devices (100% coverage), while Ireland 
disaggregated  the  data  by  nodes  of  road  and  rail.  The  values  reported  for  transport  nodes 
ranged from 27% (Austria) to 100% (Denmark, Greece, Ireland for rail,), while the values for 
the TEN-T network ranged from 13% (Greece) to 100% (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, 
Netherlands).  

Freight information (multimodal if possible, or road KPI) 

Five countries reported on this KPI (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain) 
and  all  values  were  close  to  100%  for  the  TEN-T  road  network.  Only  the  Czech  Republic 
provided  a  multimodal  KPI  and  approximated  that  60%  of  transhipment  sites  for  combined 
transport  modes  are  covered  by  information  services.  Denmark  reported  that  the  number  of 
nodes could not be calculated. 

112 eCalls (road KPI) 

Member  States  were  not  asked  to  report  on  this  KPI,  as  the  related  information  will  be 
provided  regularly  through  another  channel,  i.e.  the  yearly  COCOM  (Communications 
Committee)  questionnaire  on  the  implementation  of  the  112  number39.  To  be  noted  that,  as 
first  vehicles  equipped  with  the  112  eCall  system  only  hit  the  roads  by  the  second  half  of 
2018, significant figures should only be reported as from 2019. 

4.2.  Benefit KPIs 

In total, four countries (Finland, Germany, Netherlands and Spain) provided benefit KPIs. Of 
these,  Finland  was  the  only  country  to  have  provided  KPIs  for  each  of  the  three  categories 
(travel time, road safety and CO2 emissions), based on estimates made for the projects NEXT-
ITS  and  NEXT-ITS  2  (travel  time  benefit  calculations  for  public  transport  are  based  on  a 
national  travel  survey  and  a  report  on  a  journey  planner  for  the  region  of  Helsinki).  In 
addition, Sweden provided estimations based on a socio-economic model. Benefit KPIs were 
generally reported based on the results of pilot projects (as recommended in the description of 
KPIs), rather than for the road network as a whole. In the future, it is hoped these may allow 
for extrapolation to network and/or EU level. 

39  Annual  report  2017:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/implementation-european-emergency-
number-112-results-eleventh-data-gathering-round  

37 

 
 
                                                           
In  addition  to  the  recommended  indicators,  Germany  also  provided  the  following  benefit 
KPIs: capacity improvement, stabilisation and improvement of the traffic flow, and increase 
of  performance  and  capacity.  The  Netherlands  also  presented  results  from  the  evaluation  of 
several  of  its  pilot  projects  and  calculated  cost-benefit  ratios  (e.g.  for  time-savings).  Their 
report also suggested that additional KPIs may be more relevant in the future to better track 
the transition to and the impacts of more intelligent transport systems. 

Change in travel time (road KPI) 

Finland  reported  on  this  KPI  based  on  recent  project  experience,  which  showed  a  1.1% 
improvement  in  travel  time  as  a  result  of  ITS  for  road  transport,  and  15.3%  for  public 
transport  (with  the  assumption  that  all  public  transport  users  use  the  services).  Netherlands 
provided  analysis  of  the  impact  of  various  measures  on  congestion  from  2005-2015:  a  9% 
improvement  in  travel  time  was  attributed  to  ITS  specifically  thanks  to  ramp  metering  and 
dynamic route information, in addition to benefits from existing traffic management measures 
implemented before 2000. 

Change in road accidents results in death or injury (road KPI) 

Reporting  on  this  KPI  was  variable  and  different  levels  of  disaggregation  were  offered  by 
each country. Finland estimated a 14% decrease based on recent project experience, Germany 
a  30%  accidents  decrease.  Spain  reported  detailed  figures  (before  and  after  ITS 
implementation  or  improvement)  for  interurban  roads  and  urban  roads,  with  contrasted 
results: strong improvement for interurban roads (e.g. 56% less fatalities, 31% less accidents 
with victims), bad results for urban roads (e.g. 68% more fatalities, 26% more accidents with 
victims) – these figures may deserve additional analysis, in particular regarding the typology 
of  victims  (e.g.  VRUs  in  urban  areas),the  type  of  deployed  ITS  and  possible  other  factors 
influencing these evolutions. Sweden did not produce a KPI but provided indicative savings 
based on project experience40.  

Change in traffic-CO2 emissions (road KPI)  

Finland was the only country to report on this KPI and provided a figure of a 1.2% decrease, 
based on recent project experience. Sweden did not provide a KPI but gave estimations based 
on calculations from a socioeconomic model of CO2 emissions41. 

4.3.  Financial KPIs 

In  total,  eight  countries  reported  financial  KPIs  (Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Greece,  Spain, 
Finland, Ireland, Netherlands and Sweden). Again, the level of detail  provided for each KPI 
varied  depending  on  the  country.  For  instance,  some  reports  detailed  several  categories  of 

40 Between 2014-2016, 400 new cameras along around 1000 km of road network saved the lives of four people 
according to assessment by the Administration. 
41  Based  on  socioeconomic  models,  CO2  emissions  are  estimated  to  have  decreased  by  24,566  tonnes  during 
2014-2016 thanks to ATK (400 road safety cameras along around 1000 km of road network).  

38 

 
 
                                                           
annual  operating  costs,  including  roadside  equipment  maintenance,  development  and 
maintenance of ITS services and traffic management centre operations. 

Annual investment in road ITS (as a % of total transport infrastructure investments) 

The amount invested by Member States reporting on this KPI was within a range from around 
2%  in  average  for  Greece  to  12%  for  the  Netherlands.  However,  the  Greek  national  report 
also  mentioned  that  the  spend  on  ITS  for  the  major  motorways  ranged  from  1.5%  to  32%, 
which  perhaps  indicates  that  this  rate,  for  some  individual  sections  of  the  network,  may  be 
artificially  high  if  investments  on  the  road  infrastructure  were  done  previous  to  the 
investments  on  new  ITS  equipment,  and  therefore  the  costs  of  ITS  equipment  were  only 
compared to other annual maintenance or infrastructure rehabilitation costs or to the costs of 
other electromechanical equipment.. 

Annual operating and maintenance costs of road ITS (in €/km network covered) 

The numbers reported by three of the countries (Finland, Spain, Sweden) were very consistent 
and  ranged  from  €3,700/km  to  €4,000/km.  Other  countries  reported  different  values:  €13-
15,000/km for Czech Republic for its 7,480 km of motorways and 1st category roads (but 90% 
of  which  related  to  tolling  costs,  so  only  €800-900/km  for  other  ITS),  between  €1,000-
1,500/km  and  €24,700/km  for  two  motorways  in  Greece  (the  highest  value  may  be  due  to 
tolling as well), and €800-€1,300/km for the TEN-T network in Ireland. 

5. CONCLUSION 

This  second  series  of  progress  reports  has  provided  the  European  Commission  and  the 
Member States with further information on the ITS implementation all over Europe.  

For the first time, Member States were proposed to use a new common reporting template and 
to  provide  a  series  of  KPIs  on  deployment,  benefits  and  financial  aspects.  In  addition,  they 
were invited to provide all reports (one on the ITS Directive, three on delegated regulations) 
in  a single delivery using the common reporting template. This  was meant  to  facilitate both 
the reporting and the analysis of the reports.  

This goal has been only partially achieved; as for previous reporting exercises, the delivery of 
the reports spanned over one year, with only one third of the reports provided in time and less 
than half of the reports based on the proposed common template. However, around two-thirds 
of  the  Member  States  used  the  opportunity  to  provide  a  unique  report  covering  all  four 
reporting obligations.42 A handful of reports were very succinct and even much less detailed 
than in 2014, sometimes leading to lower scores being assigned. 

42 Note: it also happened that information on the implementation of specifications was provided 
twice (and even differently), both in the ITS national report and in a specific specifications-related 
report. 

39 

 
 
                                                           
 
The  general  trend  is  a  positive  evolution  of  the  deployment  of  ITS  at  national  level,  for  all 
four  priority  areas.  This  positive  evolution  was  supported  by  activities  involving  several 
Member States and benefitting from EU funding support, or where EU legislation mandated 
deployment and/or provided for legal and technical certainty through common specifications. 
Progress has been specifically visible in priority area III for eCall and in priority area IV with 
a lot of activities related to pre-deployment of C-ITS. 

Many reports illustrated the positive impact of projects involving several Member States and 
funded under the Connecting Europe Facility on the effective and harmonised deployment of 
ITS  services  and  on  the  harmonised  implementation  of  the  different  Delegated  Regulations 
(with still efforts  needed for some late Member  States), which calls for  continued efforts in 
that  respect.  However,  several  Member  States  are  still  late  or  did  not  provide  information 
regarding the deployment of their National Access Point, and there is still one issue regarding 
the deployment of the eCall infrastructure. 

Similar  conclusion  can  be  drawn  with  regard  to  the  Member  States’  cooperation  on  the 
elaboration of common tools related to the accessibility of data and provision of services, in 
particular  through  CEF-funded  projects  and  Programme  Support  Actions  (e.g.  DATEX  II 
profiles,  TN-ITS  specifications,  metadata  catalogue,  quality  framework  etc),  improving  also 
the  accessibility  of  ITS  data  and  therefore  supporting  also  the  development  of  new  ITS 
services.  

Several active Member States took also the initiative to develop together technical documents 
(e.g.  metadata  catalogue,  quality  framework)  to  support  the  implementation  of  the 
specifications and shared these documents with the other Member States. This  proved to  be 
beneficial to support a harmonised implementation of the specifications.  

This  cooperation  brings  positive  results  and  should  be  encouraged  and  extended,  and  may 
benefit from a more formal recognition of the National Access Points forming the backbone 
of a digital ITS infrastructure. 

40% of the Member States + Norway provided figures for KPIs, at least partially. Although 
not  optimal,  this  allows  to  draw  some  conclusions  for  the  contributing  countries,  at  least 
regarding deployment: a very high level  of coverage of information  gathering infrastructure 
and of real-time traffic and freight information services on the TEN-T road network, a more 
limited coverage for other services. Benefit and financial KPIs were reported less frequently, 
which  was  to  be  expected  as  this  information  may  need  more  investigations  and/or  data 
collection over a longer period. 

Some Member States deemed relevant to report on topics not in the current scope of the ITS 
Directive. This may be taken into account when reflecting on the scope of a possible future 
revision of the Directive. 

40 

 
 
 
6. SUGGESTIONS FOR NEXT PROGRESS REPORTS 

In the light of the analysis of the 2017 national progress reports, the following remarks can be 
made: 

●  Further  efforts  to  streamline  the  reporting  for  the  ITS  Directive  and  the  Delegated 
Regulations would be welcome, in order to facilitate the reporting and the analysis. This 
may be taken into account when revising the Directive and/or the Delegated Regulations 
and  when  adopting  new  delegated  acts.  A  revision  of  the  Directive  may  also  be  an 
opportunity  to  possibly  establish  improved  reporting  requirements  (e.g.  reporting 
structure, KPIs etc). 

●  On  the  basis  of  the  received  information,  evaluation  and  knowledge-sharing  activities 
could be organised to further guide Member States on data collection and calculation of 
KPIs,  beyond  the  already  provided  guidance,  also  taking  into  account  the  need  for 
stability  of  the  definition  of  these  KPIs  to  be  able  to  assess  their  long-term  evolution. 

41 

 
 
Annex I – KPI values for each reporting Member State

KPI typeKPIAustriaBelgiumCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandGermanyGreeceIrelandNetherlandsNorwaySpainSwedenDeploymentInformation gathering infrastructures / equipment (road KPI)87.5% of  2,199km high-level road network can be technically observed with the equipped cameras. (Status: Q1/2017)100% of TEN-T core87% of comprehensive network50% of other motorways9 maps showing rather comprehensive coverage of the comprehensive TEN-T network by several infrastructuresWeather monitoring: 100% of 1603 km of TEN-T road network Permanent fixed traffic monitoring: 9% of 1603 kmTemporary fixed traffic monitoring: 2% of 1603 kmMobile/probe traffic monitoring: 100% of 1603 kmRoad weather and traffic volume services = 100% of 5,207 km TEN-T road networkTravel time services = 15%No information provided77,6% of 2119 km motorwaysWeather and Environmental Conditions 100% of the road networkTraffic Conditions:Main corridor: 30%          Core TEN-T: 24%Comprehensive: 4%        Motorway: 0Other sections: 0100% for 1000km of TEN-T100% for 1400 km of other motorways (8.300 kilometres of road in total)6,9% of TEN-T and national roads (real time travel time registration)TEN-T core: 78% of 5794 kmTEN-T comprehensive: 49% of 6152 kmOther national roads: 20% of 34337 km100% of 6391 km of TEN-T network for road weather and for traffic volume servicesDeploymentIncident detection (road KPI)17% (381 km of tunnels / 2199 km of high-level road network)100% of TEN-T core79% of comprehensive network58% of other motorways4,6% of motorways6.9/1603 km = 0.4%For tunnels, 4.9/6.1 km = 80%Manual incident detection = 100% of 5,207 km TEN-T road networkNo information provided53,2% of 2119 km motorwaysNational RoadsMain Corridor: 30%TEN-T Core: 24%TEN-T Comprehensive: 4% Motorways: 0%Other Sections: 0% Outside National RoadsSouth Dublin County Council: 5%Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council: 35%Limerick City & County Council: 35%100% for TEN-T100% for other motorwaysTEN-T and national roads1,2% for automatic detection3,2% for detection based on camerasTEN-T core: 46%TEN-T comprehensive: 24%Other national roads: 6%On 558 km of urban roads:i) Automated for fixed equipment: 27%ii) Automated  for mobile equipment: 45%On TEN-T roads:iii) For manual incident detection: 100% (from police, emergency service, phone-calls etc)DeploymentTraffic management and traffic control measures (road KPI)19% (820 km / 4400 km)57% of TEN-T core42% of comprehensive network26% of other motorways4,5% of motorwaysPermanent installation: 174/1603 km = 9%Temporary installation: 28/1603 km = 2%Tunnels: 6.1/6.1 km = 100%12% of 5,207 km TEN-T road networkNo information provided71,7% of 2119 km motorwaysNational RoadsMain Corridor: 1%TEN-T Core: 1%TEN-T Comprehensive: 0% Motorways: 0%Other Sections: 0% Outside National 100% for TEN-T100% for other motorways5% of TEN-T and national roadsTEN-T core: 73%TEN-T comprehensive: 52%Other national roads: 20%On 558 km of urban roads: 27%DeploymentCooperative-ITS services and applications (road KPI)2% (50 km of C-ITS equipped sections / 2,199 km)0% of TEN-T core0% of comprehensive network0% of other motorways5,7% of motorways0% + pilot NordicWay covering all Denmark based on cellular communication29% of 5,207 km TEN-T road networkNo information provided1,7% of 2119 km motorwaysNo information provided0% - mostly pilotsNo C-ITS services deployedTEN-T core: 11%TEN-T comprehensive: 3%Other national roads: 0%Only early pilot projectsDeploymentReal-time traffic information (road KPI)100% (2,199km / 2,199km)100% of TEN-T core100% of comprehensive network100% of other motorways RDS-TMC system on 100% of the core network.The core network is roughly 60% covered by information portals LED information trolleys are used for approximately 48 km, which is 4% of the core road network (1222 km in total).1603/1603 km = 100%100% of 5,207 km TEN-T road networkNo information provided52,7% of 2119 km motorwaysNational RoadsTEN-T Core: 33% of 373 kmTEN-T Comprehensive: 13% of 543 kmMotorways: 44% of 73 kmOther Sections: 0% Outside National Roads:South Dublin County Council: 12% of 950 kmDun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council: 10% of 135 km100% for TEN-T100% for other motorways100% (whole network)TEN-T core: 100%TEN-T comprehensive: 99%Other national roads: 100%17,354 km (national roads and highways): 100%DeploymentDynamic travel information (multimodal KPI)100% (2.199km / 2.199km) high-level road network - 27%  of transport nodes (e.g. rail or bus stations) (10.000/ 37.000)No information providedNo information providedProvision of dynamic travel information: 1603/1603 km = 100%Number of nodes covered: 33.766/33.766 nodes = 100%100% of 5,207 km TEN-T road networkNo information provided13% of 2119 km motorways + 100% of Attiki (capital region) public transport network (6400 km) + 100% of transport nodes (7400)RoadsDun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council: 2%Limerick City & County Council (National roads):0%Limerick City & County Council (Regional roads): 4%Bus stops: 6% of 12000 stopsRailLuas Light Rail Network (excl Luas Cross City): 100%100% for TEN-T100% for other motorwaysInformation available on APIs and on stops and terminals in many cities. KPI is not calculated because  services not linked to roads and road length.TEN-T core: 26%TEN-T comprehensive: 14%Other national roads: 4%i) 98% of 37,893 km of urban networkii) 13% of 23870 nodes via fixed devices (signs) , 100% via mobile devices (apps, website)DeploymentFreight information (multimodal if possible, or road KPI)No information provided99% of TEN-T core91% of comprehensive network95% of other motorwaysStatic information on rest areas,  number of parking spaces and on services : 100% of the core road network.Approx 60% of transhipment sites for combined mode transport covered by information services.1603/1603 km = 100%Number of nodes was not able to be calculated.No information providedNo information providedNo information providedNothing specific to freightParking space information on 100% of TEN-T100% of other motorways No information providedTEN-T core: 100%TEN-T comprehensive: 100%Other national roads: 100%No figures providedBenefitChange in travel time (road KPI)No information providedNo information providedNo information providedNo information providedEstimated road transport KPI 1 = ((188.4-186.4)/188.4)*100 = 1.1%Estimated public transport KPI 2 = ((65.5-55.5)/65.5)*100 = 15.3%No information providedNo information providedNo information provided9%, from 2005-2015, only for ramp metering and dynamic route informationNo information providednot enough informationavailable to obtain a real KPI.No information providedBenefitChange in road accidents results in death or injury (road KPI)No information providedNo information providedNo information providedNo information providedEstimated based on NEXT-ITS and NEXT-ITS2: KPI = ((712-611)/712*100 = 14.2%30% less accidentsNo information providedNo information providedThe introduction of the lane control system in the past, which now covers almost half of themotorways, reduced the number of head-tail collisions and injuries by 30%-40%.No information providedInterurban roads:Accidents with victims: 31% Accident victims: 7% Fatalities: 56%Seriously injured: 51%Slightly injured: -1%Urban roadsAccidents with victims: -26% Accident victims: -24% Fatalities: -68%Seriously injured: 22%Slightly injured: -29%No information providedBenefitChange in traffic-CO2 emissions (road KPI)No information providedNo information providedNo information providedNo information providedEstimated based on NEXT-ITS and NEXT-ITS2: KPI = ((3834-3788)/3834*100 = 1.2%No information providedNo information providedNo information providedNot calculatedNo information providednot enough data available toobtain a real KPI.No information providedFinancialAnnual investment in road ITSNo information providedNo information providedTelematics - investments (including tolls) of the SFDI  2015 1.91% of €730,3m2016 3.47% of €750,7mNo information provided6,5% of €107m of road investments on the TEN-TOnly figures for investment in traffic control measures are availableInvestment separated by motorway (BAB) and federal roads (B)2014: €35.0 Mio (BAB), €2.9 Mio (B), 2015: €28.4 Mio (BAB), €0.5 Mio (B), 2016: €37.7 Mio (BAB), €0.2 Mio (B) Average of 2.2% of total infrastructure for 5 main motorways (range between 1.5-32%)Transport Infrastructure Ireland - National Roads (absolute figures, no percentage)2014 - 1,931,860 €2015 - 1,721,251 €2016 - 1,320,374 €12% (€164m) for total expenditure on ITS and Dynamic Traffic Management (estimated based on figures provided in NL report)No information provided8,60 M€.Approx. 6% (i.e. ~ €46m/year over the period 2014-2017)FinancialAnnual operating & maintenance costs of road ITSNo information providedNo information providedMotorways + 1st category roads2015: 13,370€ / km2016: 15,199€ / kmNo information provided3,760 euros/km (excludes costs of HVAC-systems, tunnel safety systems, electricity, tunnel lightning and traffic lights)No information providedData for 2 motorways (2017): - Egnatia odos: 1000-1500 EUR/km- Attiki odos: 24,700 EUR/kmTransport Infrastructure Ireland - National Roads  Operating and Maintenance costs of road ITSTotal O&M costs 2014 - 1,456,462 €2015 - 1,767,459 €2016 - 1,090,828 €O&M Costs for Main/Core/Comprehensive TEN-T Network (1385 km)2014 - 1052 €/km2015 - 1276 €/km2016 - 788 €/kmO&M Costs incl National and Secondary road network (5679 km)2014 - 256 €/km2015 - 311 €/km2016 - 192 €/kmSee aboveNo information providedKPI = 4000 €/km (for 15000 km of roads)€3,700/km/year for the 6391 km of TEN-T over the period 2014-2017