EXPERT OPINION FORECAST OF CONNECTED VEHICLE … · DENSO Johnson Controls P3 Qualcomm Siemens...

-1-

EXPERT OPINION FORECAST OF CONNECTED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY

Valerie Sathe Brugeman

Project Manager, Center for Automotive Research

3005 Boardwalk, Suite 200

Ann Arbor, MI 48108

+1-734-929-0474, [email protected]

Richard Wallace

Director, Transportation Systems Analysis, Center for Automotive Research


Ann Arbor, MI 48108


Joshua Cregger

Industry Analyst, Center for Automotive Research


Ann Arbor, MI 48108


Matt Smith

ITS Program Manager, Michigan Department of Transportation

425 W. Ottawa St.

Lansing, MI 48909


William Tansil

Administrator, Asset Management Division, Michigan Department of Transportation

425 W. Ottawa St.

Lansing, MI 48909


ABSTRACT

The automotive industry continues to transform from producing vehicles that are

overwhelmingly mechanically-based to those that are increasingly rooted in electronic

components and systems. This transformation is critical to traditional automotive regions such

as the Midwest as they seek to maintain their leadership role in the global automotive sector.

Connected vehicle technology development offers a growing high-tech industry, especially

for states that already have a competitive advantage in this area. This paper presents the

results of two surveys submitted to experts in the field of connected vehicle technology

regarding development of connected vehicles over the next five to ten years. These surveys

included representatives from both public and private sectors and covered topics including

which technologies will be used, which applications will receive the most attention,

autonomous vehicles, and NHTSA’s 2013 Notice of Regulatory Intent.

Key Words: Connected Vehicle, Survey, Vehicle Technology, Forecast, DSRC, NHTSA,

Automated

-2-

INTRODUCTION

Road transportation continues to undergo significant technological transformations as wireless

communication increasingly enables vehicles to communicate with each other and with the

infrastructure. This has multiple benefits, including improved safety, mobility, personal

convenience, and economic development. To make the most of this opportunity, public and

private entities must collaborate to develop a system that actively engages the automotive,

telecommunications, and consumer electronics industries. The challenge lies in building

enough confidence on both the public and private sides of the issue to bring them together to

cooperate and achieve an integrated outcome.

One of the primary benefits of connected vehicle technology is the potential for vastly

improved vehicle safety. Both vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)

communication promise significant safety improvements. Assuming a Dedicated Short Range

Communications (DSRC)-based safety system, vehicles continuously (ten times per second)

broadcast a basic safety message that includes information such as vehicle speed, heading and

location. This information is used by other equipped vehicles so that, cooperatively, crashes

are avoided. In the V2I realm, safety is enhanced via broadcast of signal phase and timing

(SPaT) information at signalized intersections, and this information is used for vehicle speed

management and rerouting to reduce time vehicles spend idling at red lights and to improve

traffic flow. Infrastructure can also enable driver warnings, traffic queue detection at

controlled intersections, and active crash avoidance in red-light-running scenarios.

In addition to safety benefits, connected vehicle technology also helps with traffic mobility.

Vehicles already serve as traffic probes based on cellular data. DSRC-based V2I further

supports this type of application by allowing vehicles to communicate information about

travel speed to assist in the detection of congestion and incidents—information that then can

be shared with vehicles that are not yet in the traffic stream, permitting drivers to choose a

different route.

The connected vehicle is a central component of the public-private partnership in sustaining

technological development in the automotive sector. Consumers are connected in almost

every domain of life, from home to work, or any other location where there is access to cell

phones and Wi-Fi communication.

To inform the Department’s connected vehicle activities, the Michigan Department of

Transportation (MDOT) asked the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) to perform two

Delphi studies to augment previous research done on connected vehicle technology and to

provide insights into private- and public-sector views on the future of the technologies. This

presents the methods used in the two studies along with their results and conclusions.

DELPHI SURVEY PROCEDURE

Although several more were asked to and agreed to participate, ultimately 12 respondents

participated in the private-sector study (1) and 17 respondents participated in the public-sector

study (2). Private-sector participants came from automakers, Tier 1 suppliers, and wireless

communication suppliers, and public sector participants came from state Departments of

Transportation (DOTs), local DOTs, and engineering and other firms that provide services to

public-sector agencies. The participants were told that the process would be anonymous, and

-3-

that their participation and their specific answers tied to their identity would not be shared

with anyone outside the research team. Additionally, in lieu of compensation for participating

in the study, respondents were given the raw (though still anonymized), unanalyzed results for

each survey in which they participated. Participants were drawn from the following

organizations:

Private-Sector Study

Connected Vehicle Trade

Association

DENSO

Johnson Controls

P3

Qualcomm

Siemens

Sprint

Toyota

Vector CANtech

Visteon

Volkswagen

Wilson Consulting

Public-Sector Study

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Offices (AASHTO)

Booz Allen Hamilton

CalTrans

HNTB

Michigan Department of Transportation

Minnesota Department of Transportation

National Highway Transportation Safety

Administration

New York Department of Transportation

Ohio Department of Transportation

Parsons Brinkerhoff

Road Commission for Oakland County

SAIC

Southeast Michigan Council of

Governments

Texas Department of Transportation

Transport Canada

The respondents, or panelists, were given two, iterative surveys to complete. The second

survey, which was sent out several weeks after the first, used the responses to questions from

the first survey to generate more directed questions. Before completing the second survey, the

participants were able to see the results of the first survey.

The questions included in the surveys addressed a broad range of topics, including

communication technologies for various applications, possible governmental influence, the

years in which various levels of DSRC deployment will be reached, and roadside

infrastructure needed for a successful deployment. Other, more technology-specific, topics

included when vehicles will have a certain component as standard equipment, how V2V and

V2I systems compare, which transmission modes are most appropriate at roadside locations,

which communication pipelines will best serve various applications, and how applications

will be implemented on the vehicle.

SURVEY RESULTS FROM DELPHI STUDIES

The results of the surveys encompass a wide range of topics related to connected vehicle

deployment in the coming years. Some questions were asked in both survey rounds while

others were asked only in the first round or only in the second round. This section discusses

the responses for questions asked in only one of the survey rounds as well as responses to

questions asked in both rounds. For questions that were included in both survey rounds, the

-4-

discussion below tends to focus on the second-round results, though the first-round often is

used to extend the discussion. In addition, some questions were asked in both public-sector

and private-sector surveys, while others were included in only one of the surveys. The

appropriate respondent group will be identified when discussing each topic.

Type of Communications Technology

One common discussion in the connected vehicle realm concerns which types of technology

are most fitting for different types of applications. Respondents in both private- and public-

sector surveys reaffirmed the apparent consensus that Dedicated Short Range Communication

(DSRC) is needed for cooperative, active safety systems, while third-generation (3G) and

fourth generation (4G) cellular communications tend to be thought of as appropriate for other

applications.

More than 80 percent of respondents in the private-sector study and 90 percent of respondents

in the public-sector study think DSRC is needed for cooperative, active safety systems (see

Figure 1). Respondents showed less agreement, however, regarding 3G or 4G cellular

technologies and other applications. When it comes to whether 3G and 4G cellular technology

can handle most other connected vehicle applications, about 58 percent of the private sector

respondents agreed or strongly agreed, and 25 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed. In the

public sector study, 63 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while only 19

percent disagreed (see Figure 2).

Public-sector responses from the first round were split regarding whether DSRC-based

connected vehicle systems will support the required two-way communication systems to

deliver traffic incident information and similar public warnings to the vehicle. When asked

again in the second round, however, respondents were more definitive (73 percent) that they

think DSRC will at least be capable of providing traffic incident information.

Figure 1. DSRC and Cooperative, Active Safety Systems Source: CAR 2012

-5-

Figure 2. 3G and 4G Cellular Technology and Connected Vehicle Applications

Source: CAR 2012

Public-sector respondents see 3G and 4G cellular technology as the primary communication

pipeline for probe data collection, fleet management, commercial and private applications,

and asset management. DSRC is primarily thought of for in-vehicle warnings, and radio

frequency identification (RFID) technology is thought best for tolls and electronic payments.

As shown in Figure 3, the major disagreement among public-sector respondents is that DSRC

and cellular technology will have an increased role in tolls and electronic payments by 2022.

Most private-sector respondents expressed the view that embedded DSRC transceivers will be

standard equipment on at least 10 percent of vehicles sold in the United States on or before

2020, and all believe it will be standard equipment by 2025. These respondents felt that

DSRC transceivers, rather than other forms of communications technology, would be most

likely to be standard equipment in new vehicles by 2017. By 2022, in addition to DSRC

transceivers, other equipment was also considered likely to be standard, including GPS

receivers, satellite radios, and Wi-Fi transceivers (see Figure 4).

Embedded Equipment

As connected vehicle technology evolves, many wonder whether certain types of equipment

will primarily be built into the vehicle (in other words, automakers embed the equipment in

vehicles as original equipment) or brought-in via mobile devices such as smartphones.

Overall, private-sector respondents believe DSRC transceivers are the most likely type of

equipment to be embedded in vehicles within the next ten years.

-6-

Figure 3. Primary Communication Technology (Public-Sector)

Source: CAR 2012

Figure 4. Component Technologies as Standard Equipment (Private-Sector)

Source: CAR 2012

A strong majority of private-sector respondents indicated that mobility and personal

convenience (through brought-in equipment) connected vehicle applications, as well as

vehicle diagnostics (through built-in equipment), would be widely available by 2017. A slight

majority reported that safety (through built-in equipment) and environmental (through

brought-in equipment) applications would be widely available by 2017. By 2022, a strong

-7-

majority of private-sector respondents think all applications will be widely available, and

most, aside from mobility and personal convenience applications, will handled through built-

in equipment (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Built-in vs. Brought-in Communication Hardware Forecast (Private-Sector)

Source: CAR 2012

In the first round survey, private-sector respondents indicated that they think many connected

vehicle applications related to personal convenience, mobility, and vehicle diagnostics would

be built-in by 2022. Given that it is currently so easy to bring in mobile devices to perform

these functions, the second survey asked respondents why they think the trend would reverse.

Some of the most common answers were:

Automakers are in control of the user-experience and data

Embedded devices offer automakers customer relationship opportunities

Vehicles must last longer therefore it is better for automakers to have them under

control for long-term services

It is easier to implement connected vehicle applications with embedded technology

Embedded devices are easier for automakers to standardize and secure

V2V vs. V2I Technology

Another discussion in the connected vehicle realm is which is most valuable and realistic:

V2V communication, where vehicles communicate directly with each other, or V2I

communication, where vehicles communicate with roadside infrastructure. Most respondents

in both private and public sectors indicated that V2V and V2I working cooperatively is the

best system to maximize public good.

Respondents were asked an open-ended question of whether a V2V-only system is possible

and desirable. Of the public-sector respondents, 63 percent replied that yes, a V2V-only

system is possible, but 88 percent indicated that such a system is not desirable. In the first

round, slightly more than half of private-sector respondents agreed that a V2V-only system is

possible, but thought it would be somewhat limited and a V2I system in addition to V2V

would offer more functionality. Given this, a vast majority of respondents (92%) believe a

-8-

connected vehicle system is possible using DSRC technology only for V2V applications and

another technology for V2I applications. While many private-sector respondents suggested

that V2V alone is valuable, others suggested that there is only limited value in V2V only, and

that V2I is required to achieve full benefits. Early customers may not be willing to pay for a

connected vehicle system that does not yet have enough users to be useful, which is a risk,

especially in a V2V-only scenario.

The reason that a V2V-only system is considered undesirable is because it cannot extend the

same benefits as a combined V2V/V2I system. Some public-sector respondents stated that if

V2I is not taken up by public sector, V2V-only could still be deployed by automakers. A V2I

system will be difficult to deploy, since no single agency will control the entire infrastructure.

In addition, given current funding constraints, unknown infrastructure performance, and

onerous operational requirements, deployment of V2V-only seems to be the simplest

approach, even if it is less beneficial than an integrated V2V/V2I approach. Some public-

sector respondents indicated that some infrastructure may be needed for the security

component of a DSRC-based V2V system, but others suggest that this could be done using

another system such as cell phone networks or secure Wi-Fi connections.

In the first-round survey, public-sector respondents were asked whether V2V or V2I

communication will be more important for a variety of applications in 2017 and 2022. Open-

ended responses indicated two additional applications to be covered; therefore, in the second

round, those two applications specifically addressed. The combined responses are shown in

Figure 6. The public-sector respondents clearly think V2I is more important for most

applications, both in 2017 and 2022. The one exception to this is for safety applications, for

which V2V is viewed as more important for both years.

Figure 6. V2V and V2I Technology for Applications (Public-Sector)

Source: CAR 2012

As Figure 7 shows, respondents believe more connected vehicle technology features will be

implemented via V2I technology as time goes on. In 2017, the only features that about half of

respondents thought would be implemented with V2I were road condition warnings and

traveler information. Conversely, by 2022, the majority of respondents indicate that all

-9-

features will be implemented via V2I technology. Thus, they see a gradual evolution toward

greater reliance on V2I technology over time.

Figure 7. V2I Technology Implementation (Public-Sector)

Source: CAR 2012

Cost Estimates

Adding connected vehicle technology will inevitably add costs to the vehicle. Private-sector

respondents were asked how much various degrees of implementation would add to the base

price of a vehicle, as well as including equipment as aftermarket. In both rounds, when asked

how much it will cost vehicle manufacturers (in US$) to add a DSRC radio as embedded

equipment, respondents gave a median response of $175 for 2017 and $75 for 2022.

Regarding what connected vehicle technology will add to the base cost (in US$) of a new

vehicle for the consumer, the median in both rounds was $350 for 2017 and $300 for 2022. As

for the cost the consumer (in US$) to add DSRC as aftermarket equipment, the median for

both rounds was $200 for 2017 and $75 for 2022.

Regulatory Mandates

One of the most impactful decisions on the horizon is whether the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA) will announce its intent to mandate V2V communication

systems for safety applications in 2013. It is widely believed that, if they do, this will spur

deployment of the technology, though it will take several years for the regulatory process to

play out. Although NHTSA has announced that it will make a Notice of Regulatory Intent

(NRI) about this in 2013, the direction of the notice is not known at this time, and the agency

could potentially delay its decision.

Regulatory Mandate of DSRC-based Equipment

The majority of respondents (79 percent of private-sector and 77 percent of public-sector)

think NHTSA’s 2013 notice of regulatory intent will be affirmative (i.e., that it does intend to

mandate V2V communication systems for safety applications). This bodes well for those in

the industry who are working to make the technology more ubiquitous.

-10-

The majority of round one private-sector responses indicated that if NHTSA announces it

does intend to mandate V2V safety technology within five years, all new light vehicles will be

required to have this technology as standard equipment. More specifically, more than 80

percent of private-sector respondents indicated the belief that all new vehicles sold in the U.S.

will be required to have this technology as standard equipment (if NHTSA intends to mandate

it) by 2020, and 100 percent think it will happen by 2022. The public-sector respondents

agreed, with the majority (88 percent) indicating that it would be five or more years after

NHTSA announces that intends to mandate V2V safety technology before all new vehicles

will be required to have the technology as standard equipment.

Regulatory Mandate of Aftermarket Retrofits

Responses are somewhat mixed as to whether a mandate for aftermarket retrofits of V2V

communication is necessary for significant safety benefits by 2022. The majority (58%) of

private sector respondents think they are not necessary. Both private- and public-sector

respondents indicated that, even if NHTSA announces it intends to mandate V2V safety

technology, it is highly unlikely that NHTSA will also require existing vehicles to be

retrofitted with an aftermarket V2V safety device. If, however, NHTSA does introduce an

aftermarket mandate, exactly half of the private-sector respondents believe the vehicle

aftermarket device will be for vehicle awareness (broadcast only), and half believe the device

will not be connected to the vehicle’s data bus.

Despite this prevailing view among respondents, they strongly believe that not requiring

vehicle retrofits of connected vehicle technology will cause degradation of system

performance. The majority of public-sector respondents (71 percent)) expressed the view that

this degradation would be significant, and the remaining respondents (29 percent) responded

that it would be moderate. No public-sector respondent suggested that it would be slightly or

not at all degrading to system performance.

Public-sector respondents were asked the best ways to encourage drivers to voluntarily retrofit

their vehicles should a NHTSA notice of regulatory intent be affirmative. Their answers

indicate that they view consumer incentives as the best encouragement to make this happen.

They also suggested that supplier incentives could be useful. Those with write-in responses

primarily specified consumer incentives, though they often suggested features rather than

direct monetary compensation (e.g., HOV lane access, free retrofits, insurance cost discounts,

telematics/geo-location services, or other applications that users want). One respondent

suggested a regulation which would mandate that vehicles to have basic safety messaging

abilities as a requirement of registration renewal.

If NHTSA announces that it does not intend to mandate V2V safety technology, answers from

both sectors remain relatively mixed as to whether automakers will continue to pursue V2V

technology for safety systems. Those who strongly believed that automakers will continue

gave the following reasons for their belief:

These technologies offer real safety benefits

Europe is doing it and we will follow

Political, marketing and technological benefits for automakers

Can't sell cars if congestion is too bad

Can provide functionality for tolling and other connected vehicle apps that will happen

-11-

For those who said it was not at all likely, several commented that it is only valuable if there

is mass adoption of the technology. Without it, automakers do not desire to add costs to

vehicles.

Regulatory Mandate of Applications

Another big question for the industry is whether governmental entities will mandate certain

types of technology and applications. In general, respondents from both sectors do not believe

many connected vehicle applications will be mandated by 2017. Some respondents noted that,

by 2022, some applications, especially those relating to intersections and higher-alert zones,

could be mandated. When asked about a federal mandate for V2I applications, public-sector

respondents initially agreed that no applications would be mandated by 2017, but responses

were mixed about V2I applications for 2022. In the second round survey, these respondents

came to a consensus that neither state nor federal mandates for V2I applications were likely

by 2022.

Private-sector respondents were asked about a potential mandate for the following connected

vehicle applications:

Intersection control violations

Stop sign movement assist, violation warning, and highway/rail crossings

Lane/road departure warning

Curve speed/rollover warning

Work-zone, school-zone, exit facility, icy bridges, low clearance warning

Left-turn across path and lateral gap acceptance

The majority of indicated that those applications were not likely to be mandated by 2017 (see

Figure 8). Some respondents, however, did think that some of these applications could be

mandated by 2022. Most respondents indicated that no other safety applications were likely to

be mandated by 2022, though some suggested that the following applications could be

mandated:

Forward collision warnings

Electronic emergency brake lights

Road condition warnings

Emergency vehicle, train, school bus stop warnings

One respondent noted that there is no need for the government to mandate any applications,

just which technology to use.

Public-Sector Use of Connected Vehicle Technology

The public sector faces some unique challenges and goals when it comes to connected vehicle

technology. Not surprisingly, respondents indicated that the highest priority use of connected

vehicle technology for the public sector is crash avoidance. Traffic management and then

asset management were also rated as important public-sector uses of connected vehicle

technology.

-12-

Figure 8. Forecast for Mandated Connected Vehicle Applications (Private-Sector)

Source: CAR 2012

Data Sharing

First-round responses were mixed as to whether public-sector respondents thought

automakers would share vehicle sensor data with public agencies to support public

applications and services, such as asset management and road weather information. In the

second round, respondents were asked which approaches might encourage automakers to

share these data. They suggested a public/private partnership would be the most effective

method to encourage data sharing, followed by a mandate.

In general, public-sector respondents expressed the view that DOTs will have to pay for data.

Respondent answers suggest that a data quantity-based fee is the most likely scenario to

obtain probe data from aggregators and resellers; however, 20 percent of respondents also saw

the potential for a flat service fee, and 20 percent thought there may be no charge. Other

written-in responses included the possibility for a flat fee for basic data with incremental

increases for additional information, that users will likely buy information rather than data,

and that the price will be based on quantity and frequency.

Roadside Infrastructure

Connected vehicle technology infrastructure along the roadside is of particular importance to

the public sector as DOTs will likely be responsible for installing it. Public-sector respondents

think DSRC is most likely for urban intersections, and cellular technology is most likely for

urban highways. Responses were less concrete for the transmission mode at toll roads, though

a slight majority indicated that it will be RFID.

A slight majority of public-sector respondents, 53 percent, believe that Bluetooth technology

deployed along the roadside would be somewhat useful for collecting traffic probe

-13-

information. But in general, there is not much certainty that the technology would be a

benefit.

In the first round, public sector respondents were asked to describe the characteristics (e.g.,

extent, location, etc.) of the DSRC infrastructure that they think are necessary to make in-

vehicle installation of DSRC worthwhile. Several items were mentioned, but the most

common responses dealt with intersection safety, safety at select non-intersection areas, such

as curves and road construction, and network security. When asked about these three items in

the second round, intersection safety was deemed most important, followed by network

security and then safety at select non-intersection areas.

Traffic Management Systems

In the first round, public-sector respondents were asked the extent to which they agree with

the following statement:

Further development of the following traffic management systems is essential to a successful

national deployment of connected vehicle technology.

Roadside and/or embedded highway sensors

Roadside video cameras

Traffic management centers

Networked traffic signal systems

Electronic toll collection systems

There was general agreement that Traffic Management Centers (TMCs) and Networked

Traffic Signal Systems are essential to national deployment, but roadside sensors and videos

are not. In the second round survey, respondents were asked the extent to which they agree

that, despite V2I, TMCs and Networked Traffic Signal Systems are essential to a successful

national deployment of connected vehicle technology. The majority of respondents indicated

that both are necessary to achieve the national deployment goal.

Challenges to Broad Adoption

Several potential challenges impede broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. To a

large extent, public- and private-sector respondents agreed on the key challenges to broad

adoption of the technology. Those from both sectors view funding for roadside infrastructure

as one of the biggest challenges to the broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. Both

view driver distraction as an important challenge. In addition, industry panelists view

equipment costs as a challenge, and public-sector panelists see data security as important.

Convergence of Connected and Automated Vehicle Systems

The majority of private-sector respondents (85 percent) expect to see significant integration of

sensor systems (e.g., camera, radar, LiDAR) and connected vehicle communication systems

by 2022. This integration, or convergence, of sensors and connected vehicle technology is an

initial step towards autonomous vehicle technology, which will allow vehicles to operate

without driver involvement and instead use sensors (and potentially V2V and V2I

applications) to navigate their surroundings (3).

-14-

Because automated technology does not necessarily rely upon other vehicles being equipped

with similar communication devices, there is much research happening in this arena. Google,

for example, has a fully autonomous vehicle that drives on roadways as part of a testing

effort, albeit with a human driver present in the vehicle to take control if needed. The private-

sector survey asked respondents for their thoughts on automated vehicles as compared to

connected vehicles, and the majority said that while automated vehicles have some benefits,

the biggest public benefit would come from vehicles with both automated and connected

systems.

Most respondents suggested that automated vehicle technology can support advanced safety

systems at least partially. A few commented that an automated vehicle would not be able to

do everything that a connected vehicle would be able to do. Some respondents felt that

automated vehicle technology is limited in that it is both too expensive and not advanced

enough for real world driving.

The vast majority (93 percent) of private-sector respondents say the concept of “vehicles that

cannot crash” requires both autonomous and connected vehicle technology. They indicated

that the following safety features would likely be implemented through a combination of both

autonomous and connected vehicle technology by 2022:

Road-condition warning

Emergency electronic brake light

Forward collision warning

Pre-crash warning

Emergency vehicle approaching warning

Intersection crash avoidance

CONCLUSIONS

This report provides an analysis of expert opinions from the both sides (industry and

government) of the connected vehicle technology equation. Respondents received two,

iterative surveys addressing what they see as the future of connected vehicle technology,

including topics such as communication technologies for various applications, possible

governmental influence, the years in which various levels of DSRC deployment will be

reached, and roadside infrastructure needed for a successful deployment. Other, more

technology-specific, topics included when vehicles will have a certain component as standard

equipment, how V2V and V2I systems compare, which transmission modes are most

appropriate for roadside locations, which communication pipelines will best serve various

applications, and how applications will be implemented on the vehicle.

The public and private sectors largely agreed on most issues addressed. DSRC is thought of as

best for cooperative, active safety systems, while 3G and 4G technologies are seen as best for

a variety of other applications, such as those relating to infotainment. Respondents also had a

good deal of agreement that DSRC will become standard vehicle equipment by 2017. In 2022,

GPS receivers, satellite radios, and Wi-Fi transceivers also are likely to be included as

standard equipment, according to the respondents. Mobility and personal convenience

applications as brought-in equipment are forecasted to be widely available on new vehicles by

2017, and all applications will be widely available by 2022. The majority think the

applications will be built-in by that point.

-15-

Most respondents feel that while a V2V-only system is possible and valuable, but respondents

view a complimentary V2I system as necessary to maximize full public benefits of connected

vehicle technology. V2I systems are seen as easier to implement due to the high cost of

deploying infrastructure; therefore, a concerted effort will be needed to ensure appropriate

V2I systems are also in place. Respondents also think a V2V system is possible using DSRC

technology, but that another communication technology (such as cellular technology) could

be used for V2I systems, potentially reducing the need for new infrastructure.

The estimated costs to manufacturers for embedding DSRC, the overall added costs to base

vehicle price to the consumers, and adding DSRC as aftermarket equipment are all higher in

2017 and then drop significantly by 2022. The forecasted additional cost of the technology to

consumers is $350 in 2017 and $300 in 2022.

Both sectors believe that the NHTSA 2013 Notice of Regulatory Intent on V2V safety

systems for vehicles will be in the affirmative, though the public sector is more confident in

this opinion. If it is in the affirmative, this may help alleviate some of the biggest challenges

both sectors see to the broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. If NHTSA announces

that it does intend to mandate V2V safety, all private sector respondents believe that by 2022

all new vehicles sold in the United States will be required to have V2V communication

equipment as standard equipment. Public-sector respondents suggested that it will take five or

more years before all new vehicles will be required to have the safety technology.

Respondents are less confident about a mandate for aftermarket retrofits, but indicated that, if

there is a mandate, the device will likely be broadcast-only and will not be connected to the

vehicle’s data bus. If NHTSA elects not to mandate a V2V safety system, then respondents

hold mixed views on whether automakers will continue to pursue V2V technology for safety

systems. Respondents suggested that not requiring retrofits will significantly degrade overall

system performance, as until there is fleet turnover, most vehicles on the road will not have

the safety technology. Offering some type of consumer incentive is seen as the best way to

encourage drivers to retrofit their own vehicles with the technology. Respondents do not

expect other federal or state-level mandates on V2I applications.

The highest priority use of connected vehicle technology for the public sector is to avoid

vehicle crashes. Given that one of the public sectors’ main charges is to enhance safety, this is

not surprising. Public-sector respondents are unsure whether automakers would share sensor

data with agencies, but feel that a public/private partnership would be the best way to

encourage this sharing.

DSRC will be the likely transmission mode for infrastructure used in urban intersections, and

correspondingly, intersection safety is seen as the highest necessity to make in-vehicle

installation of DSRC worthwhile. Cellular technology is the more likely transmission mode

for urban highways. According to respondents, for a successful national deployment, both

Traffic Management Centers and Networked Traffic Signal Systems are essential.

Both private- and public-sector respondents identified funding for infrastructure as the biggest

challenge to the broad adoption of connected vehicle technology. The two sectors also both

identified the potential for driver distraction as another major challenge for connected vehicle

technology deployment.

-16-

Autonomous technology is seen by industry experts as beneficial, because it can be

implemented independently, but lacking in that it is quite expensive and not as broadly

beneficial as connected vehicle technology. Respondents see benefits in implementing both

connected and autonomous technology.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper is based on research conducted by the Transportation Systems Analysis (TSA)

Group at CAR. The authors would like to thank MDOT for its financial support of this work

as well as for providing guidance and feedback. We would additionally like to thank the many

private- and public-sector survey respondents for participating in this research effort; a full list

of these participants can be found within the “Delphi Survey Procedure” section of this paper.

REFERENCES

(1) Valerie Brugeman, Richard Wallace, and Joshua Cregger, “Connected Vehicle

Technology Industry Delphi Study,” Center for Automotive Research, Report Prepared for the

Michigan Department of Transportation, September 2012. Available at

http://www.cargroup.org/?module=Publications&event=View&pubID=90.

(2) Valerie Brugeman, Richard Wallace, and Joshua Cregger, “Connected Vehicle

Technology Local Government Delphi Study,” Center for Automotive Research, Report

Prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation, September 2012. Available at


(3) Gary Silberg, Richard Wallace, et al., “Self-Driving Cars: The Next Revolution,” KPMG

and Center for Automotive Research, August 2012, p. 10-15. Available at


EXPERT OPINION FORECAST OF CONNECTED VEHICLE … · DENSO Johnson Controls P3 Qualcomm Siemens...

Documents

Transcript of EXPERT OPINION FORECAST OF CONNECTED VEHICLE … · DENSO Johnson Controls P3 Qualcomm Siemens...