December 31, 1993
`(report data)
`
`A COMPARISON OF IVHS PROGRESS
`
`IN THE UNITED STAEES, EUROPE, AND JAPAN
`
`by
`
`Robert L. French, R. L. French & Associates (USA)
`E. Ryerson Case, E. R. Case & Associates (Canada)
`Yoshikazu Noguchi,
`IVHS AMRICA Distinguished International
`Fellow assigned from JSK {Japan}
`Christopher Queree, MVA Systematica (UK) Kentaro
`IVHS AMERICA Distinguished International Fellow
`Sakamoto,
`assigned from Sumitcmo Electric (Japan)
`Ove Sviden, ARISEeeig (Sweden/Belgium)
`
`Prepared by
`
`R. L. French & Associates
`3815 Lisbon St., Suite 210
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`
`for
`
`IVHS AMERICA
`
`400 Virginia Ave., SW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20024-2730
`James Costantino, Project Mbnitor
`
`Approval Draft Issued February 18, 1994
`
`mum 'g[nj’n1w1;In
`
`15
`
`M PCS|NV0005088
`EXHIBIT 1009
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`FOREWORD
`
`PREEACE
`
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`1 . 0
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1 . 1 Background
`
`1 . 2 Approach
`
`1 . 3 Scope
`
`1 . 4 Nomenclature
`
`1 . 5 Report Organization
`
`2.0
`
`COMPETITIVE CONCERNS
`
`2.1 Mobility 2000
`
`2 . 2 U. S . Office of Technology Assessment
`
`2 . 3 U . S . Department of Transportation
`
`2 . 4 U . S . General Accounting Office
`
`2 . 5 Transportation Research Board
`
`2.6 U.S. Congress
`
`2.7 Library of Congress
`
`3.0
`
`PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS
`
`3.1
`
`JSK Association
`
`3.2
`
`DRIVE SECFO
`
`3.3 Technology Transfer Institute
`
`3.4
`
`Institute of Transportation Engineers
`
`3 . 5
`
`IVHS AMERICA
`
`3 . 6
`
`UK Transport and Road Research Laboratory
`
`3 . 7 England Department of Transport
`
`ES-l
`
`1"]-
`
`1'1
`
`1-2
`
`1'4
`
`l"5
`
`1-8
`
`2-1
`
`2-1
`
`2'1
`
`2-2
`
`2"‘?
`
`2"?
`
`2-3
`
`2-3
`
`3-1
`
`3-1
`
`3~2
`
`3-5
`
`3-5
`
`3-6
`
`3-7
`
`3-8
`
`MPCS|NV0005089
`
`

`
`4.0
`
`EARLY INITIATIVES: 1960-1985
`
`4.1 United States
`
`4.2 Europe
`
`4.3
`
`Japan
`
`5 . 0
`
`CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENTS : 1985-1993
`
`5.1 New" Foundations:
`
`1985-1987
`
`5.1.1 Europe
`
`5.1.2
`
`Japan
`
`5.1.3 United. States
`
`5.2 Passages:
`
`1988-1990
`
`5.2.1 Europe
`
`5.2.2
`
`Japan
`
`5.2.3 United States
`
`5.3 Current Directions:
`
`1991-1993
`
`5.3.1 Europe
`
`5.3.2 Japan
`
`5.3.3 United States
`
`6.0
`
`INDIVIDUAL MEASURES
`
`6.1
`
`Funding
`
`6.1.1 United States
`
`6.1.2 Europe
`
`6.1.3
`
`Japan
`
`6.2 Organization
`
`6.2.1 United. States
`
`6.2.2 Europe
`
`6.2.3 Japan
`
`4'1
`
`4-1
`
`4-5
`
`4-7
`
`5-].
`
`5"1
`
`5-1
`
`5-4
`
`5-5
`
`5-7
`
`5-7
`
`5-9
`
`5-10
`
`5'11
`
`5-13
`
`5-14
`
`5-15
`
`6-l
`
`6-1
`
`6-1
`
`6-3
`
`6-5
`
`6-6
`
`6-6
`
`6-9
`
`6-12
`
`MPCSINVODOSOBO
`
`

`
`6.3 Research and. Testing
`
`6.3.1 United States
`
`6.3.2 Europe
`
`6 . 3 . 3
`
`Japan
`
`6.4 System Architecture and Standards
`
`6.4.1 United States
`
`6 . 4 . 2 Europe
`
`6.4.3 Japan
`
`6.5 Marketing and Deployment
`
`6 . 5 . 1 United States
`
`6.5.2 Europe
`
`6.5.3 Japan
`
`6.6 Institutional and Legal
`
`Issues
`
`6.6.1 United States
`
`6.6.2 Europe
`
`6.6.3 Japan
`
`6.7 Planning
`
`6.7.1 United States
`
`6.7.2 Europe
`
`6.7.3 Japan
`
`'7 . 0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
`
`7.1 Major Factors Affecting IVHS Support
`
`7.1.1 Policy Support
`
`7.1.2 Organizational Arrangements
`
`7.2 Other Findings
`
`7.3 Conclusions
`
`7.4 Recommendations
`
`6-14
`
`6-15
`
`6-15
`
`6-18
`
`6-19
`
`6~20
`
`6-22
`
`6-23
`
`5“24
`
`5'“24
`
`5-26
`
`6-27
`
`5-29
`
`6-31
`
`6-32
`
`6-33
`
`6-34
`
`6-34
`
`6-36
`
`6-37
`
`7-1
`
`7-1
`
`7-2
`
`7-3
`
`7-4
`
`7-5
`
`7-6
`
`M PCSlNV000509‘%
`
`

`
`ACKNOWLEDGMNTS
`
`REFERENCES
`
`GLOSSARY
`
`APPENDICES
`
`A.
`
`IVHS AMERICA
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Congressman Frank R. Wolf's Questions
`
`IVHS Categories
`
`"ARISE: Automobile Road Information System
`Ove Sviden,
`Evolution," Swedish National Road Association (1986).
`
`"Mobility 2000 and the Roots of IVHS," IVES
`Lyle Saxton,
`Review, pp. 11-26 (Spring 1993}.
`
`"PROMETHEUS Common European
`F. Hans-Peter Glathe,
`Demonstration: A Tool
`to Prove Feasibility," Proceedings
`of the IVES AMERICA 1993 Annual Meeting, pp. 174-179.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`"The DRIVE Programme of the European
`Peter O'Neill,
`Community," Automotive Design Engineering, pp. 298-307
`(1993).
`
`"ERTICO's Present Strategy on Advanced
`Federico Filippi,
`Transport Telematics," Proceedings, PTRC Summer Annual
`Meeting, Volume P367, Developments in European Land Use
`and Transport, pp. 115-123 (1993).
`
`"Some
`I. Hironao Kawashima, Haruki Fujii, and Kozo Kito,
`Structural Aspects on the Info-mobility Related Projects
`in Japan,“ SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 911676 (1991).
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`"Current Status of the IVES/RTI Programs in
`Sadao Takaba,
`Japan," Proceedings of the IVHS AMERICA 1993 Annual
`Meeting, pp. 280-285.
`
`"Comparison of IVHS Navigation
`Edward J. Krakiwsky,
`Systems in North America, Europe, and Japan" (1993).
`
`"The Evolution of Automobile Navigation
`Robert L. French,
`Systems in Japan,‘ Proceedings, Institute of Navigation
`49th Annual Meeting, pp. 69-74 (1993).
`
`MPCS|NVO005092
`
`

`
`FOREWORD
`
`IVHS is an international phenomenon that continues to change
`the face of surface transportation all over the world.
`Unique to IVHS among international high-tech fields is the
`amount of international cooperation that has occurred and the
`fact that the United States is providing substantial
`leadership in these cooperative endeavors.
`
`These efforts include the ATT/IVHS World Congress,
`international standards~making, and stimulating the
`establishment of IVHS AMERICArlike organizations around the
`world, even in Japan, a nation with an edge in the
`development and deployment of IVHS technologies but that for
`years lacked a central coordinating organization. Another
`IVHS AMRICA effort of international significance is the
`comparative analysis of IVHS progress in the United States,
`Europe, and Japan reported herein.
`
`The United States was the first nation to fully act on the
`need for an institutional embodiment of the public/private
`partnerships that make IVHS deployment feasible.
`Congress
`recognized the need for a coordinating organization early in
`the IVHS program, stating in the FY91 House Transportation
`Appropriations report:
`
`the apparent lack of
`..concerned about
`"The Committee is .
`a nationwide public/private coordinating mechanian to
`guide the complex research and development activities
`anticipated in the IVHS area."
`
`It is a
`IVHS AMERICA was formed to remedy this need.
`partnership of the public, private and academic sectors
`involved in IVHS.
`Its mission is to coordinate and
`accelerate the development and deployment of advanced IVHS
`technology.
`It fulfills part of this mission through its
`role as a utilized Federal Advisory Committee to the U.S.
`Department of Transportation.
`In this capacity,
`IVHS
`AMERICA gives advice on federal
`IVHS activities and helps
`establish program priorities.
`
`IVHS AMRICA's growth in only three years of operation has
`established its leadership in the IVHS community both in the
`United States and around the world.
`Its success has
`
`stimulated other countries and regions to form organizations
`similar to IVES AMERICA to facilitate coordination of their
`
`These organizations include ERTICO in
`IVHS activities.
`Europe, VERTIS in Japan,
`IVHS Australia, and IVHS Canada.
`All of these organizations have their own unique structures,
`but they all share similar goals and missions to coordinate
`the development and deployment of IVHS around the world.
`
`MPCSINVODOSOQ3
`
`

`
`Over the past several years, it has become abundantly clear
`that the developed countries of the world,
`led by Japan,
`Europe, and the United States, are moving quickly toward
`deploying advanced technology on the highways.
`Numerous
`demonstrations are in progress or are planned to test the
`navigation, communication, and control systems technologies
`necessary for ful1—scale deployment.
`It is also clear,
`however,
`that each region is leading in certain technologies
`and that some are further ahead than others in deployment or
`in institutional arrangements that serve as the framework for
`IVES implementation.
`
`the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee
`As a result,
`of the House Appropriations Committee raised questions about
`the relative positions of the acknowledged three leaders in
`IVHS development: Europe,
`Japan, and the United States.
`This
`comparative analysis of IVHS progress is in response to those
`inquiries.
`
`the designated study leader, assembled an
`Robert L. French,
`international
`team of specialists to plan and execute the
`required analysis.
`In addition to their own research,
`their
`study incorporates the excellent piecemeal assessments that
`had already been done by others so as to minimize duplication
`and repetition.
`
`The major thrust of the comparative analysis lies in the
`selection and compilation of the measures to be used.
`is the
`Notwithstanding the comparisons of progress, however,
`One key
`amount of work remaining to be done to deploy IVHS.
`to wide-scale deployment, for example,
`is the development of
`international standards.
`Fortunately, considerable forward
`movement has been made in this and other areas in recent
`months, but considerable work remains.
`
`Although no single country at this point leads the world in
`all areas of IVHS,
`the United States certainly has an edge in
`the institutional leadership it brings to the international
`EVHS community.
`The United States has gained international
`respect for this leadership as it continues to forge and
`strengthen ties with international sister organizations
`through work on the ATT/IVHS World Congress, standards
`development,
`and other areas.
`IVHS AMRICA believes that
`this work and the information exchange it provides will
`assist in the development of a strong U.S.
`IVES industry.
`
`James Costantino
`
`MPCSI NV0005094
`
`

`
`PREFACE
`
`The scope of the task of identifying and systematically
`comparing relevant measures of IVHS progress in Europe,
`Japan, and the United States makes it inevitable that the
`selection of information presented and the observations made
`in this report at least partially reflect subjective views of
`the authors. Although the authors made special efforts to
`confirm their views on IVHS progress with knowledgeable and
`objective colleagues in arriving at consensus interpretations
`for this report, it seems appropriate to explain the frames
`of reference for the individual perspectives on IVHS.
`
`IVHS
`(physics), an independent
`Robert L. French, MS
`consultant,
`is a pioneer in automobile navigation, having
`invented map matching in the early 1970s.
`Since then, he has
`closely followed IVHS developments in Europe and Japan and
`has encouraged adoption of IVHS concepts in the United States
`through proposals, publications, professional society
`activities,
`and educational seminars.
`He helped lead
`Transportation Research Board (TRB)
`IVHS initiatives in the
`mid—l980s and was an invited speaker at the 1986 Caltrans
`Conference. Along with co-author Christopher Queree. he
`originated The Intelligent Highway,
`the first IVHS
`newsletter,
`in 1990.
`A Founding Member of IVHS AMERICA, his
`international consulting practice specializes in assisting
`established clients as well as newcomers to IVHS with
`
`information services,
`planning activities.
`
`technology and market assessments, and
`
`is a Professional
`(control systems),
`E. Ryerson Case, MS
`Engineer who had senior management and research
`responsibilities at the Ontario Ministry of Transportation
`(MTO)
`from 1973 to 1991. While with MTG, he played a leading
`role in the development and operation of the first
`in
`computerized freeway traffic management system (FTMS)
`Canada.
`He later pioneered the use of fiber optics for FTMS
`communications and served as the Canadian delegate in the
`OECD Expert Groups on "Dynamic Traffic Management in Urban
`and Suburban Road Systems" and "Evaluative Research of Road-
`Vehicle Communications Systems." Case was a leader of TRB
`IVHS initiatives in the mid—1980s, participated in the 1986
`Caltrans conference, was a member of Mobility 2000,
`is a
`Founding Member of IVHS AMRICA, and is a Charter Member of
`the Canadian IVHS Roundtable.
`He originated the VNIS
`(Vehicular Navigation and Information Systems)
`international
`conference series of the IEEE in 1989.
`He currently
`maintains an independent consulting practice in IVHS in the
`Province of Ontario.
`
`Yoshikazu Noguchi, BS (mechanical engineering), has been with
`Toyota Motor Corporation since 1973.
`He held various
`engineering and management positions in engine systems design
`
`MPCSENV0005095
`
`

`
`and development until being assigned in 1987 as a manager at
`Toyota's European office in Brussels, Belgium, with
`responsibility for homologation and regulation.
`Upon
`returning to Japan in 1990, he joined Toyota's Corporate R&D
`Planning Division where he became Project Manager for IVHS-
`In 1992, he was assigned as Visiting Fellow to JSK
`(Association of Electronic Technology for Automobile Traffic
`and Driving), which operates under auspices of the Ministry
`of International Trade and Industry (MITI).
`In 1993, he was
`named IVHS AMRICA Distinguished International Fellow.
`
`is a Director
`PhD (transport planning),
`Christopher Queree,
`with MVA Systematica, a specialist management consultancy and
`system house, where he is responsible for the team working in
`transport information systems.
`He is Chairman of the UK's
`Royal Institute of Navigation's Land Navigation Group and co-
`founder of the RTI/IVHS newsletter,
`Ihe Intelligent Highway."
`He managed the original DRIVE Planning Exercise for the
`European Commission and leads MVA Systematica's participation
`in several DRIVE projects.
`These cover digital road map
`development, driver navigation systems, hazardous goods
`monitoring and control,
`traffic data interchange, and RTI
`systems engineering.
`He also manages MVA's assistance to the
`European Commission for the transport,
`tourism and GIS
`elements of the IMPACT Programme, and is providing specialist
`private sector consultancy advice to European information
`services in road transport and tourism.
`
`(applied mathematics and engineering
`Kentaro Sakamoto, MS
`physics), has been since 1973 with Sumitomo Electric
`Industries Ltd., where he became involved with IVHS as a
`participant in Japan's pioneering CASS
`(Comprehensive
`Automobile Comunications System) Program during the 1970s.
`He was subsequently project leader of Sumitomo E1ectric‘s
`digital design group for advanced traffic management systems.
`While assigned from 1983 to 1989 as R&D Vice President at
`Sumitomo E1ectric's New York City offices, he became involved
`in the exchange of IVHS information through the TRB.
`His
`assignments upon returning to Japan included management of
`fiber optic communication systems market development and
`management of the Systems Development Office of Sumitomo
`E1ectric's Systems and Electronics Group.
`He was assigned in
`1993 as IVHS AMERICA'S first Distinguished International
`Fellow.
`
`PhD (economics), a futurist with roots in the
`Ove Sviden,
`aerospace and automotive industries, pioneered advanced
`driver information concepts including headmup displays
`through Sweden's ARISE (Automobile Road Information Systems
`Evolution) study which preceded PROMETHEUS and DRIVE in the
`mid—1980s.
`He was an invited speaker at the 1986 Caltrans
`conference and conducted the International Institute of
`Applied Systems Analysis 1987 Delphi study of future IVHS
`scenarios.
`His work as Lead Researcher with the PRO~GEN work
`
`MPCSENVOOOSOS6
`
`

`
`area of PROMETHEUS during 1987-1988 included formulation of
`35 IVHS functions based upon driver needs rather than
`technical solutions. During 1989-1991 he was a member of the
`DRIVE SECFO (Systems Engineering and Consensus Formation
`Office)
`team with responsibility for synthesizing IVHS system
`architecture scenarios that out across all DRIVE projects.
`He is currently Managing Director of ARISEeeig. a non—profit
`research service European Economic Interest Grouping with
`offices in Brussels as well as in Sweden.
`
`MPCSINVDDOSOST
`
`

`
`EXECUTIVE SUMARY
`
`Background
`
`the United States essentially
`From 1970 until the mid—1980s,
`shelved many of its IVHS initiatives that were underway in
`the late 1960s because they failed to gain necessary policy
`and funding support. During this dormant period, Europe and
`Japan conducted field tests and continued other developments
`that enabled them to surge ahead of the United States with
`major IVHS research programs that began to form around the
`mid—l980s.
`
`The European and Japanese programs enjoyed substantial
`government support and lent impetus to similar U.S.
`interests that were beginning to coalesce in 1986 as the
`Interstate Highway Program, which had preoccupied the United
`States since 1956, approached completion. As documented in
`many publications,
`including the U.S. Department of
`Transportation's 1990 statement of national
`transportation
`policy and the U.S. Congress‘
`Intermodal Surface
`Transportation Efficiency Act
`(ISTEA) of 1991,
`there was
`concern about loss of competitive advantage unless the United
`States took action to catch up in this rapidly developing new
`field.
`
`0 ‘e tive and
`
`roa h
`
`IVHS program has undergone several years of
`Now that the U.S.
`definition; planning,
`research, and field testing accelerated
`by rapid growth in funding, it is inevitable that questions
`arise about how the United States presently compares with
`Europe and Japan in developing and deploying IVHS.
`IVHS
`AMERICA commissioned the study reported herein with the
`objective of answering such questions. Although it is
`recognized that other countries are also making progress in
`IVHS,
`the scope of the study is limited to Europe, Japan, and
`the United States.
`
`The study was begun with a comprehensive comparison of
`overall
`IVHS progress in terms of key initiatives and
`accomplishments from the 1960s through 1993.
`Top—down
`comparisons were then made from selected points of view:
`funding levels and sources, organization for development and
`implementation,
`research and testing, systems architecture
`and standards, deployment and marketing,
`institutional and
`legal issues,
`and planning for the future.
`
`Europe
`
`Since starting with DRIVE planning exercise in the mid—l98Gs,
`the European countries have made remarkable progress in
`infrastructure—oriented IVHS research coordinated through the
`
`ES-l
`
`MPCSENV00O5G98
`
`

`
`European Community (EC) and are presently focusing on pilot
`projects and demonstrations.
`Public sector funding of 200
`million ECU (approximately $230 million based on current
`exchange rates) cover up to 50 percent of the cost of various
`DRIVE I and II projects from 1988 through 1994.
`There is
`speculation that the DRIVE III (1994-1998) budget may be
`approximately 160 million ECU ($180 million).
`
`The public—sector programs have been complemented by vehicle-
`oriented industry initiatives coordinated through EUREKA that
`have no parallel in the United States or Japan.
`EUREKA
`projects are funded largely by industry but
`include some
`contributions by national governments.
`The largest and most
`widely-known EUREKA IVHS project is PROMTHEUS
`(PROgraMme for
`a European Traffic system with Highest Efficiency and
`Unprecedented Safety), which evolved from an internal
`Daimler—Benz initiative to include the entire European
`automotive industry in joint pre—competitive research.
`PROMTHEUS’ original planning called for expenditure of $770
`million for 1986 through 1993.
`
`DRIVE, PROMTHEUS, and related European programs have yielded
`promising technologies,
`some of which are commercially
`available or could quickly become available.
`In addition,
`although not strongly coupled with the EC and EUREKA
`programs, Europe has made great progress in the application
`of IVHS technologies to buses and mass transit.
`
`the not—invented—here syndrome remains a major
`However,
`constraint to deployment; each country typically identifies
`its own priorities and implementation approaches,
`thus
`hindering progress towards an IVHS environment that is
`seamless across national boundaries.
`This
`"NIH" element also
`means that the anticipated common market for European IVHS
`products may not be quickly realized.
`
`in principle at least, be resolved
`These obstacles could,
`through ERTICO,
`an organization chartered to promote and
`assist with the coordination of IVHS implementation in
`Europe.
`However, ERTICO‘s
`limited membership and powers
`leave the follow-through on IVHS deployment largely up to
`individual countries, which have widely varying ideas about
`IVHS architecture and the division of public and private
`roles.
`Thus one of ERTICO's main strategies is to promote
`standardization and the early inter—operability of different
`systems available or about to become available.
`
`rhea;
`
`Japan is only one institutional breakthrough away from
`quickly reaching full—scale deployment of integrated traffic
`management and in—vehicle information systems.
`Japan's lead
`is not so much the result of its substantial government
`funding as it is of Japan's profound needs for IVHS benefits
`
`ES-2
`
`MPCSI NVOD05099
`
`

`
`and of government policies that have articulated IVHS goals
`since the 1970s.
`The consistent policy support was
`particularly important
`in attracting unsubsidized industry
`participation.
`
`The Japanese government has systematically invested in
`advanced traffic management over the past two decades through
`a series of five-year programs,
`and has a widely deployed
`infrastructure for centralized traffic monitoring and
`information that needs little more than mobile communication
`links to service smart
`inwvehicle systems. Although IVHS
`funding is not always clearly delineated from other capital
`spending,
`it is estimated that approximately $1.85 billion
`was expended for deployment of advanced traffic management
`systems between 1985 and 1992.
`A total of $690 billion has
`been appropriated for the 1993-1997 road improvement program.
`
`industry had already sold 300,000
`On the vehicle side,
`autonomous navigation systems
`(mostly as factory-installed)
`at prices typically in the $2,000—$6,000 range by the end of
`1992 and is positioned to rapidly address the large market
`expected once administrative decisions are made on the
`communication links. During 1993, keen competition developed
`among the numerous suppliers of aftermarket versions as
`prices started to drop below $2,000. At the end of 1993,
`20,000 systems were being sold each month and sales of
`350,000 systems were projected for 1994.
`
`Many of the navigation systems evolved from test versions
`developed by approximately 18 companies in order to
`participate in a series of ongoing field trials (e.g., RACS,
`AMTICS, and VICS)
`sponsored by government agencies since 1986
`primarily to test various means of communicating traffic
`information to in-vehicle units.
`It is estimated that,
`addition to research labor,
`the larger companies have
`invested $4 to $20 million per year in order to participate.
`
`in
`
`In spite of this progress, "turf struggles" among the
`concerned Japanese government agencies have been an obstacle
`to the consolidation of traffic data and the system-wide
`deployment of communication links between the infrastructure
`and in-vehicle equipment.
`However, once these agencies
`resolve their parochial interests,
`Japan is poised for rapid
`deployment and operation of integrated IVHS.
`
`the necessary institutional
`Recent developments suggest that
`breakthrough may be at hand.
`The five agencies that share
`IVHS interests and jurisdiction (Ministry of International
`Trade and Industry, Ministry of Construction, National Police
`Agency, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications, and
`Ministry of Transport)
`formed an inter-ministry committee in
`July 1993 to facilitate greater cooperation within the
`Japanese government.
`In addition, VERTIS (VEhicle, Road and
`Traffic Intelligence Society), an associated IVHS AMRICA-
`
`ES-3
`
`NIPCSINV00051 O0
`
`

`
`like organization, was set to be established early in 1994
`with representatives from private industry and academia as
`well as the five government agencies.
`
`following the Liberal Democratic Party's recent
`Moreover,
`loss of a 38-year hold on power in Japan,
`there is also talk
`of streamlining the number of government agencies. Mentioned
`possibilities include a single ministry with responsibility
`over
`IVHS.
`
`United States
`
`Although the United States originated IVHS research in the
`1960s and developed many of the key technologies now used
`worldwide,
`the United States seriously lagged Japan and
`Europe in coherent
`IVHS efforts until a national vision
`emerged from the work of Mobility 2000 in the late 1980s.
`Mobility 2000 was an ad hoc group of volunteers from public
`sector transportation agencies,
`industry, and academia that
`coordinated IVHS planning prior to the formation of IVHS
`AMERICA in 1990.
`The subsequent emphasis on IVHS promoted by
`IVHS AMERICA and the mandates and funding provisions of the
`landmark ISTEA quickly led to establishment of long—term
`goals and application of a top—down planning approach while
`simultaneously carrying out large-scale trials of prospective
`alternatives.
`
`The rapid buildup of the United States IVES program was
`enabled by increases in IVHS funding for research,
`development,
`and testing from only $2 million in 1989 to
`budgets of well over $200 million per year at present.
`Another major factor is the proactive role played by IVHS
`AMRICA as a forum for consolidating the interests of all
`levels of government,
`the private sector, academia, and
`surface transportation users, as well as serving the U.S.
`Department of Transportation as a utilized Federal Advisory
`Committee on IVHS matters.
`
`the United States IVHS
`As a result of these developments,
`program already rivals foreign programs in some aspects and
`leads in others (e.g., organization, strategic planning, and
`certain technical areas such as electronic toll collection
`
`and commercial vehicle fleet management). Also of particular
`significance in the United States is the early consideration
`given to the necessity of recognizing and addressing
`institutional and deployment issues.
`
`the United States transportation infrastructure
`Nonetheless,
`is largely owned and operated by state and local entities,
`which has resulted in fragmented efforts,
`including slow
`growth in key enabling standards (e.g., AYI).
`The national
`IVHS system architecture now under development along with
`special outreach efforts should help, but inconsistent
`involvement by state and local governments remains a concern.
`
`ES-4
`
`MPCSINV0005101
`
`

`
`Progress in IVHS developent has also been impeded by limited
`flexibility to optimize the allocation of the substantial
`government funding now available for IVHS developent and
`field trials in the United States as a result of extensive
`
`Congressional earmarking during the period of rapid build up.
`However,
`a detailed National Program Plan for IVHS now in
`preparation should provide a more coherent basis for future
`earmarking,
`
`Conclusions
`
`The comparative study of IVES progress in the United States,
`Europe, and Japan indicates that have all made great progress
`in IVHS development, although the focus varies widely from
`region to region.
`
`the main focus has been on deployment of advanced
`In Japan,
`traffic management systems for arterial streets and the
`development and marketing of automobile navigation systems as
`a platform for in—vehicle information.
`The European focus
`has been on exploration and evaluation of numerous
`alternatives for a wide variety of IVHS services with the
`view that a common architecture would evolve in due course.
`The United States started late and has focused on evaluation
`and planning, organization, and a top—down systems
`engineering approach to developing a national
`IVHS
`architecture while simultaneously carrying out extensive
`research and field trials.
`
`IVHS now enjoys strong public sector support in all three
`regions, but it comes in different forms.
`In Japan,
`the
`installation of advanced traffic management systems has been
`addressed through a series of five—year government programs
`for traffic safety facilities.
`The development of automobile
`navigation systems by industry has been encouraged for over a
`decade by the promise of government—provided IVHS traffic
`data communications infrastructure and more recently by
`government~coordinated road map database efforts.
`
`Public—sector support of IVHS research and development, but
`not deployment,
`in Europe has been in the fcnn of centralized
`planning and coordination as well as by partial funding of
`research projects by the European Community.
`In addition,
`national governments have helped fund individual
`industry
`projects under EUREKA. Although specific comparisons are
`elusive, government funding for IVHS development in the
`United States has quickly grown to the point that it compares
`favorably with directly identifiable government funding in
`Europe and Japan.
`
`Institutional issues, albeit of different types, are a
`universal impediment
`to IVHS deployment.
`In Japan,
`they are
`in the form of jurisdictional issues among high—level
`
`ES-5
`
`MPCS|NV00O5102
`
`

`
`they are
`In Europe,
`government agencies with IVHS interests.
`mainly in the form of national sovereignty issues that hinder
`the evolution and deployment of a common system architecture.
`The main public sector issues in the United States are
`similar in that state and local governments involvement in
`IVHS must be fostered rather than mandated by the federal
`government.
`
`it must be concluded that the United States has
`In all,
`recognized the problems that must be solved, has planned
`effectively, and is enjoying government support and making
`overall
`IVHS progress that compares quite favorably with
`Europe and Japan. Although Europe and Japan are still ahead
`by certain measures,
`the momentum already gained by the
`United States should enable it to draw even or even pull
`ahead by the end of this decade, provided present funding
`trends continue and flexibility is permitted to respond to
`operational field test findings and to directions set by the
`National
`IVHS System Architecture Program.
`
`It will also be necessary for state and local governments to
`more fully embrace IVHS concepts in order for the United
`States to achieve and maintain the lead. Although top-down
`outreach efforts to this end are underway by the USDOT and
`IVHS AMERICA, it is concluded that these efforts should be
`supplemented by a bottom—up study of IVHS perceptions, needs,
`arid concerns as seen by state and local agencies.
`
`Comprehensive comparisons of the core technological
`competencies of Europe,
`Japan, and the United States could
`not be undertaken within the scope of this study.
`However,
`they are of fundamental
`importance in high-tech pursuits such
`as IVHS.
`Successful transfer of these capabilities to IVHS
`development is critical because of the multiplicity of
`technologies involved.
`Thus we also conclude that core
`technological competencies and the prospects for successfully
`transferring them to IVHS applications should also be
`compared to gain a better understanding of future
`expectations regarding international competitiveness in IVHS.
`
`ES-6
`
`MPCSiNV0005103
`
`

`
`1.0
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The purpose of this study is to compare the relative progress
`in Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems
`(IVHS) made by Japan,
`Western Europe, and the United States through 1993.
`IVHS
`progress is vital to each region's economy for two reasons:
`
`IVHS has potential for
`1. Natignal Benefits from Dgplgyment
`improving traveler
`ameliorating traffic congestion,
`mobility and safety,
`improving air quality, and improving
`transportation productivity,
`among other social and
`economic benefits. Although not all benefits are yet
`fully understood, it is well established that benefits
`will accrue from improvements on both the demand side
`(erg-,
`from electronic tolls and road pricing as well as
`from encouraging and facilitating transit use) and on the
`supply side (e.g.,
`from traffic management,
`route
`guidance, and traveler information).
`
`2.
`
`Emerging High-Tech Industry with International Markets
`The markets for IVES—based products and services will
`become significant and fast growing for building and
`Operating national
`infrastructures and for mobile
`products. Mobile IVHS products (e.g.,
`route guidance
`systems, data communications equipment, and intelligent
`cruise control) may be especially important
`to
`international competitiveness in the electronics and
`automobile markets.
`
`Our goals are to broadly assess past progress and current
`status,
`to provide a balanced and realistic comparison of
`IVHS progress in Europe,
`Japan, and the United States, and to
`identify the major factors that will
`influence IVHS progress
`in each region over the next several years.
`
`1.1 Background
`
`IVHS has received significant international attention for
`several decades, albeit under various other names.
`Interest
`intensified in the mid~l980s when major initiatives began to
`take shape in Europe and Japan for systematically researching
`and applying advanced technologies,
`including information
`processing,
`communications, positioning, and control,
`to help
`alleviate congestion,
`improve safety, and reduce the
`environmental consequences of road traffic.
`
`The European and Japanese initiatives lent considerable
`impetus to similar U.S.
`interests that were beginning to
`coalesce in 1986. Arguments subsequently advanced by various
`U.S. groups for responding to the European and Japanese
`initiatives