Intelligent Transportation Systems: Vehicle-to-Vehicle Technologies Expected to Offer Safety Benefits, but a Variety of Deployment Challenges Exist
Published: 2013-11-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2011, 5.3 million vehicle crashes in the United States resulted in more than 2.2 million injuries and about 32,000 fatalities. While improvements in automobile safety have reduced the number of fatalities in recent decades, DOT has worked with the automobile industry to develop V2V technologies, through which vehicles are capable of warning drivers of imminent collisions by sharing data, including information on speed and location, with nearby vehicles. GAO was asked to review the status of V2V technologies. GAO examined (1) the state of development of V2V technologies and their anticipated benefits; (2) the challenges, if any, that will affect the deployment of these technologies and what actions, if any, DOT is taking to address them; and (3) what is known about the potential costs associated with these technologies.
GAO reviewed documentation on V2V technology-related efforts by DOT and automobile manufacturers, visited a pilot study of V2V technologies in Michigan, and interviewed DOT officials, automobile manufacturers, and 21 experts identified by the National Academies of Sciences. Experts were selected based on their level of knowledge and to represent a variety of subject areas related to V2V technology development.
DOT and the Federal Communications Commission reviewed a draft of this report and provided technical comments which were incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The development of vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies has progressed to the point of real world testing, and if broadly deployed, they are anticipated to offer significant safety benefits. Efforts by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the automobile industry have focused on developing: 1) in-vehicle components such as hardware to facilitate communications among vehicles, 2) safety software applications to analyze data and identify potential collisions, 3) vehicle features that warn drivers, and 4) a national communication security system to ensure trust in the data transmitted among vehicles. According to DOT, if widely deployed, V2V technologies could provide warnings to drivers in as much as 76 percent of potential multi-vehicle collisions involving at least one light vehicle, such as a passenger car. Ultimately, however, the level of benefits realized will depend on the extent of the deployment of these technologies and the effectiveness of V2V warnings in eliciting appropriate driver responses. The continued progress of V2V technology development hinges on a decision that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to make in late 2013 on how to proceed regarding these technologies. One option would be to pursue a rulemaking requiring their inclusion in new vehicles.
The deployment of V2V technologies faces a number of challenges, which DOT is working with the automobile industry to address. According to experts, DOT officials, automobile manufacturers, and other stakeholders GAO interviewed, these challenges include: 1) finalizing the technical framework and management framework of a V2V communication security system, which will be unique in its size and structure; 2) ensuring that the possible sharing with other wireless users of the radio-frequency spectrum used by V2V communications will not adversely affect V2V technology's performance; 3) ensuring that drivers respond appropriately to warnings of potential collisions; 4) addressing the uncertainty related to potential liability issues posed by V2V technologies; and 5) addressing any concerns the public may have, including those related to privacy. DOT is collaborating with automobile manufacturers and others to find potential technical and policy solutions to these challenges and plans to continue these efforts. Although V2V technologies are being tested in a real-world pilot that will end in February 2014, DOT officials stated that they cannot fully plan for deployment until NHTSA decides how to proceed later this year.
DOT and the automobile industry are currently analyzing the total costs associated with V2V technologies, which include the costs of both in-vehicle components and a communication security system. All of the automobile manufacturers GAO interviewed said that it is difficult to estimate in-vehicle V2V component costs at this time because too many factors--such as future production volumes and the time frame of deployment--remain unknown. The costs associated with a V2V communication security system also remain unknown as the specifics of the system's technical framework and management structure are not yet finalized. While the costs of in-vehicle V2V components may be modest relative to the price of a new vehicle, some experts noted that the potential costs associated with the operation of a V2V communication security system could be significant. Further, it is currently unclear who--consumers, automobile manufacturers, DOT, state and local governments, or others--would pay the costs associated with a V2V communication security system.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Every year, motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in numerous  injuries and deaths and high economic costs. For example, according to  the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic  Safety Administration (NHTSA), 5.3 million police-reported vehicle  crashes occurred in the United States in 2011, resulting in about 32,000  fatalities and more than 2.2 million injuries.
NHTSA aims to reduce injuries, deaths, and economic losses resulting  from motor vehicle crashes through a number of actions, such as  establishing safety standards for motor vehicles and conducting research  that supports vehicle safety. NHTSA’s safety standards cover various  aspects of vehicle safety, such as brakes, headlights, seat belts, air bags,  and child restraints. Improvements in automobile safety that aim to  protect drivers and occupants in the event of a collision—including  features such as seat belts and airbags—have reduced fatalities.  Recently, however, the automobile industry has begun to introduce  technologies that are intended to prevent accidents. Crash avoidance  technologies, which use sensors such as cameras and radar, can  observe a vehicle’s visible surroundings and issue warnings to the driver  when certain types of collisions with other vehicles or obstacles appear to  be imminent.
DOT and the automobile industry have been conducting research on new  types of technologies to prevent crashes—called vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)  technologies—in recent years. These technologies facilitate the sharing of  data, such as vehicle speed and location, among vehicles to warn drivers  of potential collisions. Based on the data shared, V2V technologies are  capable of warning drivers of imminent collisions, including some that  sensor-based crash avoidance technologies would be unable to detect.  DOT’s efforts related to these technologies are being led by NHTSA and  the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Joint Program Office within  DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).  According to NHTSA, if V2V technologies are widely deployed, they have  the potential to address 76 percent of multi-vehicle crashes involving at  least one light vehicle by providing warnings to drivers. In late 2013,  NHTSA is planning to announce further actions it will take regarding these  technologies for passenger vehicles, including potentially announcing  intent to pursue future regulatory action, such as a proposed rulemaking  to mandate the installation of V2V technologies in newly manufactured  passenger vehicles. The inclusion of V2V technologies in newly  manufactured vehicles could increase vehicle costs.
You asked us to examine the development and possible future  deployment of V2V technologies. We examined: (1) the state of  development of V2V technologies and their anticipated benefits; (2) the  challenges, if any, that will affect the deployment of these technologies,  and what actions, if any, DOT is taking to address them; and (3) what is  known about the potential costs associated with these technologies for  automobile manufacturers and consumers.
To address these issues, we reviewed documentation relevant to the V2V  technology research efforts of DOT and the automobile industry, such as  DOT’s ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010 - 2014 Progress Update 2012  and documentation related to DOT’s efforts to estimate the potential  benefits of V2V technologies. We interviewed NHTSA and RITA officials  about these efforts. We also visited the DOT-sponsored V2V Safety Pilot  Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and received a demonstration  of V2V technologies in the Detroit area from automobile manufacturers  working on the development of these technologies. We conducted  structured interviews with 21 experts identified by the National Academies  of Sciences as knowledgeable in the areas of V2V technology  development and interoperability, technology deployment, production of  light-duty passenger vehicles, data privacy and security, legal and policy  issues, and human factors issues related to V2V technologies. The  structured interviews included asking selected experts to rate the extent  to which a series of issues—which we identified based on initial  interviews with automobile manufacturers, DOT, and others—present  challenges to the deployment of V2V technologies. We selected experts  who represented both domestic and international automobile  manufacturers, suppliers of V2V devices, a telecommunications  company, and state governments, as well as automotive industry experts  and academic researchers. In addition, we interviewed representatives of  10 automobile manufacturers involved in collaborative V2V technology  development efforts, a V2V device supplier, and associations  knowledgeable about the development of V2V technologies. We also  interviewed officials with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)  about the use of radio-frequency spectrum by V2V communications.  Further details about our scope and methodology can be found in  appendix I. Our structured guide for interviewing experts is reproduced in  appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 to November  2013 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: Although there were about 32,000 motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the  United States in 2011, the number has generally declined in recent years.  According to NHTSA, the rate of 1.10 fatalities per 100 million vehicle  miles traveled in 2011 represented an all-time low and was 28 percent  lower than the rate of 1.52 in 2001. DOT has attributed reductions in  fatality rates to several factors, including increased use of in-vehicle  safety features such as safety belts and a reduction in fatalities related to  alcohol-impaired driving.
In recent years, automobile manufacturers have begun to equip some  newly manufactured vehicles with sensor-based crash avoidance  technologies intended to prevent accidents and further reduce the  number of fatalities. These technologies employ sensors such as  cameras, radio detection and ranging, and light detection and ranging to  observe a vehicle’s surroundings. A vehicle equipped with such  technologies is capable of detecting potential collisions with other  vehicles or obstacles within a range of about 150 meters (about 500 feet)  and alerting drivers through applications such as forward collision  warnings and lane departure warnings; however, such warnings are  limited to the threats within the field of view of the vehicle’s sensors.
DOT has worked with the automobile industry and others to lead and fund  research on connected vehicle technologies, which include V2V  technologies as well as vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. From fiscal  years 2003 through 2012, the funding DOT has made available for efforts  on connected vehicle technologies, part of its Intelligent Transportation  Systems (ITS) research program, totaled about $445 million and ranged  from a low of $17 million in 2008 to a high of $84 million in 2011. In a  connected vehicle environment, data is shared wirelessly among vehicles  (V2V communications) or between vehicles and infrastructure (vehicle-to- infrastructure communications) using dedicated short-range  communications (DSRC), a technology similar to Wi-Fi that offers a link  through which vehicles and infrastructure can transmit messages over a  range of about 300 to 500 meters (about 1,000 to 1,600 feet). Based on  analysis of internal data and data received from other vehicles, a vehicle  equipped with V2V technologies is able to issue a warning to its driver  when a collision with another similarly equipped vehicle could occur. The  range of V2V communications is not only greater than that of existing  sensor-based technologies, but due to the sharing of data between  vehicles, V2V technologies are capable of alerting drivers to potential  collisions that are not visible to existing sensor-based technologies, such  as a stopped vehicle blocked from view or a moving vehicle at a blind  intersection (see fig. 1).
While V2V technologies send and receive data among vehicles, vehicle- to-infrastructure technologies send and receive data between vehicles  and infrastructure, such as traffic signals. Vehicle-to-infrastructure  technologies could offer additional safety features that V2V technologies  cannot, such as providing drivers with additional warnings when traffic  signals are about to change, warnings that could help reduce collisions at  intersections. In addition, these technologies can offer potential mobility  and environmental benefits; for example, they can collect, analyze, and  provide drivers with data on upcoming roadway and traffic conditions and  suggest alternate routes when roadways are congested.
In addition to federal efforts, automobile manufacturers have formed a  number of consortia to research and develop V2V communication-based  technologies and have collaborated with DOT on these efforts. Since  2002, DOT has awarded $77 million in funding, under cost-sharing  agreements to support projects related to V2V technologies, to a number  of consortia established by the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership  (CAMP). This partnership between Ford Motor Company and General  Motors, L.L.C. is currently working with 6 other automobile manufacturers  through the Vehicle Safety Communications (VSC) 3 Consortium to  collaboratively address safety issues through advancements in vehicle  communications. Additionally, the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration  Consortium (VIIC) was created in 2005 and is currently comprised of 10  automobile manufacturers with the goal of identifying and promoting  policy solutions needed to support the development and deployment of  V2V and vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies.
The automobile industry (as well as some technology companies such as  Google) is also working to develop autonomous vehicle technologies,  which would control steering, acceleration, and braking without a driver’s  input. Some automobile manufacturers have started to introduce semi- autonomous sensor-based technologies capable of reducing a vehicle’s  speed through adaptive cruise control or even stopping a vehicle  through automatic braking when a collision is imminent. Autonomous  vehicles are being designed with the intent that a driver is needed to  provide destination or navigation information, but not needed to control  the vehicle.
Because V2V communications depend upon DSRC technology to  transmit data among vehicles, the deployment of V2V technologies will  require use of the radio-frequency spectrum. FCC has allocated spectrum  for use by DSRC technologies that are part of DOT’s ITS research  program. Specifically, in 1999, FCC 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. In 2003, FCC established  licensing and service rules for the 5.9 GHz band to provide a short-range,  wireless link for transferring information between vehicles and roadside  systems. However, the President and Congress have responded to  growing demand for wireless broadband services by making changes in  the law to promote efficient use of spectrum, including the band  previously set aside for use by DSRC-based technologies. For example,  the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 required the  National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to  conduct a study evaluating spectrum-sharing technologies and the  potential risk to federal users if unlicensed devices were allowed to  operate in the 5.9 GHz band.
Given the potential benefits of V2V technologies, NHTSA has said it will  decide by the end of 2013 how it will proceed with respect to these  technologies for passenger vehicles. According to NHTSA officials, they  are considering several possible actions, including announcing NHTSA’s  intent to pursue future regulatory action, such as a proposed rulemaking  to mandate the installation of these technologies in newly manufactured  passenger vehicles and continuing to research and develop these  technologies for passenger vehicles.
section_title: DOT and Industry Have Developed and Piloted V2V Technologies, Which Offer Potentially Significant Safety Benefits If Broadly Deployed
paragraphs: Efforts by DOT and the automobile industry to develop V2V technologies  have reached the point at which they have been tested in a 12-month,  real world pilot that will conclude in February 2014. These efforts have  focused on developing and testing needed components including  hardware to send and receive data among vehicles, software applications  to analyze data and identify potential collisions, vehicle features that issue  warnings to drivers of these potential collisions, and a security system to  ensure trust in the data that are being communicated among vehicles.  According to DOT, once deployed, V2V technologies have the potential to  address—by providing warnings to drivers—76 percent of all potential  multi-vehicle crashes involving at least one light-duty vehicle. However,  the potential benefits of V2V technologies are dependent upon a number  of factors including their deployment levels, how drivers respond to  warning messages, and the deployment of other safety technologies that  can provide similar benefits.
subsections: section_title: Development of V2V Technologies Has Evolved to Include a Real World Pilot
paragraphs: Recent and ongoing V2V technology development efforts have been  working toward the expected late 2013 NHTSA decision as the next major  milestone. DOT, for example, has focused on research and analysis that  can provide input for and facilitate its upcoming decision. Most of the 21  experts and 9 automobile manufacturers we spoke with told us that they  expect NHTSA’s decision to help determine the progress of continued  development and eventual deployment of V2V technologies.
Development of these technologies has progressed to the point of real  world testing. DOT has sponsored and provided approximately 80 percent  of the funding for a pilot test called the Safety Pilot Model Deployment  (Safety Pilot). This project—in which DOT has partnered with the CAMP  VSC 3 Consortium—has been conducted by the University of Michigan  Transportation Research Institute and is taking place in Ann Arbor,  Michigan, from August 2012 to February 2014. The primary goals of this  pilot are to test the effectiveness of V2V technologies in real world  situations and to measure their potential benefits. In total, about 2,700  passenger vehicles were equipped with these technologies in order to  participate in the Safety Pilot. NHTSA plans to release findings from the  Safety Pilot in the fall of 2014. DOT is considering the data from the first 6  months of the pilot, along with other information, in working toward a  decision by late 2013 on how to proceed with V2V technologies.
Efforts by DOT and the automobile industry to develop V2V technologies  have focused on both in-vehicle components as well as a security system  that manages V2V communications and ensures trust in the data being   transmitted among vehicles (see fig. 2). Examples of in-vehicle  components include:
V2V hardware, including DSRC radios, cables, and antennae to send  and receive data and GPS chips used to determine vehicle location.
Software applications that analyze data such as location, speed, and  brake status and, based on that analysis, predict when collisions are  imminent. DOT has worked with automobile manufacturers to  determine the most relevant applications based on common crash  scenarios and to define, develop, and test these to inform and support  NHTSA’s V2V technology decision later this year.
A driver-vehicle interface that—based on the data analysis conducted  by the V2V software applications—provides a warning to the driver  through vehicle features such as sounds, lights, or seat vibrations  when a collision may be imminent. Existing sensor-based crash  avoidance technologies also provide warnings to drivers through  similar mechanisms. DOT has been developing guidelines for  automobile manufacturers in implementing driver-vehicle interfaces.
In addition to in-vehicle V2V components, an external communication  security system is needed to ensure that data being transmitted among  vehicles are secure and trusted and have not been altered in the  transmission process. Initial research and proposals by DOT and the  automobile industry on the design of a communication security system  have focused on a public key infrastructure system. Such a system  provides security certificates to vehicles which indicate to other vehicles  that the data being transmitted are to be trusted because they are valid  and have not been altered. Public key infrastructure is used to provide  security for many other types of data transmissions and transactions,  including online banking and Internet commerce. According to CAMP  VSC 3 officials, in-vehicle V2V equipment must be able to detect and  automatically report potentially misbehaving devices—such as devices  that are malfunctioning, used maliciously, or hacked—to a communication  security system. The communication security system must also detect  and automatically revoke certificates from vehicles with such devices.  Vehicles would receive certificates from a security certificate  management authority. However, the technical specifications of how  certificates will be provided, how often they will be validated, and who will  manage this system have not yet been fully defined. According to DOT  officials, a prototype V2V communication security system was developed  and tested as part of the Safety Pilot, but that system’s design would  need additional enhancements to be used for a full deployment.
In-vehicle V2V components could be factory built into new vehicles and  fully integrated with existing internal electronics and networks. DOT and  the automobile industry have also worked on developing retrofit and  aftermarket V2V devices. Such devices would be installed in a vehicle  post-manufacture and might not be fully integrated with the vehicle and its  existing internal electronics and network. Such aftermarket devices might  not have access to all of a vehicle’s data, such as brake status or steering  wheel angle. As a result, they could provide a less robust set of data to  other vehicles and could generate fewer or less precise warning  messages to drivers. One specific type of aftermarket device that the  automobile industry has worked to develop would only transmit a basic  data set about a vehicle’s speed and location to other vehicles equipped  with V2V technologies; this device would neither receive data from other  vehicles nor provide a driver with a warning message, but would interact  with the V2V communication security system. DOT is now working with  the automobile industry to determine additional standards for such  devices to ensure that they work on all types of vehicles and adhere to  communication standards to ensure the integrity and security of their data  transmission.
Because V2V communications involve the sharing of data among  different devices and vehicles of various makes and models, they require  technical standards to ensure interoperability. DOT and the automobile  industry have worked through international standards organizations such  as SAE International and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic  Engineers to develop and set standards to facilitate V2V communications.  These efforts have focused on standardizing the data elements that  vehicles transmit and the means through which data are transmitted.
Although V2V technologies have undergone real-world testing and most  experts we interviewed believed that no major technical challenges  remain in the development of in-vehicle V2V components, some experts  voiced concerns about two technical issues—GPS accuracy and potential  channel congestion—issues that DOT and the automobile industry  continue to study.
Three experts we interviewed expressed concern that GPS used by  V2V technologies may not provide sufficiently accurate vehicle  position for some V2V applications. Two experts also suggested that  the means through which V2V technologies use GPS to determine  vehicle position (called “relative positioning”) may not be accurate  enough, given the need for precise vehicle location data to support  V2V software applications. According to DOT officials, however, the  department has collected data on the performance of GPS and V2V  communications over 20,000 miles in diverse geographic and  environmental conditions and is confident that the automotive-grade  GPS being used for V2V safety applications is sufficiently accurate.  Nevertheless, DOT continues to work to address this issue through  research to identify the best means to determine vehicle location  through relative positioning. DOT also collected additional data during  the Safety Pilot to help ensure that GPS positioning limitations do not  negatively affect the performance of V2V technologies.
Two experts noted that, given the volume of V2V data that would be  transmitted in high-traffic areas such as busy highways, channel  congestion on the frequency used by V2V communications could  result in delayed transmissions of V2V data. DOT and automobile  manufacturers continue to engage in collaborative efforts and sponsor  relevant studies to determine the point at which channel congestion  might occur and determine potential solutions, such as limiting the  frequency of V2V data transmissions in high-traffic situations without  compromising safety.
In the longer term, V2V technology development efforts are likely to  complement efforts to continue to develop and deploy other sensor-based  crash avoidance technologies and autonomous vehicle technologies.  NHTSA’s Administrator stated in May 2013 that DOT sees these three  types of technologies as being part of an evolution from vehicles with  limited automatic controls to vehicles with fully autonomous self-driving  capabilities. NHTSA’s preliminary statement of policy on vehicle  automation, issued in May 2013, recognizes the potential benefits of  automation and its relationship to V2V technologies. According to DOT  officials, DOT’s 2015 to 2019 ITS strategic plan, expected to be issued in  early 2014, will describe DOT’s planned activities in this area.  Furthermore, a recent report by an automotive industry consulting firm  stated that the convergence of sensor-based crash avoidance  technologies and connected vehicle technologies will be needed to  enable truly autonomous vehicles, given the benefits and downsides of  each type of technology. Five experts and one automobile manufacturer  we interviewed said that V2V technologies are a key part of the industry’s  road map to vehicle automation.
section_title: V2V Technologies Have Potential to Provide Significant Safety Benefits Only after Broad Deployment
paragraphs: V2V technologies are expected to offer significant safety benefits by  helping drivers avoid collisions in a number of collision scenarios. The  automobile industry has worked with DOT to develop safety applications  for rear-end, intersection, and lane-change crash scenarios. (See fig. 3  for examples of V2V safety applications and a go to  http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-13 for a video that demonstrates  selected applications warning drivers of potential collisions.) According to  NHTSA, these prevalent crash scenarios represent the majority of all  vehicle crashes. Because automobiles cannot currently take autonomous  actions—such as braking—based on data gathered by V2V technologies,  drivers must act on V2V warnings to prevent collisions from happening.  These crash scenario applications are being tested in the Safety Pilot,  and DOT and the automobile industry have collected data to determine  how to improve the accuracy of the applications. DOT is currently  conducting a benefits assessment based in part on the first 6 months of  data from the Safety Pilot to inform the decision NHTSA plans to make in  late 2013. DOT’s Volpe Center is conducting this benefits assessment,  which, according to DOT, uses a methodology to determine how many  vehicle collisions would be prevented through the use of V2V  technologies in a number of different types of collision scenarios. The  result will be an estimate of the effectiveness of V2V safety applications.
In May 2013, DOT reported that V2V technologies have the potential to  address—by providing warnings to drivers—76 percent of all potential  multi-vehicle crashes involving at least one light vehicle. While the  majority of experts we interviewed agreed that 76 percent is plausible as  a maximum level, this estimate is an upper limit of the potential safety  benefits of V2V technologies which assumes their full deployment across  the U.S. vehicle fleet. This estimate also assumes that V2V technologies  provide warnings in all potential crash scenarios involving at least two  vehicles equipped with these technologies. The actual number of crashes  prevented by V2V technologies will depend on a number of factors,  including the following:
Deployment Levels: According to DOT, the safety benefits of V2V  technologies will be maximized with near full deployment across the  U.S. vehicle fleet. However, even if NHTSA pursues a rulemaking  requiring installation of these technologies in new vehicles, it could  take a number of years until benefits are fully realized due to the rate  of turnover of the fleet. According to one automobile manufacturer we  interviewed, given the rate of new vehicle sales, it can take up to 20  years for the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to turn over. It may be possible  to see some benefits at lower levels of deployment, as was seen in  the number of interactions among participating vehicles in the Safety  Pilot, according to DOT. Also, aftermarket devices that allow existing  vehicles to be equipped with V2V devices could help speed  deployment. However, three experts we interviewed expressed  concern that drivers may not see value in purchasing aftermarket  devices, which could limit their adoption.
Driver response: The benefits of V2V technologies will also depend on  how well drivers respond to warning messages. If drivers do not take  appropriate action in response to warnings, then the benefits of V2V  technologies could be reduced. For example, if drivers do not respond  to warnings quickly enough—due to distraction, impairment, or other  reasons—they may not be able to avoid a collision. Furthermore, if  safety applications offer too many false warnings when no imminent  threat exists, drivers could begin to ignore valid warnings or not  respond to them quickly enough. For example, the Insurance Institute  for Highway Safety reported that as many as 41 percent of drivers of  certain makes of vehicles with sensor-based lane departure warning  systems found the systems “annoying” due to false alarms and  unnecessary warnings.
Deployment of other safety technologies: The potential benefits solely  attributable to V2V technologies will also depend on the market  penetration and effectiveness of sensor-based crash avoidance  technologies. These existing technologies are able to address some  of the same crash scenarios as V2V safety applications and their  market penetration is likely to increase in the future. While there are  cases where V2V technologies can provide safety benefits where  sensor-based crash avoidance technologies cannot—such as around  a curve or when detecting an unseen stopped car—there are some  V2V technology collision scenarios that sensor-based crash  avoidance technologies can also address. For example, cameras and  radar can be used to provide drivers with forward collision warnings or  lane change warnings when another vehicle is in a blind spot. In  addition, vehicles in the future may use V2V technologies and sensor- based crash avoidance technologies to complement one another. For  example, future vehicles may be able to use V2V data to validate  sensor data and provide drivers with more accurate and certain  warnings as well as to help execute more reliable automated control  actions such as braking. The benefits attributable to V2V technologies  will depend on how these technologies work together and the market  penetration of these technologies. According to DOT officials, the  department’s methodology for estimating the safety benefits of V2V  technologies will account for the benefits of sensor-based crash  avoidance technologies by estimating their penetration and  effectiveness in avoiding collisions.
section_title: DOT Is Working with the Automobile Industry to Address a Number of V2V Technology Deployment Challenges
paragraphs: While V2V technologies have been tested in real world settings, a number  of challenges exist to their wide-scale deployment and the realization of  their potential benefits. DOT has been collaborating with automobile  manufacturers and others to identify potential solutions to these  challenges and is planning continued efforts to support the eventual  deployment of V2V technologies. As part of these efforts, the department  has been considering various policy options, such as options for  managing the V2V communication security system. However, future DOT  actions to address some of these issues will not be finalized until after  NHTSA decides how the agency will proceed with V2V technologies later  this year.
subsections: section_title: V2V Technology Deployment Challenges and Efforts to Address Them
paragraphs: According to experts we interviewed, DOT officials, automobile  manufacturers, and other stakeholders, the deployment of V2V  technologies faces a number of challenges, including: (1) finalizing the  technical framework and management structure of a V2V communication  security system to ensure trust among vehicles, (2) ensuring that the  possible sharing of the band of radio-frequency spectrum used by V2V  communications will not adversely affect their performance, (3)  considering human factors to ensure that drivers respond appropriately to  V2V warnings, (4) addressing the uncertainty related to potential liability  issues posed by V2V technologies, and (5) addressing any concerns the  public may have about V2V technologies, including those related to  privacy.
As discussed earlier, a security system capable of detecting, reporting,  and revoking the credentials of vehicles found to be sharing inaccurate  information will be needed to ensure trust in the V2V data transmitted  among vehicles. Final plans and policies for the V2V communication  security system—including its technical framework and management  structure—have not yet been developed and will need to be finalized prior  to V2V technology deployment.
Technical framework: Of the 21 experts we interviewed, 12 cited the  technical development of a V2V communication security system as a  great or very great challenge to the deployment of V2V technologies.  One expert told us that it is challenging to establish technical  specifications for a system that attempts to maintain users’ privacy  while providing security for over-the-air transmission of data. Another  expert noted that a public key infrastructure system the size of the one  needed to support the nationwide deployment of V2V technologies  has never been developed before; the sheer magnitude of the system  will pose challenges to its development. Both the manner through  which V2V communication security certificates will be provided to  vehicles and how often they will be provided need to be determined.  Some proposals call for using DSRC-equipped roadside infrastructure  to provide security certificates, while other proposals call for using  non-DSRC communications technologies such as cellular.
Management structure: How a V2V communication security system  will be managed has not yet been determined and the delineation of  relevant roles and responsibilities could be difficult. Twelve of the  experts we interviewed cited the establishment of a management  framework for a security system as a great or very great challenge to  V2V technology deployment. Because no similar institutions exist,  many questions remain about how such a system should be  structured and who should manage it. One expert suggested that  deciding which approach is most appropriate involves weighing  competing philosophies. The expert added that developing the  management structure could prove more difficult than developing the  technical aspects of the security system.
DOT has researched options to address the technical framework of a V2V  communication security system and officials noted that additional  technical and policy analyses are under way that will determine the  specifics by early 2014. DOT officials stated that a framework that meets  the technical requirements of CAMP will be finalized and subsequently  prototyped and tested. As mentioned earlier, a prototype technical  framework for issuing and managing security certificates has been tested  as part of the Safety Pilot. DOT officials told us that there were no  significant technical challenges identified during the development of this  framework but noted that additional analysis related to the detection and  revocation of credentials from vehicles found to be sharing inaccurate  information is needed. In preparation for the testing of the Safety Pilot’s  prototype technical framework, DOT conducted research on the risks  associated with such a system and identified potential approaches to  address those risks. In addition, the department held public workshops  in April 2012 to bring together various stakeholders to discuss issues  related to a V2V communication security system. DOT officials  explained that NHTSA is currently engaging a firm with expertise in  information security systems to perform a review that will help inform the  eventual technical specifications of a V2V communication security  system. Although various technical frameworks are being considered,  limits to DOT’s authority could limit the viability of some options. For  example, according to DOT officials, the department does not have the  legal authority to require the installation of roadside infrastructure to  support a V2V communication security system because, aside from roads  on federal lands, the federal government does not own or operate U.S.  roadways.
In addition, DOT has worked with automobile manufacturers through the  VIIC to examine potential management structures for a V2V  communication security system. However, officials told us that it would be  premature to comment on what the management structure will look like  without knowing whether the agency will pursue a rulemaking related to  V2V technologies. As part of its research on the technical framework of a  V2V communication security system, DOT also sought stakeholder input  on the potential management structure and identified three potential  options:
Federal model: DOT officials explained that, if the federal government  were to provide the security management services required to support  V2V technologies, it most likely would do so through a service  contract that would include specific provisions to ensure adequate  market access, privacy and security controls, and reporting and  continuity of services. According to DOT, the department has  appropriate legal authority to pursue this model but does not have  sufficient resources to introduce such a structure at this time.
Public-Private model: Under a public-private partnership, the security  system would be jointly owned and managed by the federal  government and private entities. DOT officials stated that statutory  authority would be needed to create a public-private management  structure that is vested with the authority that Congress deems  necessary and appropriate to finance and operate a V2V  communication security system. DOT officials added that the required  legal authority would likely need to include authorization to establish  and collect fees on behalf of the entity and possibly provisions  addressing liability, privacy, data ownership, and security  requirements applicable to such a system.
Private model: DOT officials stated that its current legal authority and  resources have led NHTSA to focus primarily on working with  stakeholders to develop a viable private model. DOT officials  suggested that, through an agreement with a privately owned and  operated security management provider, a private model could be  used to support a V2V communication security system. Aside from  any aspects specifically detailed in the agreement, DOT suggested  that the governance and financing of a private management structure  would depend on what entity constitutes and owns the entity.
In response to requirements in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job  Creation Act of 2012, FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in  February 2013 that requested comments on allowing unlicensed devices  to share the 5.9 GHz band of the radio-frequency spectrum that had been  previously set aside for the use of DSRC-based ITS applications such as  V2V technologies. The proposed modifications would provide access to  additional spectrum with consistent technical requirements, resulting in  faster data speeds by allowing unlicensed devices to use wider bandwidth  channels. Existing FCC regulations are designed to ensure that  unlicensed devices do not cause interference with licensed users and  require operators of unlicensed devices to immediately correct the  problem or cease operation if interference occurs. NTIA completed an  evaluation in January 2013 in response to requirements in the act that it  study spectrum-sharing technologies and the risks to federal users  associated with allowing unlicensed devices to share the 5.9 GHz band.  NTIA concluded that further work was needed to determine whether and  how the risks identified can be mitigated and is currently collaborating  with federal and industry stakeholders, as well as FCC, to conduct a  quantitative analysis of potential mitigation strategies. FCC officials told  us that they are unlikely to act further on a rulemaking in this area until  NTIA’s analysis is complete.
Although existing FCC regulations are designed to ensure that unlicensed  devices do not cause interference, four automobile manufacturers and 16  experts we interviewed expressed concern or uncertainty about the  potential effects of allowing unlicensed devices to share the 5.9 GHz  band. One automobile industry group said that its members are not  opposed to opening the 5.9 GHz band for sharing but emphasized the  importance of understanding the implications of doing so to ensure that it  will not hinder critical V2V safety applications. As part of the federal  rulemaking process, FCC sought public comments on potential  approaches to help minimize any potential harmful interference. In  response, one automobile manufacturer wrote that it is very concerned  that V2V technologies and unlicensed devices will not be able to coexist  on the 5.9 GHz band. This automobile manufacturer recommended that  FCC proceed with extreme caution when allowing sharing of the 5.9 GHz  band, stating that V2V technologies cannot tolerate harmful interference  and suggesting that every potential signal loss could render V2V  communications ineffective at a moment in which they could protect  drivers’ lives. Members of the VIIC also noted that the development and  testing of V2V technologies has always assumed use of the 5.9 GHz  band. Because of this, one expert we interviewed suggested that opening  the 5.9 GHz band for sharing would create an added burden for both  automobile manufacturers and suppliers, which would have to consider  technical steps to make coexistence with unlicensed devices feasible and  conduct additional testing to maintain confidence that V2V technologies  will work as envisioned. In addition, DOT coordinated with NTIA to submit  its concern through comments to FCC that sharing the allocation could  degrade the performance of V2V safety applications.
As NTIA continues its analysis of potential risk mitigation strategies, DOT  officials told us that the department is working cooperatively with the  agency to examine spectrum-sharing arrangements that have been  proposed for the 5 GHz band and expects results of this analysis to be  available in spring 2014. According to DOT officials, the automobile and  Wi-Fi industries are discussing other possible spectrum sharing  techniques but specific approaches have not yet been defined.
Because V2V technologies require drivers to take actions based on  warning messages, the ultimate effectiveness and safety benefits of  V2V technologies depend upon how well drivers respond to the warnings.  Addressing the human factors that affect how drivers will respond  includes 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, assessing the risk that V2V warnings could distract  drivers and present new safety issues, and determining what types of  V2V warnings will maximize driver response.
The challenges posed by human factors are in many ways similar to  those posed by sensor-based crash avoidance technologies and some  other vehicle technologies. However, human factors issues may present  even greater challenges to V2V technologies. One automobile  manufacturer explained that, since not all vehicles in the United States  will be equipped with V2V technologies in the early years of their  deployment, it is unknown how drivers will adjust their behavior to  account for the fact that not all of the vehicles on the road are capable of  providing data. By contrast, with sensor-based technologies, drivers know  that their vehicle’s warning system is not dependent on the presence of  similar technologies in nearby vehicles. Further, the potential introduction  of aftermarket V2V devices with a lower level of integration with a  vehicle’s existing internal network could create additional human factors  challenges if aftermarket device warning messages and data are less  robust than fully integrated systems. For these reasons, one automobile  manufacturer said that it is unrealistic to expect aftermarket devices to  perform in all situations.
Automobile manufacturers have already developed different approaches  to issuing warnings to drivers for existing sensor-based crash avoidance  technologies. Three experts we interviewed suggested that the manner in  which V2V warnings are issued to drivers should be allowed to vary  among automobile manufacturers once basic standards are put in place.  However, two experts suggested that the manner in which V2V warnings  are issued to drivers should be similar across vehicles to avoid the  confusion that might arise from receiving different types of warnings in  similar situations when driving a different vehicle (e.g., a rental car).
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 V2V technology and other safety technology  driver-vehicle interfaces that provide warnings to drivers. This program is  evaluating alternative approaches to issuing warnings relative to  effectiveness and potential driver distraction. In addition, DOT has  surveyed drivers participating in the Safety Pilot about driver distraction,  in addition to other topics, and collected data on driver responses to  various V2V warnings. NHTSA has also sponsored other research on  driver warnings—including initial research on the potential standardization  of warnings across automobile manufacturers—and is planning to  complete a compendium of research findings in late 2013. Based on  research in this area, NHTSA has worked with stakeholders to develop  design principles for V2V driver-vehicle interfaces, which NHTSA plans to  publish in April 2014. DOT continues to determine next steps in this  area.
Six automobile manufacturers and 17 experts we interviewed expressed  concern about the challenge posed by uncertainties related to potential  liability in the event of a collision involving vehicles equipped with V2V  technologies. This challenge is manifested in a number of potential  liability issues and questions that are unanswered at this time:
One automobile manufacturer said that because V2V technologies  offer warnings that are based in part on data transmitted by other   vehicles—as opposed to sensor-based systems that collect data  solely from a vehicle’s surroundings—it could be harder to determine  whether fault for a collision between vehicles equipped with V2V  technologies lies with one of the drivers, an automobile manufacturer,  the manufacturer of a V2V device, or another party.
One expert suggested that, because V2V data may be needed to  determine fault in the event of a collision, there could be challenges in  determining who owns the data transmitted between vehicles. This  expert suggested that establishing rules regarding V2V data  ownership would, in the event of a collision, help to answer questions  about which parties have access to the data.
There may be challenges in determining liability if V2V technologies  do not work appropriately—for example, if data transmission is  delayed due to channel congestion, hacking into the system, or  inaccurate GPS readings.
Four automobile manufacturers shared their concern that the  introduction of aftermarket V2V devices into vehicles already on the  road would create additional liability issues. One automobile  manufacturer explained that this is because it is difficult to integrate  aftermarket devices into a vehicle’s existing internal network,  potentially making it more difficult to gather and transmit the same  degree of information as a fully integrated device and, therefore,  making it more difficult to determine the cause of a collision.
Automobile manufacturers may be reluctant to move forward with plans to  install V2V technologies in their newly manufactured vehicles because of  the uncertainty that accompanies these liability issues. Citing some  automobile manufacturers’ concerns about the liability risks posed by V2V  technologies, members of the VIIC have suggested that additional work  needs to be done to estimate the potential liability and risks associated  with the deployment of V2V technologies and determine ways to mitigate  that risk. One automobile manufacturer and two experts suggested that  congressional action could be needed to limit the liability levels of  automobile manufacturers in the event of a V2V device malfunction. One  of these experts suggested that legislation setting forth liability limits for  V2V devices that are shown to meet certification tests and function  according to regulations and standards may be appropriate. However,  one expert suggested that all vehicle technologies involve liability issues  and that if the automobile industry ensures that V2V technologies work  properly before deployment, V2V technologies should not pose any  greater liability risks than existing sensor-based crash avoidance  technologies.
DOT officials told us that they do not believe that V2V technologies pose  any greater liability issues for automobile manufacturers than existing  sensor-based crash avoidance technologies and therefore do not believe  that related legislation is necessary. One expert we interviewed  suggested that DOT should help guide the process of determining who or  what entity owns the data transmitted between vehicles by V2V  technologies as that knowledge would make it easier to determine liability  in the event of a crash. Another expert suggested that DOT will have a  role to play in helping to address liability issues once the specifics of the  future deployment of these technologies become clearer.
DOT and the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium conducted Driver Acceptance  Clinics in 2011 and 2012 to obtain volunteer drivers’ feedback on V2V  technologies, among other purposes, and participants rated the  desirability and usefulness of these technologies highly. However,  according to stakeholders and experts we interviewed, obtaining broad  public acceptance could present a challenge to deployment, as concerns  related to driver privacy and the limited potential benefits of V2V  technologies in the early years of their deployment could impede overall  public acceptance of these technologies.
Privacy concerns: Public interest groups we interviewed said that  overcoming concerns about privacy under a system that involves the  sharing of data among vehicles will pose a challenge. One group  suggested that the possibility that V2V data could be obtained by third  parties such as law enforcement agencies could harm the deployment  of these technologies. Similarly, one expert suggested that public  acceptance of V2V technologies might be limited without rules  prohibiting the use of vehicles’ speed and location data to issue  tickets or track drivers’ movements. Three experts we interviewed  suggested that legislation may be needed to limit the potential use of  V2V data. Representatives of automobile manufacturers that are  members of the VIIC stated that, although the security system under  development is being designed to ensure data privacy through a  structure that prevents the association of a vehicle’s V2V  communication security certificates with any unique identifier of  drivers of their vehicles, the potential perception of a lack of privacy is  a challenge. Further, one automobile manufacturer that is part of the  VIIC said that it could be difficult to explain how V2V technologies  work to the public without raising concerns related to privacy.
Perception of functionality: Public acceptance of V2V technologies  could also be negatively affected by drivers’ perception of the  technologies’ limited functionality, especially when few vehicles are  equipped with V2V devices in early years. As mentioned earlier, when  there are few equipped vehicles on the roads, drivers may see limited  benefits of V2V technologies as they may not frequently encounter  similarly equipped vehicles and infrequently receive warning  messages in potential collision scenarios. Some experts said that  limited benefits in the early years of deployment might pose  challenges to consumer acceptance of V2V technologies. For this  reason, six experts we interviewed suggested that the simultaneous  introduction of applications with mobility applications would help  provide benefits to drivers when deployment is low. For example, one  expert suggested that mobility applications capable of helping drivers  avoid congested roads or notifying them of a broken-down car ahead  in the roadway would provide more apparent benefits to drivers, even  with a low rate of deployment of V2V technologies. In addition,  seven experts we interviewed suggested that it would be helpful for  either DOT or automobile manufacturers to reach out to customers to  communicate the potential safety benefits of V2V technologies in  advance of deployment in order to increase public acceptance of  these technologies.
DOT officials told us that the department recognizes that public  acceptance needs to be considered for the deployment of V2V  technologies and noted that they have worked closely with automobile  manufacturers and other stakeholders to develop a technical approach  that limits risks to individual privacy. DOT officials have emphasized the  need to distinguish between the ability to identify bad actors through a  V2V communication security system and the ability to monitor the  movements of individual vehicles. DOT stated that as currently  conceived, a V2V communication security system would contain multiple  technical, physical, and organizational controls to minimize privacy  risks—including the risk of vehicle tracking by individuals and government  or commercial entities. According to DOT officials, after NHTSA decides  whether to proceed with a rulemaking and it is known what entity will  provide the security for V2V technologies, the department will perform a  comprehensive Privacy Impact Assessment, as required by law, to  determine how to balance individual privacy, data security, and safety.  DOT officials have emphasized that, to ensure transparency, it will be  important to communicate what V2V data is generated by a vehicle, the  extent to which it can be linked to drivers, and who or what entities—both  legally and technologically—will be able to collect, use, and share the  data. DOT officials told us that the department will continue to assess any  risks to privacy posed by the introduction of V2V technologies and identify  mitigation measures to minimize those risks as more aspects of a system  of V2V communications are defined. DOT officials also said that, since its  current authority to regulate the interception and use of V2V data is  limited, the department might express a strong policy preference or make  recommendations to Congress for limitations on the use of V2V data by  entities over which the department lacks regulatory authority.
DOT officials told us that the department does not currently have a  specific plan about how to proceed with public outreach efforts because  NHTSA has not yet decided whether a rulemaking is appropriate at this  time. Additional DOT efforts to address other challenges facing the  deployment of V2V technologies could help increase their public  acceptance. For example, DOT is collecting data from the Safety Pilot  regarding the acceptance of V2V technologies by participating drivers.  Furthermore, DOT’s ongoing development of guidelines for the  implementation of driver-vehicle interfaces to address human factors  challenges could help increase overall acceptance of these technologies.  In addition, DOT has plans for further research on vehicle-to- infrastructure technologies, which could provide additional safety benefits  and enable the types of mobility applications that some experts  suggested could help increase public acceptance of V2V technologies.  Further, DOT is working with industry stakeholders to develop clear  certification standards for aftermarket devices, along with all other V2V  devices, and is considering incentives to encourage drivers to purchase  these devices.
section_title: Status of DOT Planning for V2V Technology Deployment
paragraphs: DOT has indicated that its 2015 to 2019 ITS strategic plan—currently  under development and expected to be issued in early 2014—will focus  on the challenges facing the deployment of V2V technologies. As noted  earlier, DOT officials told us that they do not want to take certain actions,  such as determining the structure of a V2V communication security  system, until after NHTSA’s late 2013 decision on how to proceed  regarding V2V technologies. DOT has stated that the department’s  forthcoming plan will include details of near term efforts to further develop  the technical framework and management structure of a V2V  communication security system and consideration of incentives needed to  support the eventual deployment of V2V technologies to the U.S. vehicle  fleet. In addition, DOT plans to develop an understanding of how the  public views connected vehicle technologies and their benefits in order to  develop effective methods for describing the value of V2V technologies to  users in the context of partial deployment.
According to DOT, the strategic vision for the 2015 to 2019 ITS strategic  plan is to improve safety, mobility, and environmental mitigation through  connected vehicles and to enable a transportation system that builds  upon the capabilities of V2V technologies and vehicle-to-infrastructure  technologies. In line with this goal, as noted earlier, DOT is planning for  additional research, including research conducted with the automobile  industry, into vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies. In addition, by  defining how an automated vehicle fleet can be introduced with limited  impact to current infrastructure and researching how increases in the  degree of automation of the U.S. vehicle fleet could have liability  implications for stakeholders, DOT has stated that it plans to prepare for  the introduction of autonomous vehicles to a connected vehicle  environment featuring both V2V and vehicle-to-infrastructure  technologies.
section_title: Costs of V2V Technologies Are Being Studied and Are Likely to Be Influenced by Various Factors Including Specifics of V2V Communication Security System
paragraphs: DOT and the automobile industry, through the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium,  are currently analyzing the total costs of deploying V2V technologies,  which include the costs of in-vehicle components and the costs  associated with a V2V communication security system. DOT is currently  obtaining estimates of the costs of in-vehicle V2V components from  automobile manufacturers and industry suppliers and has engaged a  contractor to study the potential costs of providing V2V communications  security through a number of possible technical and management  options. NHTSA will use these cost estimates to inform its decision on  how to proceed with V2V technologies later this year. In addition, the  CAMP VSC 3 Consortium is now conducting an independent analysis of  potential security system costs. According to an official with that  organization, this study should be completed in late 2013 and the  consortium will provide input and comments on the key assumptions of  DOT’s cost study as well. Despite these efforts, all of the automobile  manufacturers we interviewed told us that they had not yet completed any  formal studies estimating V2V technology costs. We also conducted a  literature search for published studies discussing potential V2V  technology costs and were unable to identify any such studies. Finally, we  asked the experts we interviewed to identify studies on the potential costs  of deploying V2V technologies; none of the 21 experts were able to  identify any studies beyond those now being conducted by DOT or the  CAMP VSC 3 Consortium.
All of the automobile manufacturers we interviewed said that it is difficult  to estimate the costs of in-vehicle V2V components at this time because  too many factors remain unknown. According to both automobile  manufacturers and experts we interviewed, a number of factors will  influence the costs of in-vehicle V2V components:
Volume: Five experts and two automobile manufacturers we  interviewed pointed out that as the volume of V2V components  produced increases, the per-unit costs are likely to decrease due to  the economies of scale in manufacturing. Thus, a federal requirement  that automobile manufacturers install V2V technologies in newly  manufactured vehicles would likely result in lower per-vehicle costs of  in-vehicle V2V components than would otherwise be the case.
Time frames: The costs of in-vehicle components of V2V technologies  may decline over time due to technological advances. Two automobile  manufacturers we interviewed said that both the automobile and  consumer electronics industries have been successful at driving down  the costs of other technologies over time and suggested that this also  may occur with the cost of in-vehicle V2V components.
Degree of integration with existing vehicle technologies: Automobile  manufacturers already install sensor-based crash avoidance  technologies in some vehicle models. The extent to which V2V  technologies are integrated with the existing components of these and  other technologies that use similar components will influence the  costs of V2V technologies. For example, vehicles that already have  GPS chips installed for navigation purposes may not need an  additional GPS chip specifically for V2V technologies purposes. One  expert and one automobile manufacturer we interviewed explained  that automobile companies have been successful in integrating  different technologies in their vehicles in recent years, resulting in  reduced costs.
Federal requirements: The specifics of any federal regulation  regarding V2V technologies, including any possible regulation  mandating their installation in new vehicles, would likely influence  costs. For example, the introduction of requirements related to V2V  technological specifications and standards, the use of hardware for  V2V components, and the use of V2V safety applications would  influence the ultimate costs of V2V technologies.
Although the costs of in-vehicle V2V components are difficult to estimate  at this time, they may be modest compared to the price of a new vehicle.  According to CAMP VSC 3 Consortium representatives, in-vehicle V2V  components—including the DSRC components and GPS receiver—are  already commercially available at a relatively low cost. A CAMP VSC 3  representative noted that although members of the partnership are unable  to discuss potential V2V technology costs with one another due to  antitrust concerns, they have agreed to focus their V2V technology  development efforts on limiting their costs as much as possible. As a  result, compared to the average sale price of a new vehicle—about  $31,000 in 2012, according to the National Automobile Dealers  Association—the potential costs of these physical components may not  add significantly to a vehicle’s price. One expert we interviewed estimated  that the costs of V2V components would add less than one percent to the  price of a new vehicle. These costs may be less than the costs of sensor- based crash avoidance technologies, according to one industry  association we interviewed, because sensors are more expensive.
At this time, the potential costs associated with a V2V communication  security system are unknown as specifics of a security system remain  undetermined. One expert we interviewed explained that since it is not yet  known how the security system will look or how it will be organized or  managed, no one has a good handle on those costs. According to DOT  officials, how often vehicles must communicate with the security system  and requirements of how security certificates will be provided will  influence the ultimate cost of a V2V communication security system.  Furthermore, it is currently not only difficult to estimate the potential costs,  but unclear who or what entity—consumers, automobile manufacturers,  DOT, state and local governments, or others—would pay the costs.  Determining who or what entity will fund the system will likely prove  challenging.
Although the potential costs of a V2V communication security system are  unknown at this time, eight experts we interviewed noted that either these  costs, or the costs of roadside equipment that may be needed, could be  significant. One expert said that, given the need for continuous operation  of a security system, the costs are likely to be much greater than the  costs of in-vehicle V2V components. Potential sources of funding may  also face challenges in providing it. For example, if roadside equipment is  needed to support a security system, it could be costly in a nationwide  deployment. Participants in a 2012 DOT-hosted workshop focused on  connected vehicle security noted that the costs of roadside equipment  could range between $25,000 and $30,000 per installation, a cost that  many state and local governments would find prohibitive if they were  responsible for its financing. In addition, three experts whom we  interviewed said that the costs of ongoing maintenance and operation of  such installations could also prove prohibitive. According to DOT officials,  however, the potential costs of roadside equipment could be much lower  if its installation were to be integrated into already planned construction  work at selected sites. They also noted that these costs should decline  over time due to declining costs of technologies and increased volumes of  production.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Transportation and  the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission for review and  comment. DOT and FCC both provided comments via email that were  technical in nature. We incorporated these comments as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chairman of the  FCC. 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 that made significant contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address all of our objectives, we reviewed documentation of the efforts  of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and automobile  manufacturers related to vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies, such as  the department’s ITS Strategic Research Plan, 2010 - 2014 Progress  Update 2012 and documentation on completed and ongoing research.  We also interviewed officials from DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety  Administration (NHTSA) and the Research and Innovative Technology  Administration (RITA) about these efforts. We also interviewed officials  with the Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) Vehicle Safety  Communications (VSC) 3 Consortium as well as, both collectively and  individually, representatives from all of the following automobile  manufacturers that currently comprise the Vehicle Infrastructure  Integration Consortium: BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda,  Hyundai-Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, and Volkswagen. We also  interviewed a V2V device supplier and representatives of industry and  public interest groups knowledgeable on the topic of V2V technologies,  such as the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the American  Automobile Association.
In addition, we collaborated with the National Academies of Sciences  (NAS) to identify and recruit experts in vehicle-to-vehicle technologies.  We provided NAS with criteria for selecting experts, which included: (1)  type and depth of experience, including recognition in the professional  community and relevance of any published work; (2) employment history  and professional affiliations, including any potential conflicts of interest;  and (3) other relevant experts’ recommendations. NAS initially identified  35 experts knowledgeable in the areas of V2V technology development  and interoperability, technology deployment, production of light-duty  passenger vehicles, data privacy and security, legal and policy issues,  and human factors issues related to V2V technologies. From that list, we  selected and conducted structured interviews with 21 experts who  represented domestic and international automobile manufacturers,  suppliers of V2V devices, a telecommunications company, and state  governments, as well as automotive industry experts and academic  researchers (see table 1 for list of experts interviewed). In conducting our  structured interviews, we used a standardized interview guide (see  appendix II) to obtain consistent answers. During these interviews we  asked, among other things, for expert views on the state of development  of V2V technologies, the potential benefits of V2V technologies, their  potential costs, and DOT’s role in developing V2V technologies. We also  asked for each expert’s views on a number of already defined potential  challenges facing the deployment of V2V technologies. We determined  this initial list of potential challenges after initial interviews with DOT,  industry associations, select automobile manufacturers, and other interest  groups knowledgeable about V2V technologies. Prior to conducting the  interviews, we pretested the structured interview guide with two of the  selected experts to ensure our questions were worded appropriately and  could be administered consistently. After conducting these interviews, we  conducted a content analysis of expert responses relevant to each  objective and counted the rating of each potential challenge discussed.  See appendix III for a count of the ratings provided by experts on  potential challenges facing deployment of V2V technologies.
We completed a literature search to obtain documentation, studies, and  articles related to our objectives. Although this report focuses upon V2V  technologies, our literature search was broadened to include any relevant  work published in the past 10 years that was related to terms including  “vehicle-to-vehicle communications,” “vehicle-to-infrastructure  communications,” “vehicle-to-roadside communications,” or “intelligent  vehicle highway systems.”
To specifically address the state of development of V2V technologies and  their anticipated benefits, we conducted a site visit to Ann Arbor,  Michigan, where we interviewed researchers from the University of  Michigan Transportation Research Institute who are managing the Safety  Pilot Model Deployment and toured areas of the city in which related  infrastructure was installed. We also interviewed automobile  manufacturers’ CAMP VSC 3 Consortium representatives in Farmington  Hills, Michigan, and received a demonstration of V2V safety warnings in  multiple potential crash scenarios. We also reviewed DOT’s May 2013  Description of Light-Vehicle Pre-Crash Scenarios for Safety Applications  Based on Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications report that estimates  potential benefits of V2V technologies.
In addition, to specifically address the challenges facing the deployment  of V2V technologies, we interviewed officials from the Federal  Communications Commission and a privacy group to obtain their views  on the potential challenges of spectrum allocation and data privacy,  respectively, related to deployment of V2V technologies.
To specifically address the potential costs associated with V2V  technologies, we discussed efforts to estimate costs with DOT and  representatives of the CAMP VSC 3 Consortium and reviewed relevant  documentation, such as the April 2012 public workshop entitled Enabling  a Secure Environment for Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to- Infrastructure (V2I) Transactions, which DOT organized to facilitate  discussion of communications security structures under development  among public and private stakeholders. In addition, we asked all  automobile manufacturers we interviewed about the potential costs of  V2V technologies.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2012 through  November 2013 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: Structured Interview Guide for Experts Identified by the National Academies of Sciences
subsections: section_title: Questions for Connected Vehicle Technology Experts
paragraphs: (Experts identified by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies)
Overview of GAO Review of Connected Vehicle Technologies  The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) is undertaking work looking at the use of connected vehicle  technologies (CVT) involving vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. These technologies allow vehicles to wirelessly  communicate with one another through Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC); share data, such as data on  vehicle location and speed; and provide drivers with warnings of potential collisions. GAO is examining these  technologies at the request of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and Committee on Transportation  and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Specifically, we are examining:  (1) the progress of development of connected vehicle technologies that involve vehicle-to-vehicle  communications and their anticipated benefits;  (2) the challenges that affect the development and deployment of these technologies and their potential costs; and  (3) how the U.S. Department of Transportation is leading efforts to address these challenges.
Our work is limited to CVTs involving V2V communications and we are not including vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)  communications beyond the extent to which infrastructure may be needed to support V2V communications. We are  reviewing efforts in the United States and not in other countries. In addition, our work is limited to passenger vehicles and  we are not including commercial and transit uses.
Please keep the following in mind as you consider your responses to the questions:    We use the term “stakeholders” to indicate organizations that have been or are expected to be involved in the development or deployment of  CVTs involving V2V communications including, but not limited to, automobile manufacturers, parts suppliers, government agencies, and  telecommunications companies.    We use the term “CVTs involving V2V communications” to include devices that send and receive data, safety applications (such as Forward  Collision Warning and Emergency Electronic Brake Lights Warning) that analyze data and provide warnings through driver-vehicle interfaces,  and any security system(s) that may be needed to help establish trust between vehicles sharing data.    We use the term “V2V devices” to represent the devices now being tested in the Safety Pilot Model Deployment in Ann Arbor, Michigan:   (1)  Fully-integrated devices: these devices would be installed during vehicle production and send, receive and analyze vehicle data to  generate driver warnings of potential collisions. Because they are fully integrated into vehicles, they can analyze additional vehicle  data—such as steering wheel angle, acceleration rate, brake status and turn signal status—to provide more robust warnings to drivers  and provide more complete data to other vehicles.  (2)  Aftermarket safety devices: these devices, installed after vehicle production, send, receive, and analyze vehicle data to generate  warnings of potential collisions. However, because they are not integrated with vehicles’ electronics architecture and are thus unable  to consider additional data, these devices may be limited in their warnings and driver-vehicle interface.  (3)  Vehicle awareness devices: these devices are installed after vehicle production and are not connected to any vehicle systems. They  send data on a vehicle’s location and speed which may be received by other vehicles, but these devices do not generate driver  warnings.
subsections: section_title: 1) Please discuss your views of the status of development of CVTs that involve V2V communications in the United
paragraphs: States, including progress made and successes to date. 2)  In your opinion, what are some of the greatest potential benefits of CVTs that involve V2V communications?   a.  Which potential V2V applications are likely to offer the greatest benefits and why? 3)  What work, in your opinion, needs to be completed before such technologies are commercially feasible and available  in the U.S.? a.  In your opinion, what is a realistic timeframe in which automobile manufacturers might begin to install these  technologies in new vehicles being manufactured for the U.S. vehicle fleet?  4)  According to a 2007 report by the U.S. DOT, CVTs involving V2V communications have the potential to address up  to 76 percent of unimpaired roadway crashes, which could have the potential to greatly reduce the number of roadway  fatalities that occur each year.  a.  What views, if any, do you have on DOT’s projection of these technologies’ potential benefits?  b.  Other than this study and DOT’s Safety Pilot Driver Clinics and Model Deployment, are you aware of any  other studies that estimate the potential benefits of V2V technologies?
Costs of Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle Technologies  5)  To your knowledge, are there any studies that estimate the potential future costs associated with the deployment of  CVTs involving V2V communications?  a.  Specifically, are you aware of any work that has been done to estimate the costs associated with the  deployment of (1) fully-integrated devices, (2) aftermarket safety devices, and (3) vehicle awareness devices?  6)  To your knowledge, are there any studies that estimate the potential costs of the type(s) of security system(s) needed  to support CVTs involving V2V communications, including any infrastructure that such a security system may  require? 7)  What factors may affect the costs associated with the deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications?
Challenges Associated with Vehicle-to-Vehicle Connected Vehicle Technologies  8)  In your opinion, to what extent does each of the following issues present a challenge to the development and eventual  deployment of CVTs that involve V2V communications? (Place only one ‘x’ in each row below to indicate your  response.)  a. Technical challenges in the  development of each of the  following V2V technologies:  -  V2V devices ....................... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ......
section_title: - V2V safety applications .....
paragraphs: ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... -  Driver-vehicle interface ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. b. Technical development of a data  security system to help establish  trust between vehicles sharing  information.................................... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. interoperability among different  types of devices and vehicles ........ ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. d. Deployment of V2V devices and  applications into a great enough  percentage of the U.S. vehicle  fleet to realize significant benefits   ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. e. Costs of deploying CVTs  involving V2V communications  (including V2V devices, safety  applications, driver-vehicle  interface, and security system) ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. f. Potential need for roadside  equipment required to support  security system .............................. ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i.  ii. iv. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. g. Establishment of a framework,  including determination of roles  and responsibilities, for  management of a security system  to support a V2V environment ...... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and any  additional steps they should take. h. Establishing acceptable end user   privacy ........................................... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. i. Public acceptance ............................ ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. j. Use of DSRC technology at 5.9  GHz frequency band ..................... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i.  ii. iv. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. k. Human factors for V2V  communications (e.g. how warning  messages affect driver performance) .. ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take. l. Liability issues (i.e. uncertainty  related to legal responsibility for  vehicle crashes after broad  deployment of V2V devices) .............. ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... i. iii. discuss.  Please discuss how well U.S. DOT and other stakeholders are addressing this challenge and  any additional steps they should take.  9)  What additional challenges, if any, exist in the ongoing development and eventual deployment of CVTs that involve  V2V communications? For each additional challenge, please discuss its extent, how it presents different challenges  for different relevant stakeholders, and how well DOT and other stakeholders are addressing it and additional steps  that they should take.  a. ____________________ .................. ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... b. ____________________ .................. ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ...... c. ____________________ .................. ...... ...... ..... ...... ...... ........ ..... ........ ......
section_title: 10) In your view, how well is U.S. DOT carrying out the following efforts related to the development and deployment of
paragraphs: CVTs involving V2V communications?  a.  Evaluating the potential safety benefits of CVTs involving V2V communications  b.  Considering the potential costs of deploying CVTs involving V2V communications  c.  Supporting the development of V2V safety applications.  d.  Conducting development and testing of V2V devices and promoting the development of technical standards.  e.  Communicating and collaborating with key stakeholders, including automobile manufacturers and suppliers  f. and other interested parties.  Identifying policies to help lead to deployment of CVTs involving V2V communications.  11) Please discuss how, in your opinion, each of the following possible actions regarding CVTs involving V2V  communications would affect automobile manufacturer costs, new vehicle costs, vehicle production, and deployment  of CVTs involving V2V communications:  a.  A federal mandate for automobile manufacturers to install equipment necessary to support V2V safety  applications?  b.  The inclusion of V2V safety applications in NHTSA’s New Car Assessment Program?  c.  Continued research and development?  12) Do you have any views not already discussed on the development and deployment of CVTs involving V2V  communications, including any additional actions U.S. DOT should take?
As part of our review, we conducted 21 structured interviews with  individuals identified by the National Academies of Sciences to be experts  on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technologies (see table 1 in appendix I for list  of experts interviewed). In conducting these structured interviews, we  used a standardized interview guide (see Appendix II) to obtain consistent  answers. 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 V2V technologies. The ratings provided by the experts  for each of the potential challenges discussed are shown in table 2 below.  To inform our discussion of the challenges facing the deployment of V2V  technologies, we considered these ratings as well as experts’ responses  to open-ended questions.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, Assistant  Director; Melissa Bodeau; Leia Dickerson; David Hooper; Terence Lam;  Maren McAvoy; Josh Ormond; Madhav Panwar; Matthew Rosenberg;  Chad Williams; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.