Intelligent Transportation Systems: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Technologies Expected to Offer Benefits, but Deployment Challenges Exist
Published: 2015-09-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Over the past two decades, automobile crash-related fatality and injury rates have declined over 34 and 40 percent respectively, due in part to improvements in automobile safety. To further improve traffic safety and provide other transportation benefits, DOT is promoting the development of V2I technologies. Among other things, V2I technologies would allow roadside devices and vehicles to communicate and alert drivers of potential safety issues, such as if they are about to run a red light. GAO was asked to review V2I deployment.
This report addresses: (1) the status of V2I technologies; (2) challenges that could affect the deployment of V2I technologies, and DOT efforts to address these challenges; and (3) what is known about the potential benefits and costs of V2I technologies.
GAO reviewed documentation on V2I from DOT, automobile manufacturers, industry associations, and state and local agencies. In addition, GAO interviewed DOT, Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) officials. GAO also conducted structured interviews with 21 experts from a variety of subject areas related to V2I. The experts were chosen based on recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences and other factors.
DOT, NTIA, and the FCC reviewed a draft of this report. DOT and NTIA provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. FCC did not provide comments.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technologies allow roadside devices to communicate with vehicles and warn drivers of safety issues; however, these technologies are still developing. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), extensive deployment may occur over the next few decades. DOT, state, and local-transportation agencies; researchers; and private-sector stakeholders are developing and testing V2I technologies through test beds and pilot deployments. Over the next 5 years, DOT plans to provide up to $100 million through its Connected Vehicle pilot program for projects that will deploy V2I technologies in real-world settings. DOT and other stakeholders have also provided guidance to help state and local agencies pursue V2I deployments, since it will be up to these agencies to voluntarily deploy V2I technologies.
According to experts and industry stakeholders GAO interviewed, there are a variety of challenges that may affect the deployment of V2I technologies including: (1) ensuring that possible sharing with other wireless users of the radio-frequency spectrum used by V2I communications will not adversely affect V2I technologies' performance; (2) addressing states and local agencies' lack of resources to deploy and maintain V2I technologies; (3) developing technical standards to ensure interoperability; (4) developing and managing data security and addressing public perceptions related to privacy; (5) ensuring that drivers respond appropriately to V2I warnings; and (6) addressing the uncertainties related to potential liability issues posed by V2I. DOT is collaborating with the automotive industry and state transportation officials, among others, to identify potential solutions to these challenges.
The full extent of V2I technologies' benefits and costs is unclear because test deployments have been limited thus far; however, DOT has supported initial research into the potential benefits and costs. Experts GAO spoke to and research GAO reviewed indicate that V2I technologies could provide safety, mobility, environmental, and operational benefits, for example by: (1) alerting drivers to potential dangers, (2) allowing agencies to monitor and address congestion, and (3) providing driving and route advice. V2I costs will include the initial non-recurring costs to deploy the infrastructure and the recurring costs to operate and maintain the infrastructure. While some organizations have estimated the potential average costs for V2I deployments, actual costs will depend on a variety of factors, including where the technology is installed, and how much additional infrastructure is needed to support the V2I equipment.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the past two decades, automobile crash-related fatality and injury  rates have declined nearly 34 percent and 40 percent, respectively, due  in part to automobile safety features like safety belts and airbags. The  U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is working to further improve  traffic safety through its connected vehicle research program, which aims  to develop innovative technologies that enable vehicles, road  infrastructure, and personal communications devices to wirelessly  communicate and warn drivers and pedestrians of potential accidents.  For example, DOT is collaborating with the automobile industry, academic  institutions, technology firms, and state and local agencies to develop  vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technologies that allow vehicles to  “communicate” with road infrastructure (such as traffic signals) through  the wireless exchange of data. These technologies can enable the  development of V2I software applications that could, among other things:  warn drivers of upcoming road conditions, such as work zones, or that  they are approaching a curve at an unsafe speed; adjust traffic signal  lights to provide priority to emergency vehicles or to address congestion;  advise drivers about upcoming traffic and alternative routes; and provide  driving advice to minimize stop-and-go driving. For example, in 2011,  Japan implemented V2I through the deployment of the ITS Spot system.  ITS Spot uses roadside equipment to collect and share data with vehicles  in order to provide three basic services to drivers: dynamic route  guidance, safe driving support, and electronic toll collection. Japan’s  extensive V2I network includes roughly 55,000 pieces of V2I equipment  on local roads and 1,600 pieces of V2I equipment on its approximately  11,000 kilometers of expressways. Similarly, the Netherlands, Germany,  and Austria are working to develop a European smart corridor that will  provide drivers information on road work and upcoming traffic, among  other things. Since V2I technologies are still in development in the United  States and rely on the exchange of information between vehicles and  infrastructure, developing and deploying V2I will require the collaboration  of a number of stakeholders, particularly state and local agencies, as well  as auto manufacturers.
In light of research showing the potential for V2I technologies to reduce  traffic accidents and fatalities, as well as questions raised regarding  potential technological and policy challenges, you asked us to review  issues related to V2I technologies. We examined: (1) the status of V2I  technologies; (2) the challenges, if any, that could affect the deployment  of V2I technologies, and DOT efforts to address these challenges; and (3)  what is known about the potential benefits and costs of V2I technologies.  To address these issues, we reviewed documentation relevant to the V2I  technology research efforts of DOT, state and local governments, and the  automobile industry, including DOT’s 2015 Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA) V2I Draft Deployment Guidance and Products  and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation  Officials’ (AASHTO) National Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure  Footprint Analysis. We interviewed officials from DOT’s Office of the  Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Intelligent  Transportation Systems-Joint Program Office (ITS-JPO), FHWA, National  Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Volpe National  Transportation Systems Center about these efforts. In addition to DOT  and its agencies, we also interviewed an additional 12 stakeholders that  were involved in V2I efforts, such as associations representing state  transportation agencies and engineers. We interviewed officials at all  seven V2I test beds located in Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Arizona,  California, and New York. We conducted site visits to three of the seven  test beds—the Safety Pilot in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the test beds in  Southeast Michigan and Northern Virginia. We selected the three site visit  locations based on which had the most advanced technology according to  DOT and state officials. We used our interviews with stakeholders to help  us understand the issues, and developed a structured set of questions for  interviews with 21 experts, nine of whom were identified by the National  Academy of Sciences. We selected an additional 12 experts based on the  following factors: (1) their personal involvement in the deployment of V2I  technologies; (2) recommendations from federal agencies and industry  associations; and, (3) experts’ involvement in a professional affiliation  such as a V2I consortium or group dedicated to these technologies, or  expertise on a specific challenge affecting V2I (e.g., privacy). The 21  experts we selected included domestic automobile manufacturers, V2I  equipment suppliers, state and local government officials, privacy experts,  global industry organizations responsible for developing technology  standards, and academic researchers with relevant expertise. During  these interviews we asked, among other things, for experts’ views on the  state of development and deployment of V2I technologies (including  DOT’s role in this process), the potential benefits of V2I technologies, and  their potential costs. In our report, we use the term “experts” to refer to  the 21 selected individuals we interviewed using a structured set of  questions; we use the term “stakeholders” to refer to those individuals we  spoke with, but that were not interviewed using the structured set of  questions. The viewpoints gathered through our expert interviews  represent the viewpoints of these specific individuals and cannot be  generalized to a broader population.
We also interviewed officials from the Federal Communications  Commission (FCC) and National Telecommunications and Information  Administration (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce regarding  challenges related to the potential for spectrum sharing with V2I  technologies. Finally, we conducted a site visit to Japan because of its  years of experience with deployment and maintenance of its national V2I  system. During our site visit, we interviewed Japanese government  officials responsible for V2I and auto manufacturers on topics similar to  those discussed with U.S. experts, including V2I deployment efforts,  benefits, costs, and challenges. Information about Japan’s V2I efforts  provides an illustrative example from which to draw information on the  potential benefits, costs, and challenges of deploying V2I technologies in  the United States. Further details about our scope and methodology can  be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 to September 2015  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOT is working with the automobile industry, state and local  transportation agencies, researchers, private sector stakeholders, and  others to lead and fund research on connected vehicle technologies to  enable safe wireless communications among vehicles, infrastructure, and  travelers’ personal communications devices. Connected vehicle  technologies include vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure  (V2I) technologies:
V2V technologies transmit data between vehicles to enable  applications that can warn drivers about potential collisions.
Specifically, V2V-equipped cars would emit data on their speed,  position, heading, acceleration, size, brake status, and other data  (referred to as the “basic safety message”) 10 times per second to the  on-board equipment of surrounding vehicles, which would interpret  the data and provide warnings to the driver as needed. For example,  drivers may receive a forward collision warning when their vehicle is  close to colliding with the vehicle in front of them. V2V technologies  have a greater range of detection than existing sensor-based crash  avoidance technologies available in some new vehicles. NHTSA is  pursuing actions to require that vehicle manufacturers install the  underlying V2V technologies that would enable V2V applications in  new passenger cars and light truck vehicles, and requested comment  on this issue in an August 2014 Advanced Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking. We reported on V2V technologies in November 2013.  Thus, we are not focusing on these technologies in this report.
Vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technologies transmit data between  vehicles and the road infrastructure to enable a variety of safety,  mobility, and environmental applications. V2I applications are  designed to avoid or mitigate vehicle crashes, particularly those crash  scenarios not addressed by V2V alone, as well as provide mobility  and environmental benefits. Unlike V2V, DOT is not considering  mandating the deployment of V2I technologies.
V2I applications rely on data sent between vehicles and infrastructure to  provide alerts and advice to drivers. For example, the Spot Weather  Impact Warning application is designed to detect unsafe weather  conditions, such as ice or fog, and notify the driver if reduced speed or an  alternative route is recommended (see left side of figure 1). DOT is also  investigating the development of V2I mobility and environmental  applications. For example, the Eco-Approach and Departure at Signalized  Intersections application alerts drivers of the most eco-friendly speed for  approaching and departing signalized intersections to minimize stop-and- go traffic and idling (see right side of fig. 1), and eco-lanes, combined with  eco-speed harmonization, (demonstrated in the following video) would  provide speed limit advice to minimize congestion and maintain  consistent speeds among vehicles in dedicated lanes.
DOT is also pursuing the development of V2I mobility applications that  are designed to provide traffic signal priority to certain types of vehicles,  such as emergency responders or transit vehicles. In addition, other types  of V2I mobility applications could capture data from vehicles and  infrastructure (for example, data on current traffic volumes and speed)  and relay real-time traffic data to transportation system managers and  drivers. For example, after receiving data indicating vehicles on a  particular roadway were not moving, transportation system managers  could adjust traffic signals in response to the conditions, or alert drivers of  alternative routes via dynamic message signs located along the roadway.  In addition to receiving alerts via message signs, these applications could  also allow drivers to receive warnings through on-board systems or  personal devices. Japan has pursued this approach through its ITS Spot  V2I initiative, which uses roadside devices located along expressways to  simultaneously collect data from vehicles to allow traffic managers to  identify congestion, while also providing information to drivers regarding  upcoming congestion and alternative routes.
To communicate in a connected vehicle environment, vehicles and  infrastructure must be equipped with dedicated short-range  communications (DSRC),  a wireless technology that enables vehicles  and infrastructure to transmit and receive messages over a range of  about 300 meters (nearly 1,000 feet). As previously noted, V2V- equipped cars emit data on their speed, position, heading, acceleration,  size, brake status, and other data (referred to as the “basic safety  message”) 10 times per second to the surrounding vehicles and  infrastructure. V2I-equipped infrastructure can also transmit data to  vehicles, which can be used by on-board applications to issue appropriate  warnings to the driver when needed. According to DOT, DSRC is  considered critical for safety applications due to its low latency, high  reliability, and consistent availability. In addition, DSRC also transmits in a  broadcast mode, providing data to all potential users at the same time.  Stakeholders and federal agencies have noted that DSRC’s ability to  reliably transfer messages between infrastructure and rapidly moving  vehicles is an essential component to detecting and preventing potential  collisions. DSRC technology uses radiofrequency spectrum to wirelessly  send and receive data. The Federal Communications Commission  (FCC), which manages spectrum for nonfederal users, including  commercial, private, and state and local government users, allocated 75  megahertz (MHz) of spectrum—the 5.850 to 5.925 gigahertz (GHz) band  (5.9 GHz band)—for the primary purpose of improving transportation  safety and adopted basic technical rules for DSRC operations.  However, in response to increased demands for spectrum, FCC has  requested comment on allowing other devices to “share” the 5.9 GHz  band with DSRC technologies.
V2I equipment may vary depending on the location and the type of  application being used, although in general, V2I components in the  connected vehicle environment include an array of roadside equipment  (RSE) that transmits and receives messages with vehicles for the  purpose of supporting V2I applications (see figure 2). For example, a V2I- equipped intersection would include:
Roadside units (RSU)—a device that operates from a fixed position  and transmits data to vehicles. This typically refers to a DSRC radio,  which is used for safety-critical applications that cannot tolerate  interruption, although DOT has noted that other technologies may be  used for non-safety-critical applications.
A traffic signal controller that generates the Signal Phase and Timing  (SPaT) message, which includes the signal phase (green, yellow, and  red) and the minimum and maximum allowable time remaining for the  phase for each approach lane to an intersection. The controller  transfers that information to the RSU, which broadcasts the message  to vehicles.
A local or state back office, private operator, or traffic management  center that collects and processes aggregated data from the roads  and vehicles. As previously noted, these traffic management centers  may use aggregated data that is collected from vehicles (speed,  location, and trajectory) and stripped of identifying information to gain  insights into congestion and road conditions as well.
Communications links (such as fiber optic cables or wireless  technologies) between roadside equipment and the local or state back  office, private operator, or traffic management center. This is typically  referred to as the “backhaul network.”
Support functions, such as underlying technologies and processes to  ensure that the data being transmitted are secure.
section_title: V2I Deployment Efforts Are in the Early Stages and Extensive U.S. Deployment May Occur over the Next Few Decades
subsections: section_title: DOT and Various Stakeholders Are Developing and Testing V2I Technologies through Small Test Deployments
paragraphs: DOT, state and local transportation agencies, academic researchers, and  private sector stakeholders are engaged in a number of efforts to develop  and test V2I technologies and applications, as well as to develop the  technology and systems that enable V2I applications. DOT’s V2I work is  funded through its connected vehicle research program. DOT’s initial  connected vehicle research focused on V2I technologies; however, it  shifted its focus to V2V technologies because they are projected to  produce the majority of connected vehicle safety benefits and they do not  require the same level of infrastructure investment as V2I technologies.  After conducting much of the research needed to inform its advanced  notice of proposed rulemaking to require that vehicle manufacturers  install V2V technologies in new passenger cars and light truck vehicles,  DOT is now shifting its focus back to V2I technologies, and some of the  technical work needed to develop V2V applications has also informed the  development of V2I. A number of DOT agencies are involved with the  development and deployment of V2I technologies. In addition, private  companies have received contracts from DOT to develop the underlying  concept of operations and technologies to support V2I applications, and  auto manufacturers are collaborating with DOT in its efforts to develop  and pilot certain V2I applications and the underlying technologies to  support them. State and local transportation agencies, which will  ultimately be deploying V2I technologies on their roads, have also  pursued efforts to test V2I technologies in real-world settings. However, to  date, only small research deployments (such as those described below)  have occurred to test V2I technologies:
The Safety Pilot Model Deployment: DOT partnered with the  University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to collect  data to help estimate the effectiveness of connected vehicle  technologies and their benefits in real-world situations. The pilot was  conducted in Ann Arbor, Michigan, from August 2012 to February  2014, and included roughly 2,800 V2V-equipped cars, trucks, and  buses, as well as roadside V2I equipment placed at 21 intersections,  three curve-warning areas, and five freeway sites. While the primary  focus was on V2V technologies, the pilot also evaluated V2I  technology, such as Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) technologies.  DOT officials stated that it would be releasing six reports with findings  from the Safety Pilot in mid to late 2015, although these reports will  primarily focus on V2V applications. As of July 2015, DOT has  released one report that included an evaluation of how transit bus  drivers responded to V2V and V2I warnings, and of how well the test  applications performed in providing accurate warnings. The two V2I  applications included were a curve speed warning and a warning that  alerts the bus driver if pedestrians are in the intended path of the bus  when it is turning at an intersection.
Connected Vehicle Pooled Fund Study: A group of state  transportation agencies, with support from the FHWA, established the  Connected Vehicle Pooled Fund Study. The study aims to aid  transportation agencies in justifying and promoting the large scale  deployment of a connected vehicle environment and applications  through modeling, development, engineering, and planning activities.  To achieve this goal, the study funds projects that facilitate the field  demonstration, deployment, and evaluation of connected vehicle  infrastructure and applications. For example, the University of Arizona  and the University of California at Berkeley are collaborating on a  project to develop and test an intelligent traffic-signal system that  could, among other things, provide traffic signal priority for emergency  and transit vehicles, and allow pedestrians to request for more time to  cross the street.
Crash Avoidance Metrics Partners, LLC (CAMP): CAMP—a  partnership of auto manufacturers that works to accelerate the  development and implementation of crash avoidance  countermeasures—established a V2I Consortium that focuses on  addressing the technical issues related to V2I. In 2013, DOT awarded  a cooperative agreement to CAMP, with a total potential federal share  of $45 million, to develop and test V2I safety, mobility, and  environmental applications, as well as the underlying technology  needed to support the applications, such as security and GPS- positioning technologies. According to an FHWA official, CAMP’s  current efforts include developing, testing, and validating up to five V2I  safety applications, as well as a prototype for Cooperative Adaptive  Cruise Control, an application that uses V2V and V2I technology to  automatically maintain the speed of and space between vehicles. In  addition to CAMP, automakers have established the Vehicle  Infrastructure Integration Consortium, which coordinates with DOT on  connected vehicle policy issues, such as interoperability of V2I  technologies.
Test Beds: DOT, state and local agencies, and universities have  established connected vehicle test beds. Test beds provide  environments (with equipped vehicles and V2I roadside equipment)  that allow stakeholders to create, test, and refine connected vehicle  technologies and applications. This includes DOT’s Southeast  Michigan Test Bed, which has been in operation since 2007 to provide  a real-world setting for developers to test V2I and V2V concepts,  applications, technology, and security systems. In addition, state  agencies and universities have established their own test beds. For  example, the University Transportation Center in Virginia, in  collaboration with the Virginia Department of Transportation,  established the Northern Virginia Test Bed to develop and test V2I  applications, some of which target specific problems—like  congestion—along the I-66 corridor. DOT offers guidance on how  research efforts can become DOT-affiliated test beds, with the goal of  enabling test beds to share design information and lessons learned,  as well as to create a common technical platform. According to DOT,  there are over 70 affiliated test bed members. The deployment of  connected vehicle infrastructure to date has been conducted in test  beds in locations such as Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, New  York, and Virginia. Additionally, officials from some of these test  beds told us they may apply to the Connected Vehicle Pilot  Deployment Program later this year (see below).
The Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program: Over the next  5 years, DOT plans to provide up to $100 million in funding for a  number of pilot projects that are to design and deploy connected  vehicle environments (comprised of various V2I and V2V technologies  and applications) to address specific local needs related to safety,  mobility, and the environment. As envisioned, there are to be multiple  pilot sites with each site having different needs, purposes, and  applications. The program solicitation notes that successful  elements of the pilot deployments are expected to become permanent  operational fixtures in the real-world setting (rather than limited to  particular testing facilities), with the goal of creating a foundation for  expanded and enhanced connected vehicle deployments. FHWA  solicited applications for the pilot program from January through  March 2015. According to DOT, the initial set of pilot deployments  (Wave 1 award) is expected to begin in Fall 2015, with a second set  (Wave 2 award) scheduled to begin in 2017. Pilot deployments are  expected to conclude in September 2020.
section_title: DOT and Stakeholders Are Collaborating and Developing V2I Guidance for State and Local Agencies
paragraphs: DOT and other stakeholders have worked to provide guidance to help  state and local agencies pursue V2I deployments, since it will be up to  state and local transportation agencies to voluntarily deploy V2I  technologies. In September 2014, FHWA issued and requested  comment on draft V2I deployment guidance intended to help  transportation agencies make appropriate V2I investment and  implementation decisions. For example, the guidance includes  information on planning deployments, federal funding that can be used for  V2I equipment and operations, technical requirements for equipment and  systems, and applicable regulations, among other things. FHWA is  updating the guidance and creating complementary guides, best  practices, and toolkits, and officials told us they expect the revised  guidance to be released by September 2015. In addition, the American  Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in  collaboration with a number of other groups, developed the National  Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis. This report  provides a variety of information and guidance for state and local  agencies interested in V2I implementation, including a description of  benefits; various state/local based scenarios for V2I deployments;  underlying infrastructure and communications needs; timelines and  activities for deployment; estimated costs and workforce requirements;  and an identification of challenges that need to be addressed. AASHTO,  with support the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Intelligent  Transportation Society of America, is also leading a V2I Deployment  Coalition. The Coalition has several proposed objectives: support  implementation of FHWA V2I deployment guidance; establish connected  vehicle deployment strategies, and support standards development.  According to information from the coalition and DOT, the V2I Deployment  Coalition will be supported by technical teams drawn from DOT, trade  associations, transportation system owners/operators, and auto  manufacturers.
section_title: Extensive Deployment of V2I Technologies May Occur over the Next Few Decades
paragraphs: While early pilot-project deployment of V2I technologies is occurring, V2I  technologies are not likely to be extensively deployed in the United States  for the next few decades. According to DOT, V2I technologies will likely  be slowly deployed in the United States over a 20-year period as existing  infrastructure systems are replaced or upgraded. DOT has developed a  connected vehicle path to deployment that includes steps such as  releasing the final version of FHWA’s V2I deployment guidance for state  and local transportation agencies (September 2015), and awarding and  evaluating the Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program projects in  two phases, with the first phase of awards occurring in September 2015  and evaluation occurring in 2019, and the second phase of awards  occurring in September 2017 and evaluation occurring in 2021. In  addition, DOT officials noted that V2I will capitalize on V2V, and its  deployment will lag behind the V2V rulemaking. NHTSA will issue a final  rule specifying whether and when manufacturers will be required to install  V2V technologies in new passenger cars and light trucks. In addition,  FCC has not made a decision about whether spectrum used by DSRC  can be shared with unlicensed devices, which could affect the time  frames for V2I deployment. Even after V2I technologies and applications  have been developed and evaluated through activities such as the pilot  program, it will take time for state and local transportation agencies to  deploy the infrastructure needed to provide V2I messages, and for drivers  to purchase vehicles or equipment that can receive V2I messages.  AASHTO estimated that 20 percent of signalized intersections will be V2I- capable by 2025, and 80 percent of signalized intersections would be V2I- capable by 2040. Similarly, AASHTO estimated that 90 percent of light  vehicles would be V2V-equipped by 2040. However, DOT officials noted  that environmental and mobility benefits can occur even without  widespread market penetration and that other research has indicated  certain intersections may be targeted for deployment. Similarly, in its  National Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis,  AASHTO noted that early deployment of V2I technologies will likely occur  at the highest-volume signalized intersections, which could potentially  address 50 percent of intersection crashes. See figure 3 for a list of  planned events and milestones related to DOT’s path to deployment of  connected vehicle technologies.
section_title: A Variety of Challenges, Including Potential Spectrum Sharing, May Affect the Deployment of V2I
paragraphs: According to experts and industry stakeholders we interviewed, there are  a variety of challenges that may affect the deployment of V2I technologies  including: (1) ensuring that possible sharing with other wireless users of  the radiofrequency spectrum used by V2I communications will not  adversely affect V2I technologies’ performance; (2) addressing states’  lack of resources to deploy and maintain V2I technologies; (3) developing  technical standards to ensure interoperability between devices and  infrastructure; (4) developing and managing a data security system and  addressing public perceptions related to privacy; (5) ensuring that drivers  respond appropriately to V2I warnings; and (6) addressing the  uncertainties related to potential liability issues posed by V2I. DOT is  collaborating with the automotive industry and state transportation  officials, among others, to identify potential solutions to these challenges.
subsections: section_title: Potential Spectrum Sharing
paragraphs: As previously noted, V2I technologies depend on radiofrequency  spectrum, which is a limited resource in high demand due in part to the  increase in mobile broadband use. To address this issue, the current and  past administrations, Congress, FCC, and others have proposed a variety  of policy, economic, and technological solutions to support the growing  needs of businesses and consumers for fixed and mobile broadband  communications by providing access to additional spectrum. One  proposed solution, introduced in response to requirements in the Middle  Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, would allow unlicensed  devices to share the 5.9 GHz band radiofrequency spectrum that had  been previously set aside for the use of DSRC-based ITS applications  such as V2I and V2V technologies. FCC issued a Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking in February 2013 that requested comments on this proposed  solution.
DOT officials and 17 out of 21 experts we interviewed considered the  proposed spectrum sharing a significant challenge to deploying V2I  technologies. DSRC systems support safety applications that require  the immediate transfer of data between entities (vehicle, infrastructure, or  other platforms). According to DOT officials, delays in the transfer of such  data due to harmful interference from unlicensed devices may jeopardize  crash avoidance capabilities. Experts cited similar concerns, with one  state official saying that if they deploy applications and they do not work  due to harmful interference, potential users may not accept V2I. Seven  experts we interviewed agreed that further testing was needed to  determine if sharing would result in harmful interference to DSRC. In  addition, DOT officials noted that changing to a shared 5.9 GHz band  could impact current V2I research, which is based on the assumption that  DSRC systems will have reliable access to the 5.9 GHz wireless  spectrum.
According to Japanese government officials we interviewed, Japan also  considered whether to share its dedicated spectrum with unlicensed  devices and decided not to allow sharing of the spectrum used for V2I in  the 700 MHz band. According to officials we interviewed, Japan’s  Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications conducted a study to test  interference with V2I technologies and mobile phones to determine the  impact on reliability and latency in delivering safety messages. Based  on these tests, the Japanese government decided not to allow sharing of  the spectrum band used for V2I, because sharing could lead to delays or  harmful interference with V2I messages. Japanese auto manufacturers  we interviewed in Japan supported the decision of the Japanese  government to keep the 700 MHz band dedicated to transportation safety  uses. According to officials, if latency problems affect the receipt of safety  messages, this could degrade the public’s trust, consequently slowing  down acceptance of the V2I system in Japan.
Since the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was announced, various  organizations have begun efforts to evaluate potential spectrum sharing  in the 5.9 GHz band and some have expressed concerns. For example,  harmful interference from unlicensed devices sharing the same band  could affect the speed at which a V2I message is delivered to a driver.  NTIA, which has conducted a study on the subject, identified risks  associated with allowing unlicensed devices to operate in the 5.9 GHz  band, and concluded that further work was needed to determine whether  and how the risks identified can be mitigated. DOT also plans to evaluate  the potential for unlicensed device interference with DSRC as discussed  below.
Given the pending FCC rulemaking decision, DOT, technology firms, and  car manufacturers have taken an active role pursuing solutions to  spectrum sharing. Specifically, DOT’s fiscal year 2016 budget request  included funds for technical analysis to determine whether DSRC can co- exist with the operation of unlicensed wireless services in the same  radiofrequency band without undermining safety applications. According  to DOT officials, since industry has not yet developed an unlicensed  device capable of sharing the spectrum, the agency does not have a  specific date for completion of this testing at this time. DOT officials  noted, however, that they would work with NTIA in any spectrum-related  matter to inform FCC of its testing results. According to FCC officials we  spoke with, FCC is currently collecting comments and data from  government agencies, industry, and other interested parties and will use  this information to inform their decision. For example, since 2013,  representatives from Toyota, Denso, CSR Technology, and other firms  worked together as part of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics  Engineers (IEEE) DSRC Tiger Team to evaluate potential options and  technologies that would allow unlicensed devices to use the 5.9 GHz  band without causing harmful interference to licensed devices. However,  the representatives did not reach an agreement on a unified spectrum- sharing approach. Another ongoing effort from Cisco Systems, the  Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the Association of Global  Automakers is preparing to test whether unlicensed devices using the  “listen, detect and avoid” protocol would be able to share spectrum  without causing harmful interference to incumbent DSRC operations. As  of September 2015, FCC has not announced a date by which it will make  a decision.
section_title: Lack of State and Local Resources to Develop and Maintain V2I Systems
paragraphs: Because the deployment of V2I technologies will not be mandatory, the  decision to invest in these technologies will be up to the states and  localities that choose to use them as part of their broader traffic- management efforts. However, many states and localities may lack  resources for funding both V2I equipment and the personnel to install,  operate, and maintain the technologies. In its report on the costs,  benefits, and challenges of V2I deployment by local transportation  agencies, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program  (NCHRP) noted that many states they interviewed said that their current  state budgets are the leanest they have been in years. Furthermore,  states are affected because traditional funding sources, such as the  Highway Trust Fund, are eroding, and funding is further complicated by  the federal government’s current financial condition and fiscal outlook.  Consequently, there can be less money for state highway programs that  support construction, reconstruction, and improvement of highways and  bridges on eligible federal-aid highway routes, as well as for other  authorized purposes. According to one stakeholder we interviewed,  there have been widespread funding cuts for state DOTs, and many state  DOTs must first focus on maintaining the infrastructure and equipment  they already have before investing in advanced technologies. Ten  experts we interviewed, including six experts from state and local  transportation agencies, agreed that the lack of state and local resources  will be a significant challenge to deploying V2I technologies. According  to one report, without additional federal funding, deploying V2I systems  would be difficult.
Even if states decide to invest in V2I deployment, states and localities  may face difficulties finding the resources necessary to operate and  maintain V2I technologies. We have previously found that effectively  using intelligent transportation systems, like V2I, depends on agencies’  having the staff and funding resources needed to maintain and operate  the technologies. However, a recently released DOT report noted that  staffing and information technology resources for maintaining V2I  technologies were lacking in most agencies due to low and uncompetitive  wage rates and funding constraints at the state and local government  levels. Similarly, 12 experts we interviewed stated that states and  localities generally lack the resources to hire and train personnel with the  technical skills needed to operate and maintain V2I systems.
According to FHWA’s draft guidance on V2I deployment, funds are  available for the purchase and installation of V2I technologies under  various Federal-aid highway programs. In addition, costs that support  V2I systems, including maintenance of roadside equipment and related  hardware, are eligible in the same way that other Intelligent  Transportation System (ITS) equipment and programs are eligible.  According to DOT, states have the authority and responsibility to  determine the priority for funding V2I systems along with other competing  transportation programs.
Japan’s V2I systems, which were also voluntarily deployed, were funded  in large part by the national government. According to Japan’s National  Police Agency, half of the costs for traffic signals were provided by the  national government. In addition, according to the National Policy Agency,  the Japanese government has invested an estimated $97 million (2014  dollars) in research and development for these systems. Two of the  Japanese automakers we interviewed attributed the success of the  Japanese V2I system in part to the significant government involvement  and financial investment. Furthermore, according to a study on  international connected vehicle technologies, Japan’s nationally deployed  and funded infrastructure devices allowed for industry partners to test and  release connected vehicle technologies.
section_title: Developing Technical Standards to Ensure Interoperability of V2I Systems
paragraphs: Nineteen of the 21 experts we spoke with reported that establishing  technical standards is essential for all connected vehicle programs,  including V2I, and will be challenging for a number of reasons.  According to DOT, such standards define how systems, products, and  components perform, how they can connect, and how they can exchange  data to interoperate. DOT further noted that these standards are  necessary for connected vehicle technologies to work on different types  of vehicles and devices to ensure the integrity and security of their data  transmission. As well, current standardization efforts have focused on  standardizing the data elements and message sets that are transmitted  between vehicles and the infrastructure. Currently, according to DOT  officials, DOT and various organizations have worked with the Society for  Automotive Engineers (SAE) International to standardize the message  sets and associated performance requirements for DSRC (SAE J2735  and J2945), which support a wide variety of V2V and V2I applications.  DOT, SAE International, and engineers from auto manufacturers, V2I  suppliers, technology firms, and other firms meet to develop high-quality,  safe, and cost-effective standards for connected vehicle devices and  technologies, according to an expert from a leading industry organization  specializing in setting connected vehicle technical standards. This expert  also noted that developing consensus around what standards should be  instituted could be difficult given the different interests (political,  economic, or industry-related) of the many stakeholders involved in  developing and deploying V2I technologies. For example, the expert said  that developing effective security standards required for these  technologies that are also cost-effective for auto manufacturers and  government organizations to implement may be difficult.
Without common standards, V2I technologies may not be interoperable.  DOT has noted that consistent, widely applicable standards and protocols  are needed to ensure V2I interoperability across devices and  applications. However, ensuring interoperability with a standard set of V2I  applications in each state may be particularly challenging because unlike  V2V, deployment of V2I technologies will remain voluntary. Consequently,  states and localities may choose to deploy a variety of different V2I  technologies—or no technologies at all—based on what they deem  appropriate for their transportation needs. DOT officials we interviewed  recognized that a complete national deployment of V2I technologies  may never occur, resulting in a patchwork deployment of different  applications in localities and states, although these applications will be  required to be interoperable with one another. As a result, V2I  deployment may be challenged by the following limitations:
Benefits may not be optimized: Four experts we interviewed said that  having a standard set of V2I applications in each state would be  beneficial for drivers because a consistent deployment of applications  could potentially increase benefits.
Development of applications may be more limited: AASHTO’s  National Connected Vehicle Footprint Analysis argues that the more  connected vehicle infrastructure is deployed nationwide using  common standards, the more likely applications will be developed to  take advantage of new safety, mobility, and environmental  opportunities.
Drivers may not find the system valuable: One expert from a state  agency said without a standard set of V2I applications that allows  drivers to use V2I applications seamlessly as they travel from state to  state, travelers may lose confidence in the usefulness of the system  and choose not to use it.
DOT and standardization organizations, such as the Society of  Automotive Engineers (SAE) International, are working to develop  standards to support DSRC and other V2I communications technologies.  The data elements and message sets specified in the SAE standards are  suitable not only for use with DSRC but also with other communications  technologies such as cellular. According to DOT officials, the department  is providing funding support, expert participation, and leadership in  multiple standards development organizations to promote consensus on  the key standards required to support nationally interoperable V2I and  V2V technology deployments. Furthermore, the V2I Deployment  Coalition—which includes AASHTO, the Institute of Electrical and  Electronic Engineers, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers— intends to lead the effort to develop and support publishing of V2I  standards, guidelines, and test specifications to support interoperability.  To facilitate standardization among potential state users of V2I  technologies, FHWA is currently developing deployment guidance as  discussed previously. According to DOT, that guidance will include  specifications to ensure interoperability and to assist state and local  agencies in making appropriate investment and implementation decisions  for those agencies that will deploy, operate, and maintain V2I systems.
In addition to developing V2I standards across the United States, five  experts we interviewed mentioned the importance of international  harmonization for V2I technologies. Auto manufacturer experts  recognized the importance of developing standards at both a domestic  and international level as cars are manufactured globally. However, this is  a challenge because international standardization organizations, including  those in Europe and Japan, have different verification and validation  processes than the United States, according to an auto manufacturer  expert.  Furthermore, another expert noted that harmonization of  standards is dependent on the country’s or regional government’s  regulations, and since there are different views on the role of these  regulations in Europe, Japan, and the United States, achieving global  standards will be complex. According to DOT, the joint standardization of  connected vehicle systems (V2V and V2I) is a core objective of European  Union-U.S. cooperation on ITS, and U.S.-Japan staff exchanges have  been invaluable in building relationships and facilitating technical  exchange, thus creating a strong foundation for ongoing collaboration and  research. According to DOT officials, even when identical standards are  not viable across multiple countries or regions due to technical or legal  differences, maximizing similarities can increase the likelihood that  common hardware and software can be used in multiple markets,  reducing costs and accelerating deployment. According to officials from  one Japanese auto manufacturer we interviewed, developing a standard  message set for V2I communications in Japan was a long and  challenging process that took over 5 years of discussion among auto  manufacturers.
section_title: Data Security System and Privacy Concerns
paragraphs: According to DOT, for connected vehicle technologies to function safely,  security and communications infrastructure need to enable and ensure  the trustworthiness of messages between vehicles and infrastructure. The  source of each message needs to be trusted and message content needs  to be protected from outside interference or attacks on the system’s  integrity. A DOT study we reviewed and the majority of the experts we  interviewed noted that data security challenges exist and cited challenges  that range from securing messages delivered to and from vehicle devices  and infrastructure to managing security credentials and associated  policies for accessing data and the system. Fourteen of 21 experts we  interviewed cited securing data as a significant challenge to the  deployment of V2I technologies. For example, experts from 5 states and  one local agency that operated V2I test beds told us they were uncertain  how vehicle and infrastructure data would be stored and secured for a  larger deployment of V2I technologies because they have only tested V2I  applications in limited, small-scale deployments. Most of these experts  were also unsure whether current data security efforts could be scalable  to a larger deployment. According to DOT officials, they are currently  researching this area.
DOT and industry have taken steps to develop a security framework for  all connected vehicle technologies, including V2I. DOT, along with  automakers from CAMP, are testing and developing the Security  Credential Management System (SCMS) to ensure the basic safety  messages are secure and coming from an authorized device. More than  half of the experts we interviewed expressed a variety of concerns about  (1) the SCMS system, including whether SCMS can ensure a trusted and  secure data exchange and (2) who will ultimately manage the system.  To solicit input on these issues DOT launched a Request for Information  in October 2014 to obtain feedback in developing the organizational and  operating structure for SCMS. In our previous work on V2V, we found  that as a part of its research on the security system, DOT had identified  three potential models—federal, public-private, and private. We  previously found that if a federal model were pursued, according to DOT,  the federal government would likely pursue a service contract that would  include specific provisions to ensure adequate market access, privacy  and security controls, and reporting and continuity of services. We also  reported that under a public-private partnership, the security system  would be jointly owned and managed by the federal government and  private entities. At the time of our prior report, DOT officials stated that its  legal authority and resources have led NHTSA to focus primarily on  working with stakeholders to develop a viable private model, involving a  privately owned and operated security-management provider.
According to DOT officials, the agency is expanding the scope of its  planned policy research to enable the Department to play a more active  leadership role in working with V2V and V2I stakeholders to develop and  prototype a private, multi-stakeholder organizational model for a V2V  SCMS. Officials said that such a model would ensure organizational  transparency, fair representation of stakeholders, and permit the federal  government to play an ongoing advisory role. A central component of the  Department’s planned policy research is the development of policies and  procedures that could govern an operational SCMS, including minimum  standards to ensure security and appropriately protect consumer privacy.  Currently, NHTSA is reviewing comments on the management and  organization for SCMS to inform its V2V Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  expected to be submitted for Office of Management and Budget review by  the end of 2015. In addition, according to DOT’s Connected Vehicle Pilot  Deployment Program request for proposals, participating state and local  agencies will utilize SCMS as a tool to support deployment security,  which will allow states, local agencies, and private sector firms an  opportunity to test capabilities in a real-world setting. Ultimately, when  asked about the sufficiency of SCMS, almost half of the experts we  interviewed (10 of 21) indicated they were confident that a secure system  for V2I could be developed.
According to FHWA, a secure system is essential to appropriately protect  the privacy of V2I users. Nine of the experts identified privacy as a  significant challenge for the deployment of V2I technologies. For  example, the public may perceive that their personal information could be  exposed or their vehicle could be tracked using connected vehicle  technologies. In a connected vehicle environment, various  organizations—federal, state, and local agencies; academic  organizations; and private sector firms—potentially may have access to  data generated by V2I technologies in order to, for example, manage  traffic and conduct research. DOT has taken some steps to mitigate  security and privacy concerns related to V2V and V2I technologies.
According to DOT officials, the safety message will be broadcast in a very  limited range (approximately 300 meters) and will not contain any  information that identifies a specific driver, owner or vehicle (through  vehicle identification numbers or license plate or registration information).  The messages transmitted by DSRC devices (such as roadside units) in  support of V2V and V2I technologies also will be signed by security  credentials that change on a periodic basis (currently expected to be  every 5 minutes) to minimize the risk that a third party could use the  messages as a basis for tracking the location or path of a specific  individual or vehicle.
Additionally, with respect to V2I technologies, DOT officials, car  manufacturers and V2I suppliers plan to incorporate privacy by design  into V2I technologies. Under this approach, according to DOT, V2I data  will be aggregated, and anonymized. Also NHTSA is currently in the  process of conducting a V2V privacy risk assessment and intends to  publish a Privacy Impact Assessment in connection with its V2V Notice of  Proposed Rulemaking, which is expected to include an analysis of data  collected, transmitted, stored, and disclosed by the V2V system  components and other entities in relation to privacy concerns. The  Department expects the V2V privacy risk research and the Privacy Impact  Assessment to influence the development of policies, including security  and privacy policies with regard to V2I. Furthermore, according to DOT,  its V2I Deployment Coalition also plans to identify privacy and data issues  at the state and county level.
According to Japanese officials we interviewed from the Ministry of Land,  Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism (MLIT), Japan took a number of  steps to address the security and privacy of its V2I system. First, Japan’s  Intelligent Transportation Systems Technology Enhancement Association  is responsible for managing the security of their V2I systems, and  developed a system that used encryption to maintain security and ensure  privacy. More specifically, each vehicle participating in V2I is assigned a  changing, random identification number each time the vehicle started,  thus making it difficult to track the vehicle over time. MLIT officials also  noted that data generated from each vehicle is not stored permanently,  but rather saved for distinct time frames depending on its use. Further,  MLIT officials stated that security is ensured because V2I information is  protected, anonymous, non-identifiable, and not shared with outside  organizations; rather, it is used solely for public safety purposes.  According to the National Police Agency officials, no significant security  issue has occurred with V2I technologies as of July 2015.
section_title: Human Factors
paragraphs: Because V2I data will initially provide alerts and warning messages to  drivers, the ultimate effectiveness of these technologies, especially as it  relates to safety, depends on how well drivers respond to the warning  messages. In a November 2013 report on V2V technologies, we found  that addressing human factors that affect how drivers will respond  included (1) minimizing the risk that drivers could become too familiar with  or overly reliant upon warnings over time and fail to exercise due  diligence in responding to them, (2) assessing the risk that warnings  could distract drivers and present new safety issues, and (3) determining  what types of warnings will maximize driver response. Seven of the 21  experts we interviewed identified human factors issues as significant to  V2I deployment.
To address these concerns, DOT is participating in a number of research  efforts to determine the effects of new technologies on driver distraction.  To further examine the effects on drivers using V2I applications, NHTSA  has a research program in place to develop human factors principles that  may be used by automobile manufacturers and suppliers as they design  and deploy V2I technology and other driver-vehicle interfaces that provide  warnings to drivers. In addition, DOT’s ITS-JPO is funding NHTSA and  FHWA research to investigate human factors implications for V2I  technologies. Furthermore, according to DOT, the Connected Vehicle  Pilot Program will allow additional opportunities to review drivers’  reactions to V2I messages using cameras and driver vehicle data on  speed, braking, and other metrics.
section_title: Liabilities
paragraphs: Eleven of the 21 experts we interviewed identified uncertainty related to  potential liability in the event of a collision involving vehicles equipped  with V2I technologies as a challenge. In our November 2013 report on  V2V, an auto manufacturer expert said that it could be harder to  determine whether fault for a collision between vehicles equipped with  connected vehicle technologies lies with one of the drivers, an automobile  manufacturer, the manufacturer of a device, or another party.
According to DOT officials, it is unlikely that either V2I or V2V  technologies will create significant liability exposure for the automotive  industry, as DOT expects auto manufacturers will contractually limit their  potential liability for integrated V2I and V2V applications and third-party  services. However, according to DOT, V2I applications using data  received from public infrastructure may create potential new liability risks  to various infrastructure owners and operators—state and local  governments, railroads, bridge owners, and roadway owners—because  such cases often are brought against public or quasi-public entities and  not against vehicle manufacturers. According to DOT, this liability will  likely be the same as existing liability for traffic signals and variable  message signs.
section_title: Extent of Benefits and Costs Are Likely to Remain Unclear until Further Deployment of V2I Technology
subsections: section_title: Experts Identified Potential Safety, Mobility, Operational, and Environmental Benefits to V2I Technologies, but Extent of Benefits Is Not Yet Clear
paragraphs: DOT officials, stakeholders representing state officials and private sector  entities, and experts we interviewed stated that the deployment of V2I  technologies and applications is expected to result in a variety of benefits  to users. Experts identified safety, mobility, operational, and  environmental benefits as the potential benefits of V2I.
Safety: Eleven of 21 experts identified safety as one of the primary  benefits of V2I technologies. This included 6 of the 8 state and local  agencies we interviewed. According to Japanese officials we  interviewed, Japan has realized safety benefits from its deployment of  V2I infrastructure. For example, in an effort to prevent rear-end  collisions, Japan installed V2I infrastructure that detected and warned  motorists of upcoming congestion on an accident-prone curve on an  expressway in Tokyo. According to Japanese officials, this combined  with other measures such as road marking, led to a 60-percent  reduction in rear-end collisions on this curve.
Mobility: In interviews, 8 of 21 experts identified mobility as one of the  primary benefits of V2I, including 6 of the 8 state and local agencies  we interviewed. Officials in three states we interviewed noted that  they are focusing on V2I applications that have the potential to  increase mobility. These applications could allow for transportation  system managers to identify and address congestion in real-time, as  well as provide traffic signal priority to certain types of vehicles, such  as emergency responders or transit. For example, Japanese officials  estimated that as the use of electronic tolling rose to nearly 90 percent  of vehicles on expressways, tollgate congestion was nearly eliminated  on certain expressways.
Operations: In interviews, 7 of 21 experts, including 4 of 8 state and  local agencies, identified the potential for V2I applications to provide  operational benefits or cost savings. For example, one state agency  noted that using data collected from vehicles could allow the  transportation managers to more easily monitor pavement conditions  and identify potholes (typically a costly and resource-intensive  activity). DOT and the National Cooperative Highway Research  Program have also noted that the visibility and enhanced data on  current traffic and road conditions provided by V2I applications would  provide operational benefits to state and local transportation  managers. This result, in turn, could provide safety or other benefits to  drivers. For example, officials in Japan told us that by using data  collected from vehicles through the ITS infrastructure, they were able  to identify 160 locations in which drivers were braking suddenly. After  investigating the cause, officials took steps to address safety issues at  these sites (such as trimming trees that created visual obstructions)  and incidents of sudden braking decreased by 70 percent and  accidents involving injuries or fatalities decreased 20 percent. In  addition, the Japanese government partnered with private industry to  collect and analyze vehicle probe data to help the public determine  which roads were passable following an earthquake.
Environment: Of the experts we interviewed, 4 of 21 identified  environmental benefits as a primary benefit of V2I technologies, with  some noting interconnections among safety, mobility, and  environmental benefits. For example, officials from two state  agencies we interviewed stated that improving safety and mobility will  lead to environmental benefits because there will be less stop-and-go  traffic. Indeed, Japanese officials estimated that decreased tollgate  congestion reduced CO2 emissions by approximately 210,000 tons  each year.
Although V2I applications are being developed for the purpose of  providing safety, mobility, operational, and environmental benefits, the  extent to which V2I benefits will be realized is currently unclear because  of the limited data available and the limited deployment of V2I  technologies. To date, only small research deployments have occurred to  test connected vehicle technologies. However, DOT has commissioned or  conducted some studies to estimate potential V2I benefits, particularly  with respect to safety and the environment.
NHTSA used existing crash data and estimated that in combination,  V2V and V2I could address up to 81 percent of crashes involving  unimpaired drivers. Similarly, in 2012, a study commissioned by  FHWA used existing crash data and estimated the number, type, and  costs of crashes that could be prevented by 12 different V2I  applications. This study estimated that the 12 V2I applications would  prevent 2.3-million crashes annually (representing 59 percent of  single vehicle crashes and 29 percent of multi-vehicle crashes and  comprising $202 billion in annual costs).
With respect to the environment, DOT contracted with Booz Allen  Hamilton to develop an initial benefit-cost analysis for its  environmental applications, with the goal of informing DOT’s future  work and prioritization of certain applications. As part of the next  phase of this work, Booz Allen Hamilton used models to estimate  potential benefits of individual applications, as well as their benefits  when used in combination with other applications.
NCHRP estimated operational and financial benefits that V2I  applications may provide to state and local governments, such as  reduced costs for crash response and cleanup costs; reduced need  for traveler information infrastructure; reduction of infrastructure  required to monitor traffic; and lower cost of pavement condition  detection. However, one of the study’s major conclusions was that  the data required to quantify benefits are generally not available.
DOT is taking some steps to evaluate the benefits of V2I applications.
For example, as part of its upcoming Connected Vehicle Pilot  Deployment Program, pilot projects are expected to develop a  performance-monitoring system, establish performance measures,  and collect relevant data. Projects will also receive an independent  evaluation of their projects’ costs and benefits; user acceptance and  satisfaction; and lessons learned.
In addition, organizations researching the benefits of V2I have noted that  the benefits of V2I deployments may depend on a variety of factors,  including the size and location of the deployment, the number of roadside  units deployed, the number of vehicles equipped, and the types of  applications that are deployed. A study sponsored by the University of  Michigan Transportation Research Institute noted that some V2I safety  applications require a majority of vehicles to be equipped before reaching  optimum effectiveness, in contrast to mobility, road weather, and  operations applications, which only require a small percentage of  equipped vehicles before realizing benefits. Japanese government  officials, as well as representatives from a private company we  interviewed in Japan, noted that in some cases, they have found it difficult  to quantify benefits. However, DOT and the Ministry of Land,  Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan established an Intelligent  Transportation Systems (ITS) Task Force to exchange information and  identify the areas for collaborative research to foster the development and  deployment of ITS in both the United States and Japan. According to  DOT, evaluation tools and methods are high-priority areas for the task  force, and DOT has stated that a report detailing the task force’s  collaborative research on evaluation tools and methods will be published  in 2015. In addition, 8 of the 21 experts we interviewed noted that it can  be difficult to identify benefits that are solely attributable to V2I, due to the  interconnected nature of V2V and V2I technologies. However, some  experts we spoke with provided some examples of how connected  vehicle benefits could be measured, including: crash avoidance, reduction  in fatalities, reduced congestion, and reduced travel times.
section_title: The Costs for V2I Are Unclear due to Limited Deployment
paragraphs: The costs for the deployment of a national V2I system are unclear  because current cost data for V2I technology are limited due to the small  number of test deployments thus far. According to DOT officials, experts,  and other industry stakeholders we spoke to, there are two primary  resources for estimating V2I deployment costs: AASHTO’s National  Connected Vehicle Footprint Analysis (2014) and National Cooperative  Highway Research Program’s (NCHRP) 03-101 Costs and Benefits of  Public-Sector Deployment of Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Technologies  (2013). However, the cost estimates in both reports are based on  limited available data from small, research test beds. As a result, neither  report contains an estimate for the total cost if V2I were to be deployed at  a national level. Despite these limitations, the cost estimates in these  two studies are cited by several experts and industry stakeholders,  including DOT. According to DOT, these cost figures may be useful to  agencies considering early deployments.
According to AASHTO and NCHRP, costs of V2I deployment will likely be  comprised of two types of costs. First, V2I will require non-recurring  costs—the upfront, initial costs required to deploy the infrastructure.  According to AASHTO, there are two primary, non-recurring cost  categories associated with V2I deployments:  Infrastructure deployment costs include the costs for planning,  acquiring, and installing the V2I roadside equipment. State and local  agencies will need to evaluate the costs for planning and design that  may include mapping intersections and deciding where to deploy the  DSRC radios based on traffic and safety analyses, according to  AASHTO. Deployment costs will include the cost of acquiring the  equipment, including the roadside unit. AASHTO estimates that the  total equipment costs would be $7,450 per site, with $3,000  attributed to each roadside unit, on average. However, 4 of the  experts we interviewed stated that the cost estimates for the hardware  are likely to decrease over time, as the technology matures and the  market becomes more competitive. The total average cost for  installation of the equipment per site includes the costs of labor and  inspection. In addition, deployment costs may include the cost of  upgrading traffic signal controllers. AASHTO estimates that  approximately two thirds of all controllers in the United States will  need to be upgraded to support connected vehicle activities.
Backhaul costs refer to the costs for establishing connectivity for  communication between roadside units and back offices or traffic  management centers (TMCs). As discussed, backhaul includes the  fiber optic cables connecting traffic signals to the back office, as well  as any sensors or relays that link to or serve these components.  According to NCHRP, backhaul will be one of the biggest components  of costs. In fact, three state agencies and one supplier we spoke with  referred to backhaul as a factor that will affect costs for V2I  deployment. Backhaul costs are also uncertain because states vary in  the extent to which they have existing backhaul. According to  AASHTO, some sites may only require an upgrade to their current  backhaul system to support expected bandwidth requirements for  connected vehicle communications. However, 40 percent of all traffic  signals have either no backhaul or will require new systems,  according to AASHTO. The difference in cost between tying into an  existing fiber-optic backhaul and installing a new fiber-optic backhaul  for the sites is significant, according to DOT. The average national  cost to upgrade backhaul to a DSRC roadside site is estimated to vary  from $3,000, if a site has sufficient backhaul and will only need an  upgrade, to $40,000, if the V2I site requires a completely new  backhaul system, according to AASHTO estimates.
The total potential average, non-recurring costs of deploying connected  vehicle infrastructure per site, according to DOT and AASHTO, are  $51,650 (see table 1).
Second, V2I will also require recurring costs—the costs required to  operate and maintain the infrastructure. According to AASHTO, there are  several types of recurring costs associated with V2I deployments,  including equipment maintenance and replacement, security, and  personnel costs. The amount of maintenance needed to keep roadside  units running is unclear, according to 3 of the experts we interviewed,  because the test bed deployments have generally not operated long  enough to warrant maintenance of the equipment. However, NCHRP  estimates that routine maintenance costs for roadside units would likely  vary from 2 to 5 percent of the original hardware and labor costs. This  includes such maintenance as realigning antennas and rebooting  hardware. AASHTO also estimates that the device would need replacing  every 5 to 10 years. In addition, states and localities may also need to  hire new personnel or train existing staff to operate these systems.  According to AASHTO, personnel costs will also depend on the size of  the deployment as smaller deployments may not need dedicated  personnel to complete maintenance, while large deployments may require  staff dedicated to system monitoring on site or on call. Furthermore,  security costs will be a recurring cost and include the costs of keeping the  security credentials of the SCMS up to date and the costs to manage the  security system, according to AASHTO. Given that SCMS is still being  developed, cost estimates are unknown. One car manufacturer we  interviewed explained that because the management of the security  system is unknown, it is extremely challenging to estimate future costs. In  addition, one county agency official said security costs could greatly affect  the total costs for V2I deployment because the requirements and funding  responsibility are not clearly defined. As part of its ANPRM, NHTSA  conducted an assessment of preliminary V2V costs, including costs for  the SCMS. NHTSA estimated that the SCMS costs per vehicle range  from $1 to $6, with an average of $3.14. SCMS costs will increase over  time due to the need to support an increasing number of vehicles with the  V2V technologies, according to NHTSA.
While AASHTO and NCHRP have estimated the above potential average  costs for various components associated with a V2I deployment, 10 of 21  experts stated that it is difficult to determine the actual costs for a V2I  deployment in a particular state or locality due to a number of factors.
First, the scope of the deployment will affect the total costs of a  region’s V2I deployment, according to NCHRP, because it will  determine the amount of equipment needed for the system to  function, including the number of roadside units. Previous test bed  deployments have varied in size ranging from 1 to 2,680 DSRC  roadside units. Further, the number of devices needed will be  dependent on how many devices are required to enable the  applications. For example, while a curve-speed-warning application  may require installing equipment at a specific location, applications  that aim to mitigate congestion by advising drivers of the best speed  to approach an intersection may need to be installed at several  intersections throughout an urban corridor. One state agency said that  one factor that could affect costs is how often roadside equipment  needs to be replaced in order to enable certain V2I applications. In  addition, as previously mentioned, the size of the deployment will  contribute to personnel costs.
Second, the state or locality’s deployment environment will affect its  deployment costs. One state agency pointed out that everyone’s costs  will be different because they will be deploying in environments with  differing levels of existing infrastructure. For example, as previously  noted, the region’s existing backhaul infrastructure will determine the  extent of the cost for installing or upgrading the region’s system,  including whether a city or state has fiber optics already installed or  signal controllers need upgrading.
Lastly, the maturity of the technology will also affect cost estimates for  equipment such as a DSRC radio. Estimating equipment costs is  difficult at this time because the technology is still developing,  according to NCHRP. Ten of the 21 experts we interviewed, including  all of the state agencies, also mentioned that estimating costs is  challenging because the technology is still immature. Furthermore,  the reports and 4 experts we interviewed agree that the cost  estimates for the hardware are likely to decrease over time, as the  technology matures and the market becomes more competitive.
As part of the upcoming Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program,  DOT developed the Cost Overview for Planning Ideas and Logical  Organization Tool (CO-PILOT). This tool generates high-level cost  estimates for 56 V2I applications based on AASHTO’s estimations. In  addition, according to DOT, the agency will work with AASHTO to  develop a life-cycle cost tool that agencies can use to support V2I  deployment beyond the Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program.  DOT officials also indicated that they plan to update the tool over time as  more data are collected from the Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment  Program, and they expect the tool to be available for use by 2016. Also,  as previously mentioned, FHWA is developing deployment guidance that  will outline potential sources of funding for states and localities, among  other things.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this product to the Secretary of Transportation,  Secretary of Commerce, and the Chairman of the FCC, for review and  comment. DOT and Commerce’s NTIA both provided comments via email  that were technical in nature. We incorporated these comments as  appropriate. FCC did not provide comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date.  We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of  Transportation, the Chairman of the Federal Communications  Commission, and the Administrator of the National Telecommunications  and Information Administration and appropriate congressional  committees. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address all of our objectives, we reviewed documentation relevant to  vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technology research efforts of the  Department of Transportation (DOT), state and local government, and  automobile industry, such as DOT’s 2015 Federal Highway Administration  V2I Draft Deployment Guidance and Products and AASHTO’s National  Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis, as well as  documentation on completed and ongoing research. We interviewed  officials from DOT’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and  Technology, Intelligent Transportation Systems-Joint Program Office  (ITS-JPO), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway  Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the Volpe National  Transportation Systems Center, about these efforts.
For all objectives, we developed a structured set of questions for our  interviews with 21 experts who represented domestic automobile  manufacturers, V2I device suppliers, state and local government, privacy  experts, standardization organizations, and academic researchers with  relevant expertise. The identified experts have varying degrees of  expertise in the following areas related to V2I technology: the production  of passenger vehicles; technology development; technology deployment;  data privacy; security; state agency deployment; and legal and policy  issues. Our starting point for our expert selection was a list of experts  originally created in January 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences  for GAO’s vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) report. We used this list for our initial  selection because V2V and V2I technologies are both connected vehicle  technologies with many similarities, and many V2V stakeholders are also  working on V2I. In addition to nine experts we selected from the National  Academy of Sciences list, we selected an additional 12 experts based on  the following factors:  1.  their personal involvement in the deployment of V2I technologies;  2.  recommendations from federal agencies (DOT, and the Federal  Communications Commission (FCC) and associations (such as the  American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials  (AASHTO); and  3.  experts’ involvement in professional affiliations such as a V2I  consortium or groups dedicated to these technologies or to a specific  challenge affecting V2I (e.g., privacy).
Table 2 lists the experts we selected.
In conducting our structured interviews, we used a standardized interview  to ensure that we asked all of the experts the same questions. During  these interviews we asked, among other things, for expert views on the  state of development and deployment of V2I technologies (including  DOT’s role in this process), the potential benefits of V2I technologies, and  their potential costs. We also asked for each expert’s views on a number  of defined potential challenges facing the deployment of V2I technologies,  and asked the experts to rate the significance of each challenge using a  three-point scale (significant challenge, moderate challenge, or slight  challenge). We determined this list of potential challenges after initial  interviews with DOT, industry associations, and other interest groups  knowledgeable about V2I technologies. Prior to conducting the interviews,  we tested the structured interview with one association to ensure our  questions were worded appropriately. After conducting these structured  interviews, we summarized expert responses relevant to each objective.  The viewpoints gathered through our expert interviews represent the  viewpoints of individuals interviewed and cannot be generalized to a  broader population.
For the purpose of this review, state and local agency officials were  considered experts because of their experience in deploying and testing  V2I technologies, and experience working with the required technologies  (DSRC equipment and software), decision process (funding and  scheduling); personnel requirements and skill sets needed for  deployment; operations and maintenance. We specifically included six  officials who deployed V2I test beds in their respective states in our pool  of expert interviews.
We also included two officials who studied V2I for several years, had  taken part in the AASHTO’s Connected Vehicle group, and had applied to  DOT’s prior Connected Vehicles Pilot Program (V2I test bed). We also  interviewed additional officials who have contributed to the U.S. efforts to  develop and deploy connected vehicle technologies—officials who we  refer to as “stakeholders.” Specifically, we used these stakeholders to  help us understand issues that informed our structured set of questions,  but did not administer the structured question set during these  stakeholder interviews. We primarily selected stakeholders based on  recommendations from DOT and industry associations. However, we also  included DOT as a stakeholder in the deployment of V2I technologies  because it is leading federal V2I efforts.
We interviewed officials from 17 V2I stakeholder organizations including:   1.  DOT, NHTSA   2.  DOT, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,  3.  DOT, FHWA   4.  DOT, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center  5.  DOT, Chief Privacy Officer  6.  National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)   9.  Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America)   10. Crash Avoidance Metrics Partners, LLC (CAMP)   11. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)   12. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)  13. Leidos, previously known as Science Applications International  Corporation (SAIC)  14. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute  15. Virginia Department of Transportation  16. Minnesota Department of Transportation  17. Road Commission for Oakland County, Michigan  To determine the status of development and deployment of V2I  technology, we interviewed officials from DOT, including the Office of the  Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, ITS-JPO, FHWA,  Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, and the NHTSA. We also  interviewed officials at all seven V2I test beds located in Virginia,  Michigan, Florida, Arizona, California, and New York. We conducted site  visits to three test beds—the Safety Pilot in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the  test beds in Southeast Michigan and Northern Virginia. We selected the  three site visit locations based on which had the most advanced  technology according to DOT and state officials. At these site visits, we  conducted interviews with officials from state and local transportation  agencies and academic researchers to collect information on developing  and deploying V2I technology. We visited FHWA’s Turner Fairbank  Highway Research Center in Virginia to understand the agency’s  connected vehicle research efforts. We reviewed documentation of the  efforts of DOT and automobile manufacturers related to vehicle-to- infrastructure (V2I) technologies, such as the 2015 FHWA’s V2I Draft  Deployment Guidance and Products and documentation on completed  and ongoing research. We identified materials published in the past 4  years that were related to the terms “vehicle-to-infrastructure” and “V2I”  through searches of bibliographic databases, including Transportation  Research International Documentation and WorldCat. While a variety of  V2I technologies exist for transit and commercial vehicles, for the purpose  of this report we limited our scope to passenger vehicles since much of  DOT’s connected vehicle work is focused on passenger vehicles.
To determine the challenges affecting the deployment of V2I technology  and DOT’s existing or planned actions to address potential challenges,  we reviewed FHWA’s V2I draft guidance to assist in planning for future  investments and deployment of V2I systems. In addition, we interviewed  officials from FCC and NTIA about challenges related to the potential for  spectrum sharing in the 5.9 GHz band. We interviewed DOT’s Privacy  Officer, two privacy experts, and several stakeholders to understand  privacy concerns regarding the deployment of V2I technologies.
We collected information on anticipated benefits of these technologies  through interviews with officials from DOT, automobile manufacturers,  industry associations, and experts identified by National Academy of  Sciences and other stakeholders, and through reviews of studies they  provided. To specifically address the potential costs associated with V2I  technologies, we analyzed two reports, AASHTO’s National Connected  Vehicle Field Infrastructure Footprint Analysis and NCHRP’s 03-101, Cost  and Benefits of Public-Sector Deployment of Vehicle-to-Infrastructure  Technologies report, both of which addressed acquisition, installation,  backhaul, operations, and maintenance costs. According to DOT officials  and other stakeholders we interviewed, those two reports were the  primary sources of information for V2I potential deployment costs  estimates and actual costs. We used V2I costs estimates from the  AASHTO Footprint Analysis to give examples of potential costs for  deployment. To further assess the reliability of the cost estimates, in  addition to our own review of the two reports, our internal economic  stakeholder also independently reviewed both reports, and we  subsequently interviewed representatives from AASHTO and NCHRP to  verify the scope and methodology of the cost analyses performed in both  reports. In addition, we discussed estimated costs and factors that  affected costs for V2I investments with experts and stakeholders from  federal, local, state government, academia, car manufacturers, industry  associations, and V2I suppliers. We determined that the actual cost  figures were reliable and suitable for the purpose of our report.
In addition to the above work, we selected Japan for a site visit because  of its nationwide deployment and years of experience with deployment  and maintenance of V2I technologies. Japan has led efforts in V2I  technology development and deployment for over two decades. The  country serves as an illustrative example from which to draw information  on potential benefits, costs, and challenges of deploying V2I technologies  in the United States. During our site visit, we interviewed Japanese  government officials and auto manufacturers on similar topics that we  discussed with U.S. experts, including V2I deployment efforts, benefits,  costs, and challenges.
Cabinet Secretariat (IT Strategy)
Cabinet Office (Council for Science and Technology Policy)
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT)  o  Road Bureau  o  Road Transport Bureau
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC)
National Police Agency (NPA)
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
We conducted this performance audit from July 2014 through September  2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Expert Ratings of Potential Challenges Facing Deployment of Vehicle- to-Infrastructure Technologies
paragraphs: As part of our review, we conducted 21 structured interviews with  individuals identified by the National Academy of Sciences and based on  other factors discussed in our scope and methodology to be experts on  vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) technologies (see table 2 in app. I for list of  experts interviewed). During these interviews we asked, among other  things, for each expert’s views on a number of already defined potential  challenges facing the deployment of V2I technologies. The ratings  provided by the experts for each of the potential challenges discussed are  shown in table 3 below. To inform our discussion of the challenges facing  the deployment of V2I technologies, we considered these ratings as well  as experts’ responses to open-ended questions.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact:
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments:
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Susan Zimmerman, Assistant  Director; Nelsie Alcoser; David Hooper; Crystal Huggins; Amber Keyser;  Nancy Santucci; Terence Lam; Josh Ormond; Amy Rosewarne; and  Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.