ITS ePrimer - Module 13: Connected Vehicles

admin

Six high-priority connected vehicle road weather applications have been identified20 by the FHWA Road Weather Management Program. The applications can be summarized as follows:

• Enhanced Maintenance Decision Support System (MDSS) will expand the amount of data from connected vehicles provided by the existing Federal prototype MDSS. Snow plows, other agency fleet vehicles, and other vehicles operated by the general public will provide road-weather connected vehicle data to the Enhanced-MDSS, which will use this data to generate improved plans and recommendations to maintenance personnel. In turn, enhanced treatment plans and recommendations will be provided back to the snow plow operators and drivers of agency maintenance vehicles.
• Information for Maintenance and Fleet Management Systems. In this concept, connected vehicle information is more concerned with non-road-weather data. The data collected may include powertrain diagnostic information from maintenance and specialty vehicles; the status of vehicle components; the current location of maintenance vehicles and other equipment; and the types and amounts of materials onboard maintenance vehicles. The data would be used to automate the inputs to maintenance and fleet management systems year-round. In addition, desirable synergies can be achieved if selected data relating to winter maintenance activities, such as the location and status of snow plows or the location and availability of de-icing chemicals, can be passed to an Enhanced-MDSS to refine the recommended winter weather response plans and treatment strategies.
• Weather-Responsive Traffic Management. Two weather-responsive traffic management applications are developed. First, connected vehicle systems provide opportunities to enhance the operation of variable speed limit systems and dramatically improve work zone safety during severe weather events. Additional road-weather information can be gathered from connected vehicles and used in algorithms to refine the posted speed limits to reflect prevailing weather and road conditions. Second, connected vehicle systems can support the effective operation of signalized intersections when severe weather impacts road conditions. Information from connected vehicles can be used to adjust timing intervals in a signal cycle, or to select the special signal timing plans that are most appropriate for the prevailing conditions.
• Motorist Advisories and Warnings. Information on segment-specific weather and road conditions is not broadly available, even though surveys suggest that travelers consider this information to be significantly important. The ability to gather road and weather information from connected vehicles will dramatically change this situation. Information on deteriorating road and weather conditions on specific roadway segments can be pushed to travelers through a variety of means as alerts and advisories within a few minutes. In combination with observations and forecasts from other sources and with additional processing, medium-term advisories of the next 2 to 12 hours and long-term advisories for more than 12 hours can also be provided to motorists.
• Information for Freight Carriers. The ability to gather road-weather information from connected vehicles will significantly improve the ability of freight shippers to plan and respond to the impacts of severe weather events and poor road conditions. Information on deteriorating road and weather conditions on specific roadway segments can be pushed to both truck drivers and their dispatchers. In combination with observations and forecasts from other sources and with additional processing, medium- to long-term advisories can also be provided to dispatchers to support routing and scheduling decisions. Since these decisions must consider a variety of other factors, such as highway and bridge restrictions, hours-of-service limitations, parking availability, delivery schedules, and, in some instances, the permits held by the vehicle, it is envisioned that the motor carrier firms or their commercial service providers will develop and operate the systems that use the road-weather information generated through this concept.
• Information and Routing Support for Emergency Responders. Emergency responders, including ambulance operators, paramedics, and fire and rescue companies, have a compelling need for the short, medium, and long time horizon road-weather alerts and warnings. This information can help drivers safely operate their vehicles during severe weather events and under deteriorating road conditions. Emergency responders also have a particular need for information that affects their dispatching and routing decisions. Information on weather-impacted travel routes, especially road or lane closures due to snow, flooding, and wind-blown debris, is particularly important. Low latency road-weather information from connected vehicles for specific roadway segments, together with information from other surface weather observation systems such as those that monitor flooding and high winds, will be used to determine response routes, calculate response times, and influence decisions to hand off an emergency call from one responder to another responder in a different location.
  

Connected Vehicle TechnologyThe connected vehicle environment will require the deployment of a mixture of roadside, in-vehicle, network, and back office systems and technologies. These systems needed to support connected vehicle operations can be divided into six broad categories:

• OBE or mobile equipment. The OBE or mobile equipment represent the systems or devices through which most end users will interact with the connected vehicle environment in order to gain the benefits of the anticipated safety, mobility, and environmental applications. In addition, other technologies associated with vehicles or mobile devices participating in the connected vehicle environment are necessary to provide basic information used in the various connected vehicle applications. This information includes vehicle or device location, speed, and heading that is derived from GPS or other sensors. Additional data from other vehicle sensors, such as windshield wiper status, anti-lock braking system activation, or traction control system activation, may be beneficial in certain connected vehicle applications.
• RSE. This equipment will support three main types of functionality. First, it connects vehicles and roadside systems, such as systems integrated with traffic signal controllers, which allow users to participate in local applications such as intersection collision avoidance. Second, the RSE provides the connectivity between vehicles and network resources that are necessary to implement remote applications—for example, for supporting the collection of probe vehicle data used in traveler information applications. Third, the RSE may be required to support connected vehicle security management.
• Core systems. These are the systems that enable the data exchange required to provide the set of connected vehicle applications with which various system users will interact. The core systems exist to facilitate interactions between vehicles, field infrastructure, and back office users. Current thinking envisions a situation of locally and regionally oriented deployments that follow national standards to ensure that the essential capabilities are compatible no matter where the deployments are established.
• Support systems. These include the SCMSs that allow devices and systems in the connected vehicle environment to establish trust relationships. Considerable research is underway to describe both the technical details and the policy and business issues associated with creating and operating a security credentials management system.
• Communications systems. These comprise the data communications infrastructure needed to provide connectivity in the connected vehicle environment. This will include V2V and V2I connectivity and network connectivity from RSEs to other system components. These system components will include core systems, support systems, and application-specific systems. The communications systems will include the appropriate firewalls and other systems intended to protect the security and integrity of data transmission.
• Application-specific systems. This refers to the equipment needed to support specific connected vehicle applications that are deployed at a particular location, rather than the core systems that facilitate overall data exchange within the connected vehicle environment. An example could be software systems and servers that acquire data from connected vehicles, generate travel times from that data, and integrate those travel times into TMC systems. Existing traffic management systems and other ITS assets can also form part of an overall connected vehicle application.
  

Selected technology topics are discussed in the following sections.

admin

Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC)DSRC technologies were developed specifically for vehicular communications and have been closely associated with the Connected Vehicle Program and its predecessors. In 1997, ITS America petitioned the FCC to allocate 75 MHz of spectrum in the 5.9-GHz band. In 2004, the FCC published a Report and Order that established standard licensing and service rules for DSRC in the ITS Radio Service in the 5.850 to 5.925-GHz band (5.9-GHz band), to be used for the purpose of protecting the safety of the traveling public.21
DSRC is a communications protocol developed to address the technical issues associated with sending and receiving data among vehicles and between moving vehicles and fixed roadside access points. DSRC is a specialized form of Wi-Fi, and, as with Wi-Fi, it is a derivative of the basic IEEE 802.11 standard, which is a set of standards developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for implementing wireless local area network computer communications. DSRC is governed by the IEEE 802.11p and 1609 standards. Unlike Wi-Fi, however, DSRC uses a communications protocol that allows each terminal to generate its own IP and MAC addresses. This effectively eliminates the network attach time.

DSRC also includes the Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments Short Message protocol defined in the IEEE 1609 standard that allows terminals to broadcast messages to all other devices in radio range. This is highly efficient because any given terminal does not need to learn the network identities of any other terminal.

The typical range of a DSRC access point is about 300 meters, although ranges up to about 1 kilometer have been observed. Typical installations are expected to be at intersections and other roadside locations.

In 2008, USDOT framed the definition of connectivity in the connected vehicle environment to include both DSRC and non-DSRC technologies, such as cellular or Wi-Fi communications, as a means of providing an open communications platform. However, USDOT has remained committed to the use of DSRC technologies for active safety for both V2V and V2I applications. DSRC is the communications medium of choice for active safety systems because of its designated licensed bandwidth, primarily allocated for vehicle safety applications by the FCC Report and Order. DSRC is also the only short-range wireless technology that provides the following: a fast network acquisition, low-latency, high-reliability communications link; the ability to work with vehicles operating at high speeds; the ability to prioritize safety messages; tolerance to multipath transmissions typical of roadway environments; performance that is immune to extreme weather conditions (e.g., rain, fog, and snow); and security and privacy of messages.22 Figure 13 illustrates how DSRC meets the latency requirements of various connected vehicle active safety applications compared to other communications technologies. Beyond the commitment to DSRC for active safety applications, USDOT has also reaffirmed its intention to explore all wireless technologies for their applicability to other safety, mobility, and environmental applications.
Figure 13. Latency Requirements of Active Safety Applications
(Extended Text Description: This figure illustrates how DSRC meets the latency requirements of various Connected Vehicle Active Safety applications in comparison to other communications technologies. The figure shows a bar graph comparing Communications Technologies (x axis) with Latency (in seconds) (y axis). In the bar graph, various commuications technologies are indicated showing the range of latencies, including Cellular (1.5-3.5 secs), WiMax (1.5-3.5 secs), WiFi (3-5 secs), Bluetooth (3-4 secs), Terrestiral Digital Radio & Satellite Digital Audio Radio (10-20 secs) and Two-Way Satellite (60+ secs). It compares these to the Least stringent latency requirement for Active Safety (1 sec) and Most Stringent latency requirement for Active Safety (0.2 sec), and shows a dot with 5.9GHz DSRC at the bottom at .0002 secs. To the right of the graph is a table with the following data:

Active Safety Latency Requirements
Traffic Signal Violataion warning	0.1s
Curve Speed Warning	1s
Emergency Electronic Brake Lights	0.1s
Pre-Crash Sensing	0.02s
Cooperative Forward Collision Warning	0.1s
Left turn Assistant	0.1s
Lane Change Warning	0.1s
Stop Sign Movement Assistance	0.1s

Source: USDOT.)

admin

Cellular CommunicationsCellular communications is a candidate for some safety applications as well as mobility and environmental applications in the connected vehicle environment. Cellular communications use a series of base stations to provide voice and data over relatively large areas. Typically each base station serves several sectors that are arranged to use slightly different frequencies to minimize interference. This also assures that reasonable channel bandwidth is available to the users in any given sector.23 A typical cellular arrangement is shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Typical Cellular System Arrangement23
(Extended Text Description: This diagram demonstrates a typical cellular system arrangement. There is an illustration with four concentric circles (three at the center close together, the outer fourth circle farther out). There is a equilateral triangle, labeled as the Base Station, in the center of the smallest inner circle, and three bisecting lines emerging from that triangle through the three inner circles. This creates three sections, labeled F1, F2 and F3. Two diagonal lines connect from the outer circle to a small circle overlaid on a connection point in a honeycomb pattern to the right, with each space in the honeycomb pattern labeled as "Cell." There is a small photograph of a base station, which appears as a triangular structure with several attached devices, at the top of a pole.)
Because of the popularity of mobile telephones, cellular technologies have advanced rapidly. The rise of smartphones and other wireless consumer devices has further fueled this growth. The technologies are still evolving but the latest LTE cellular technologies can provide very high speed data transfer rates to a large number of subscribers simultaneously. In general, cellular communications systems are commercially operated, so all data transactions involve some type of usage fee. For most users, this is a simple service subscription, although other models exist.

Cellular communications systems are intended to serve mobile users, so they are designed to provide high data bandwidth to users in motion. They are also widely deployed so that users can access the service wherever they go. Generally, all urban areas have cellular coverage provided by multiple carriers. Most major highways also have coverage though it is not ubiquitous.
Since cellular technology can provide relatively high bandwidth communications capability over wide areas, it is conceptually suitable for V2I applications. It is less effective for V2V applications. Table 324 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of cellular communications technology for V2V and V2I applications.

Table 3. Cellular Strengths and Weaknesses for Connected Vehicle Applications24

Application	Strengths	Weaknesses	Comments
V2V	None	Only provides addressed point to point communications; limited broadcast capability that is seldom implemented by carriers.	To send a message, it is thus necessary to include the IP address of the recipient along with the message.              Using cellular for V2V requires that any given OBE learn the IP address of the vehicles nearby before it can send them a message. Since the vehicles around any given OBE are moving and changing all the time, the task of somehow maintaining an active IP address list for each OBE is overwhelming.
V2I	Wide area coverage means existing infrastructure can be used for many situations	Requires vehicles to request V2I data based on location. This increases the overall data load because of many requests that result in null data responses. Also, messages must be sent uniquely to each vehicle on request.	This approach was used in the SafeTrip 21 Networked Traveler project with good results. It is unclear how well it can scale to large numbers of users.
General	Highly available and low cost	Requires payment for data usage	The greatest weakness of cellular systems is that to obtain access a device must be registered with a cellular carrier. This typically requires some form of user agreement, contract and payment.

admin

Security Credential Management SystemsThe Connected Vehicle Program will rely on a secure communications system to support V2V and V2I communications to enable safety, mobility, and environmental applications. For the system to work effectively, users of the network must be able to trust the validity of messages received from other system users. Establishing the basis of this trust network is a key element of a security design for the Connected Vehicle Program25. At the same time, users want to have a reasonable assurance of appropriate privacy in the system. Research to date has indicates that use of a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) security system, involving the exchange of digital certificates among trusted users, can support both the need for message security and for providing appropriate anonymity to users while in transit. These digital certificates are used to sign the messages that pass between vehicles in the connected vehicle environment, and these certificates therefore allow the receiver to verify that the message came from a legitimate source
Certificate management entities (CMEs) perform the back office functions required to administer a PKI security system, such as registering users and issuing and revoking certificates. The term "security credential management system" (SCMS) is also used to refer to all CME organizations, or the certificate management system as a whole.

PKI is the governing paradigm of communications security within the connected vehicle environment. PKI is a certificate management system that features a central authority, known as the certificate authority (CA), that verifies that users in a system are trustworthy based on certain credentials. This allows users to trust one another and to interact, even if they have had no prior interaction, by virtue of their trust in the CA.

In general, vehicle-based mobile terminals will contact a registration authority (RA) to request and obtain security certificates. The mobile terminal and the RA will also have a trusted relationship. This means that the RA knows the identity and has sufficient information about the mobile terminal to determine that the certificate request came from a legitimate source. However, to preserve the privacy of the mobile terminal, the RA randomizes requests from many devices, before requesting the CA to issue PKI-encrypted certificates. These PKI-encrypted certificates are further signed by a separate entity called a linkage authority (LA). One of two or more LAs then adds an encrypted Linkage ID (Link-ID) to groups of already-encrypted certificates issued by the CA. Groups of multiple certificates with common Link-IDs are then issued to each mobile terminal that requests certificates from the RA. The mobile terminal can then use the certificates to sign messages, and the receiver of the message can verify that the message came from a legitimate source. A process flow diagram for a generic SCMS26 is illustrated in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Process Flow Diagram for an SCMS26
(Extended Text Description: This is a flow diagram to show the process for an SCMS. There is a terms key in the lower right corner: Bi – Cocooned Signing Public Key; Ei – Cocooned Encryption Public Key; LA1i – First half of encrypted linkage value; LA2i – Second half of encrypted linkage value; LA1i, LA2i – Linkage value halves added to Ei; Ci – Butterfly Signing Key (Bi + Ei). The flow chart is separated into five rows, labeled (top to bottom): OBE, Registration Authority (RA), Certificate Authority (CA), Linkage Authority (LA1), Linkage Authority (LA2). The text box elements within the row labeled OBE are first, "Generates request including keys" which has an arrow pointing to the second element "Requests annual certificate batch" which has an arrow pointing to the first text box element in the row below (described below). The third element in OBE is "Receives annual batch of encrypted certificates (Ci, Ei)" and is pointed to from the second element below (described below). The fourth element in OBE is "Requests monthly decryption key" which has an arrow pointing down to the third element in the next row (described below). The last element in OBE is "Receives Mo. Description Key – Decrypts transmission with private key, - Monthly decryption key is recovered, - Decrypts box with transmission contents (key) and uses certs," which is pointed to by the last element in the next row (described below). The second row is labeled Registration Authority (RA), and has the following text box elements. The first elements is "- Receives request and caterpillar key, - Approves request (checks that CSR is ok), - Generates cocooned signing key (Bi), - Generates cocooned encryption key (Ei) *Adds LA1i and LA2i to encryption public key, - Combines Bi with Ei and LA1i and LA2i to create certificate request, - Shuffles w/other OBE requests and sends to CA." This element is pointed to from the second element in OBE (described above). It also points to the first elements in the next three rows (described below). The second element in the second row is "- Receives encrypted certificates and boxes them into 12 (encrypts each batch with an asymmetric key), - Sends annual batch of 12 boxes of encrypted certificates to OBE" and points up to the third element in the first row (described above). The third element in the second row is "- Receives frequent requests for decryption key, - Checks against CSR CRL, - Assigns decryption key," which is pointed to by the fourth element of the first row (described above), and also points to the last element in the second row, which is "Sends monthly decryption key." This final element points up to the final element in the first row (described above). The third row is Certificate Authority (CA) with the following elements. The first is "- Receives cocooned signing public key and cocooned encryption public key, - Creates butterfly signing public key (Ci), - Creates and signs certificate with CA private key, - Encrypts certificate with Ei, - Signs ciphertext to demonstrate it was encrypted by CA with OBEs key" and is pointed to by the first element in the second row (described above) and points to the final element in the third row, which is "Sends encrypted certificates." This final element in the third row points up to the second element in the second row (described above). The fourth row is Linkage Authority (LA1). The element in this row is "Creates 105, 120 linkage values (LA1i)" which is pointed to by the first element in the second row (described above) and is pointed to a pullout box "Something like a cocoon key" that is placed between the fourth and fifth rows. The words "+ encrypts" and "+ sends to RA" appears to the right of the text element in this row. The fifth row is Linkage Authority (LA2). The text element in this fifth row is "Creates 105, 120 linkage values (LA2i)," which points to the first element in the second row and is pointed to by that same element (described above). It is also pointed to by the pullout box "Something like a cocoon key." It has the phrases "+ encrypts" and "+ sends to RA" to the right of the text element in this row. There is a pullout box on the right side that reads: Additional Notes: - RA does not know serial number of certificate (or other non public key content), - RA does not know linkage values, - RA tracks request number to link back to OBE.")
Certificates typically include a specified lifespan. After a certificate has expired, it is no longer valid, and it is expected to be refused by any recipient. Certificates may also be revoked if the CA determines that the terminal no longer satisfies the certification criteria. Typically, cause for revocation would be based on observed misbehavior (whether accidental, caused by faulty equipment, maliciously transmitting false messages, etc.), notification of retirement of a vehicle (e.g., due to scrapping a vehicle after a serious crash or when the vehicle reaches the end of its life), or possibly the transfer of the terminal to a new user. By communicating revocation information to all system participants, the CA can notify users not to accept revoked certificates. The mechanism for this is typically known as a certificate revocation list (CRL). It is important to note that the strategies ultimately adopted for CRL distribution will have significant effects on the cost and performance of the connected vehicle system because of the large amounts of data that may need to be distributed.

In addition to anonymity, recommended privacy principles for the connected vehicle environment require that there be no way to determine the path taken by a vehicle by following the certificates used. The specific issue here is that each certificate has an identifier (not tied to the user or terminal), so unless the certificate is changed every few minutes it might be possible to track the route a user has followed (by looking for the same certificate used in different places). To prevent such tracking, various mechanisms for limiting the time a certificate is in use (thereby limiting the distance over which a vehicle might be tracked by its use of the same certificate) have been proposed.

admin

The Connected Vehicle Core SystemsBroadly speaking, the Connected Vehicle Core Systems are the systems that enable the trusted and secure data exchange required to provide the set of connected vehicle applications with which various system users will interact.27 A context diagram for the Core System28 is illustrated in Figure 16. An understanding of the Core System concept requires that the discussion be set in context with the communications systems and connected vehicle applications.
Figure 16. Core System Context Diagram28
(Extended Text Description: This diagram demonstrates the core system context. There is a legend in the upper right corner that shows a purple line represents Communications to/from Core, an orange line represents Communications enabled by Core, a blue line represents Communications independent of Core and a series of vertical short lines represents Broadcast Communications independent of Core. The main diagram has three sections in orange: Field at the top, Center to the right, Mobile at the bottom. Each of these sections has a blue and orange circular arrows, and orange and blue lines connecting each section to the next. Inside the curved triangular shape that this creates, there are three additional sections inside. External Support Systems appears in gray and connects to the outer sections with orange lines. Also, Core System Personnel and Core System appear in purple, connected by a purple line to each other, and with purple lines to all the other inner and outer sections. There is a circular purple arrow connected to the Core System section. To the lower right of the entire main part of the diagram, is a section labeled Radio/Satellite Sources in gray, surrounded by blue radiating short lines.)
The communications systems are the wireless or, potentially, wired services that allow the Core System to communicate with the various connected vehicle safety, mobility, and environmental applications. The communications mechanisms that are implemented in each deployment of a Core System will vary and could include cellular or DSRC, for example. Applications provide benefits in the area of safety, mobility, or the environment to connected vehicle system users. Applications use the Core System to facilitate their interactions with other applications or users.
The Core System also interacts with a number of other entities:

• Mobile entities, including vehicles and other platforms, such as portable personal devices, used by travelers to provide and receive transportation information.
• Field devices distributed along the transportation network which perform surveillance, traffic control, information provision, or fee-based transactions.
• Centers which include the back office that provide management, administrative, information dissemination, and support functions.
• Personnel who operate and maintain the Core System, including network managers, operations personnel, and developers.
  

The Core System also interacts with other Core Systems. More than one Core System will exist in the connected vehicle environment, each providing services over given geographic or topical areas, or providing backup services for others. USDOT documents29 envision that the Core System (as well as the communications systems and applications) will be deployed locally and regionally, not nationally, in an evolutionary fashion.
USDOT documentation envisions that a Core System will use external support systems to obtain services that it needs to deliver its functions, but which are more appropriately managed, maintained, and shared between multiple Core Systems due to overriding institutional, performance, or functional constraints. The USDOT documents identify the most likely candidate for a support system to be an external certificate management authority, because of the need to coordinate certificate distribution and revocation activities between all Core Systems.

---

Connected Vehicle Policy and Institutional IssuesConnected vehicle policy and institutional issues are those topics that may limit or challenge successful deployment. The vision for the Connected Vehicle Program is one of a collaborative effort among USDOT, key industry stakeholders, vehicle manufacturers, State and local governments, representative associations, citizens, and others. Therefore, the policy and institutional foundation supporting the successful deployment of connected vehicle technologies and applications must respond to the collective needs of this group.
USDOT has identified critical issues that may hinder or present challenges to successful deployment of V2V and V2I technologies, applications, and systems. These policy issues and their associated research needs fall into four categories:

• Implementation Policy Options: These require analysis and development of a range of viable options for financial and investment strategies; analysis and comparisons of different communications systems for data delivery; model structures for governance with identified roles and responsibilities; and analyses that are required to support NHTSA's 2013 and 2014 agency decisions, which include a cost-benefit analysis, a value proposition analysis, and a market penetration analysis.
• Technical Policy Options: These require analysis of the technical choices for V2V and V2I technologies and applications to identify whether those options require new institutional models or whether they can leverage existing assets and personnel. The technical analyses in this category will also result in policies related to the Connected Vehicle Core System, a policy framework on necessary interfaces, and policies on the use of device certification and standards.
• Legal Policy Options: These entail analyses and policy options that support decisions on the Federal role and authority in connected vehicle system development and deployment, liability and limitations to risk, policy and practices regarding privacy, and policies on intellectual property and data ownership within the connected vehicle environment.
• Implementation Strategies: With decisions made in each of the previous categories, the chosen options can be combined into implementation scenarios. Further comparative analyses can be provided to stakeholders to ensure that the most effective strategies are available for implementation. These analyses will result in guidance to the various implementing entities that will need to understand the resources needed for implementation, operations, and maintenance, including the knowledge, skills, and ability of personnel.
  

admin

Beyond USDOT's connected vehicle policy and institutional issues research, other related issues are of particular importance to the State and local transportation agencies. Chief among these is funding for connected vehicle infrastructure deployment. State and local DOTs will have to decide the extent to which they will take advantage of connected vehicle technology and applications. In making that decision, State and local DOTs will need to assess several factors. For example, benefits may be substantial, providing new opportunities to address safety, mobility, and environmental challenges. Costs too must be considered, including the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining the connected vehicle infrastructure.

Among the key tasks facing State and local DOTs that intend to deploy a connected vehicle infrastructure is the need to identify a funding mechanism for the capital and ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Depending on the type of connected vehicle infrastructure and the applications it supports, agencies can consider various funding categories to support deployment. For example, connected vehicle systems are a form of ITS technology, so an agency might use an ITS budget or any category of Federal or State funds for which ITS is eligible. Connected vehicle systems are expected to have significant impacts on vehicle and highway safety, so deployment with funds intended for safety systems might be appropriate. Mobility impacts of connected vehicle technologies and consequent emission reductions could warrant funding some deployments with funds set aside for congestion mitigation or air quality improvement.

There will be ongoing day-to-day operation costs (e.g., staffing as well as power and backhaul communications from connected vehicle field sites), maintenance costs (both scheduled and unscheduled), and the costs of replacement of field and back-office equipment at the end of its life. For connected vehicle systems, agencies may explore public–private partnerships or asset and revenue sharing mechanisms to acquire the desired connected vehicle infrastructure.

Key principles for the connected vehicle environment have been developed by USDOT and will guide the connected vehicle policy research.30 The central principles are summarized below.
Purpose

• Transportation safety is USDOT's top priority for the connected vehicle environment. The system must
  
  • Prevent or mitigate the severity of crashes;
  • Minimize driver workload;
  • Ensure no increase to driver distraction;
  • Encompass all road users; and
  • Ensure that mandatory safety applications cannot be turned off or overridden.
    
    
• Uses beyond safety applications, especially for mobility and environmental purposes, are permissible and encouraged as long as they do not detract from safety.
  

Coverage/Scale

• System implementation must be national in scale and extensible across North America.
  
  • Implementation can start at discrete locations but is envisioned to include all major roadways with timing to coincide with the roll-out of technology in vehicles.
    
    

User Protections

• USDOT is committed to protecting consumers from unwarranted privacy risks through appropriate privacy controls: transparency; individual participation and redress; purpose specification; limitations on use of information; data minimization and retention; data quality and integrity; security; and accountability and auditing. For example:
  
  • The environment must provide consumers with appropriate advance notice of, and (for opt-in systems) opportunity to provide consent for, information collection, use, access, maintenance, security, and disposal.
  • The environment will limit the collection and retention of personally identifiable information to the minimum necessary to support stakeholder and operational needs.
    
    
• The system must be secure to an appropriate level. The system will
  
  • Ensure that information exchange among users is secure and trusted;
  • Provide protection from hacking and malicious behavior; and
  • Maintain data integrity.
    
    

Implementation and Oversight

• An organization, which may be private, public, or a private/public hybrid, will be required to manage and operate the system responsible for ensuring security and other functions of the connected vehicle system.
• Applications from sources outside the governance structure should be allowed on the connected vehicle system as long as they comply with all established system principles, including security and operational requirements.
• If State and local agencies are involved in system implementation, the system should be designed so that building, operating, and maintaining them is cost beneficial to these agencies.
• USDOT is receptive to all sustainable financing options that do not violate other principles. In the event that that the only viable financing option relies on financing from participating organizations, companies, or entities, the common operating costs for the system, including security, governance, and other costs, should, to the extent feasible, be shared.
• There can be no consumer subscription fees for mandatory safety applications. However, this principle does not preclude the use of mandatory, universally applicable taxes or fees to finance the system. Subscription or other fees for non-mandatory, opt-in applications are possible.31
  

Technical Functionality

• Functionality of the system requires compliance with nationwide, universally accepted, non-proprietary communication and performance standards.
  
  • Interoperability of equipment, vehicles, and other devices is necessary to enable mandatory safety applications as well as applications supporting mobility, economic competitiveness, and sustainability.
  • Standards must be maintained to ensure technical viability.
    
    
• The system must be technically adaptable and viable over time.
  
  • It must be backward compatible.
  • The system must be able to evolve over time as new technologies become available.
    
    
• Communication technology for safety applications must be secure, low-latency, mature, stable, and able to work at highway speeds.
  
  • Currently, DSRC is the only known viable technology for safety critical applications.
  • DSRC or other communication technologies could be used for safety applications that are not for crash-imminent situations, mobility, and environmental applications.
    
    
• Use of the spectrum must comply with established requirements for non-interference.
  
  • Safety applications take priority over non-safety applications.
  • Public sector applications take precedence over commercial applications.
    
    

admin

Connected Vehicle Implementation Strategies
This section will describe emerging strategies and anticipated milestones in the deployment of a connected vehicle field infrastructure, integration of connected vehicle systems into the vehicle fleet, and operational approaches for the overall connected vehicle environment.

Over the course of the Connected Vehicle Program and its predecessors, several analyses have been performed to address the scale and approaches for connected vehicle deployment. The original VII Concept of Operations32 laid out a phased VII deployment approach. This approach assumed a period of pre-deployment planning and testing, leading to a go/no-go decision on VII deployment taking place in 2008. Beyond that date, deployment would have proceeded in two phases.

Phase 1 would have provided a core level of VII infrastructure deployment necessary to enable so-called Day One applications. The goal of Phase 1 was to provide infrastructure covering half of signalized intersections in the 50 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. In addition, metropolitan freeways and Interstate highways would have been covered, as well as rural Interstate highways, but at a lower density of infrastructure than in urban areas.

Phase 2 would have begun in 2012 to coincide with the assumed date at which vehicle manufacturers would have begun rolling out VII-equipped vehicles. At this time the public would have been able to use the defined Day One applications. During Phase 2, the VII infrastructure would have been expanded to cover all 452 urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or greater. Phase 2 would have seen approximately 70 percent of the nation's signalized intersections, as well as additional rural highways, added to VII infrastructure.

Subsequent analyses33, 34 defined the scale of the required nationwide VII infrastructure deployment, as follows:
Table 4. Estimated Size of a Nationwide VII Infrastructure Deployment33

RSE Location		Estimated # of Sites
Urban	Arterial Traffic Signal	210,000	235,000	252,000
	Arterial (no signal)	0
	Highway/Freeway/ Interstate	25,000
Rural	Interstate/Other NHS Routes	17,000	17,000

In 2010-2011, AASHTO performed a Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Deployment Analysis35 to begin to analyze the potential approaches for deploying the infrastructure components of connected vehicle systems by State and local transportation agencies. The analysis assumed that the infrastructure deployment decisions of State and local agencies would be based on the nature and timing of the benefits that would accrue to the agencies from connected vehicle system applications. The analysis also assumed that, in turn, these benefits would depend on the availability of connected vehicle equipment installed in vehicles, either as original equipment installed by the manufacturer or through the availability of aftermarket, nomadic, or retrofit devices purchased by vehicle owners.

Projections of future market growth for connected vehicle systems were, therefore, a core component of the AASHTO deployment assessment. These projections depended heavily on the presumed underlying market mechanics. For example, safety-related anti-lock braking system and traction control system were not mandated, but grew organically based on consumer demand. These followed a market growth curve of 15 years to 90 percent deployment in vehicles. In contrast, airbags followed an initial organic curve that accelerated via mandate.

The long life and large installed base of light vehicles in the United States means that changes in the fleet occur slowly. At the production rate of around 15 million units per year, the fleet is theoretically replaced every 13 years. However, some vehicles are retired early, and some vehicles last longer than the average. In general, new features are not adopted immediately across the entire annual build, so the rate of adoption of a feature in the vehicle population can lag substantially behind the introduction of the feature.
Figure 17 illustrates these characteristics. In this model there is an assumed vehicle life span distribution with an average of 13 years and a power-law survival distribution in which a small fraction of vehicles do not survive the first year and some vehicles last more than 25 years. The figure shows the population ratio of a feature (i.e., the percentage of vehicles with the feature) based on both a step function introduction (i.e., that all new vehicles are built with the feature) and a more typical S-curve application rate characteristic in which the feature is introduced into the fleet over time. In the case of connected vehicles, a step function would occur if the NHTSA agency decision resulted in a mandate to install DSRC radios in all new light vehicles in the U.S.

Figure 17. Characteristics of New Feature Introduction in the Vehicle Fleet35
(Extended Text Description: This figure shows the Connected Vehicle Market Growth, comparing Percentage on the y axis with Years on the x axis. The figure shows lines indicating the Step Application Rate (a straight line at 100% across all years 1-25), Step Popluation Ratio (a curve that rises from less than 10% and peaks at 90% by approximately year 15), 10Yr Application Rate (a curve that rises from 0% and aproaches a peak of 100% by approximately year 17), 10Yr Population Ratio (a curve that rises more gently from 0% and aproaches a peak of approximately 85% by approximately year 23), V2V Probability (10Yr) (a curve that rises more gently from 0% and aproaches a peak of approximately 70% by approximately year 23), and V2V Probability (Step) (a curve that rises from 0% and peaks at approximately 83% by approximately year 13). Additional Author notes: This figure illustrates projections of future market growth for Connected Vehicle systems and the effect of this market growth on receiving benefits from V2V safety applications.)

The S-curve growth rate used in the figure assumes that the application rate grows over time from zero to 90 percent in about 10 years, with initial growth relatively slow, maximum growth in the middle years and then flattening out in later years. This application rate is slightly faster than most automotive features, so it is possible that the growth rate could be slower, and this would lead to longer time spans to reach the same fleet penetration rates.

The figure shows that a step feature introduction requires about 13 years to result in 90 percent of the entire U.S. light vehicle fleet being equipped. In contrast, the more typical phased introduction over a 10-year period results in a delay of 20 years before 90 percent of the U.S. light vehicle fleet is equipped. This phased introduction reaches 50 percent of the U.S. light vehicle fleet in about 14 years.

These characteristics of the automotive market have important consequences for connected vehicle system deployments. Specifically, any deployment that relies on automotive production will not see a sizable equipped population for more than a decade. For V2V safety this is especially problematic. While equipped vehicles would produce immediate benefits through V2I services, V2V benefits would only occur when both interacting vehicles are equipped. Figure 17 shows that the probability of obtaining benefits from V2V communications is less than 50 percent for more than 17 years after initial introduction of the feature. For a step function introduction of the feature, this point is reached at about 10 years.

Connected vehicle equipment may be introduced into vehicles in one of three principal ways: (1) fully-integrated OEM-installed systems; (2) systems retrofitted by OEM dealers or OEM licensed third-parties; or (3) aftermarket or nomadic devices carried into the vehicle by drivers. Retrofit, aftermarket, and nomadic devices have been suggested as a means of more quickly deploying connected vehicle applications. If the objective is to deploy connected vehicle systems through consumer interest, deployment would likely occur through leveraging and extending existing product categories. Many of the postulated connected vehicle applications are already available or readily achievable as existing product extensions.

The existing product categories relevant to connected vehicle deployments are diverse but converging. The computing capabilities of small consumer electronics continue to expand. The number of consumer electronic devices with data connections has exploded in recent years. Both transportation agencies and commercial providers have released new software applications and data feeds for several transportation modes.

admin

Other Emerging OpportunitiesSince the connected vehicle environment as envisioned in the preceding discussion has not yet been widely deployed, it can be argued that this entire module represents an emerging opportunity for improving transportation safety, mobility, and environmental impact. However, another area of emerging technology—autonomous vehicles—may converge with the connected vehicle initiative.
An autonomous vehicle is one that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. A human may select a destination but is not required to  mechanically operate the vehicle. Autonomous vehicles sense their surroundings with such techniques as radar, lidar, GPS technology, or computer vision. Advanced control systems on board the vehicle then interpret the sensor information to identify the appropriate navigation paths and obstacles and interpret the relevant signs.

In recent years, significant advances have been made in both technology and legislation relevant to autonomous vehicles. Several major companies have developed working autonomous prototypes, including Google, Nissan, Toyota, and Audi. In June 2011, the State of Nevada was the first jurisdiction in the United States to enact legislation concerning the operation of autonomous vehicles for testing purposes using professional drivers.

Autonomous vehicles have the potential to generate benefits that are consistent with the objectives of the connected vehicle initiatives, such as reducing traffic crashes and congestion and improving the fuel efficiency and reduction of vehicle emissions. Opportunities for collaborative development and deployment must therefore be seen to exist.

---

Summary

• The connected vehicle environment uses wireless connectivity among vehicles, the infrastructure, and mobile devices to bring about transformative changes in highway safety, mobility, and the environmental impacts of the transportation system.
• The vision of a national multimodal connected vehicle environment requires participation of a broad community of stakeholders: Federal, State, and local transportation agencies; car, truck and bus manufacturers; telecommunications providers and consumer electronics manufacturers; and researchers.
• Benefits from the connected vehicle environment are expected to accrue in a number of areas:
  
  • Combined use of V2V and V2I communications has the potential to address 81 percent of unimpaired driver crashes in all vehicle types.
  • Connected vehicle systems have the potential to reduce urban traffic congestion, travel delays, and vehicle emissions as well as improve vehicle fuel efficiency.
    
    
• Strategic challenges remain in the Connected Vehicle Program:
  
  • To resolve remaining technical challenges;
  • To conduct testing to determine the actual benefits of applications;
  • To determine whether overall benefits are sufficient to warrant implementation, and, if so, how the systems would be implemented;
  • To address issues related to funding and identifying who will deploy, operate, and maintain the roadside equipment and the SCMS; and
  • To address issues of public acceptance, such as maintaining user privacy and whether systems in vehicles are secure, effective, safe, and easy to use.
    
    
• The Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot is a scientific research initiative to collect the data needed to understand the safety benefits of these technologies. This data will be critical to supporting a 2013 NHTSA decision on the deployment of connected vehicle core technologies for light vehicles and a 2014 decision for heavy vehicles.
• Applications are the most visible part of the connected vehicle environment. Applications allow the connected vehicle systems and technologies to deliver services and benefits to users.
• Connected vehicle applications are typically divided into three broad categories, with each category comprised of bundles of individual applications. The categories are
  
  • Safety applications (including those based on V2V communications and those based on V2I communications);
  • Dynamic mobility applications; and
  • Environmental applications.
    
    
• The connected vehicle environment will require the deployment of technologies falling into six broad categories:
  
  • In-vehicle or mobile equipment;
  • Roadside equipment;
  • Core systems;
  • Support systems;
  • Communications systems; and
  • Applications-specific systems.
    
    
• DSRC technologies were developed specifically for vehicular communications and are reserved for transportation safety applications by the FCC.
• USDOT is committed to the use of DSRC communications for active safety in both V2V and V2I applications. However, other media, such as cellular communications, are being explored for their applicability to other safety, mobility, and environmental applications.
• The connected vehicle program will rely on secure communications: Users of the system must be able to trust the validity of messages from other system users.
  
  • Current research indicates that the use of a PKI security system, involving the exchange of digital certificates among trusted users, can support the need for both message security and appropriate anonymity for users.
    
    
• Connected vehicle policy and institutional issues are topics that may limit or challenge successful deployment. Key principles for the connected vehicle environment have been identified by USDOT to guide policy research. Policy issues that require research have been identified in four categories:
  
  • Implementation policy issues;
  • Technical policy issues;
  • Legal policy issues; and
  • Implementation strategies.
    
    
• Work conducted by AASHTO through a connected vehicle field infrastructure deployment analysis indicates that the infrastructure deployment decisions of State and local transportation agencies will be based on the nature and timing of benefits that will accrue to the agencies. In turn, these benefits will depend on the availability of connected vehicle equipment installed in vehicles, either as original equipment or as after-market devices.
  

admin

Additional ResourcesAASHTO Subcommittee on Systems Operations and Management website: http://ssom.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx
Booz Allen Hamilton, "Communications Data Delivery System Analysis. Task 2: High-Level Options for Secure Communications Data Delivery System," Draft Interim Report, Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, February 2012.
Booz Allen Hamilton, "Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) Concept of Operations. Version 1.2." Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 2006.
Booz Allen Hamilton and the VII Consortium, "VII POC Applications Concept of Operations. Version 1.4," prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, January 2007.
Davis, Greg, "V2I Safety Applications: An Overview of Concepts and Operational Scenarios," Presentation to the New Jersey State Chapter of ITS America 2012 Annual Symposium, December 14, 2012.
Federal Communications Commission, website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about&id=dedicated_src [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
Federal Communications Commission, Report and Order 03-324; adopted December 17, 2003; released February 10, 2004, http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-324A1.pdf [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
Glassco, R. et al, "State of the Practice of Techniques for Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of ITS Deployment," Report No. FHWA-JPO-11-142, Prepared by Noblis, Inc., Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, August 2011.
Hill, C.J. and J.K. Garrett, "AASHTO Connected Vehicle Field Infrastructure Deployment Analysis," Prepared by Mixon Hill, Inc. for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, Report No. FHWA-JPO-11-090, June 17, 2011.
Hoyert D.L. and J.Q. Xu J. Q., "Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 61, No. 6, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2012.
ITS America website: The Connected Vehicle - Next Generation ITS, www.itsa.org/industryforums/connectedvehicle
Moorman, J.E. et al, "National Surveillance of Asthma: United States 2001–2010," Vital and Health Statistics, Series 3, No. 35, US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, November 2012.
Najm, W.G., J. Koopmann, J.D. Smith, and J. Brewer, "Frequency of Target Crashes for IntelliDrive Safety Systems," Report No. USDOT-HS-811-381, Prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, October 2010.
Schrank, D., T. Lomax, and B. Eisele, "TTI's 2011 Urban Mobility Report," Texas A&M  Transportation Institute, September 2011.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Concept of Operations for Road Weather Connected Vehicle Applications," Report #FHWA-JPO-13-047, Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, February 11, 2013.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) Concept of Operations, Version 1.2," Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, VA, September 2006.
U.S. Department of Transportation, John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center, "VII Initiative Benefit-Cost Analysis. Version 2.3 (Draft)." Prepared for the USDOT, ITS Joint Program Office, May 8, 2008.
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First Three Quarters (January-September) of 2011," Traffic Safety Facts, Publication No. USDOT-HS-811-583, February 2012.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, "Achieving the Vision: From VII to IntelliDrive," White Paper, April 30, 2010.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, website: www.its.dot.gov/connected_vehicle/connected_vehicles_FAQs.htm [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, Safety Pilot website: www.its.dot.gov/safety_pilot/index.htm [Last accessed January 27, 2013]
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, "Achieving the Vision: From VII to IntelliDrive. Policy White Paper," April 30, 2010.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, website Connected Vehicle Applications, Dynamic Mobility Applications, www.its.dot.gov/dma/index.htm [last accessed January 15, 2013]
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, "Smart Roadside Initiative Concept of Operations," Prepared by SAIC, May 21, 2012.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration website, AERIS Transformative Concepts and Applications Descriptions, Last Updated: August 2012, www.its.dot.gov/aeris/pdf/AERIS_Transformative%20Concepts%20and%20Applications%20Descriptions%20v10.pdf [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration website: www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/dsrc_factsheet.htm [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, Communications Data Delivery System Analysis Read Ahead Document, Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, April 9, 2012
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, "Core System Concept of Operations," Prepared by Lockheed Martin, Report Number 11-USDOTSE-LMDM-00049, October 24, 2011.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, "Principles for the Connected Vehicle Environment. Discussion Document," April 18, 2012
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, "VII Life Cycle Cost Estimate." April 2007.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, website: Connected Vehicle Research, www.its.dot.gov/connected_vehicle/connected_vehicle.htm

admin

References1
"Connected vehicles" refers to the ability of vehicles of all types to communicate wirelessly with other vehicles and roadway equipment, such as traffic signals, to support a range of safety, mobility, and environmental applications of interest to the public and private sectors. Vehicles include light, heavy and transit vehicles. The concept also extends to compatible after-market devices brought into vehicles and to pedestrians, motorcycles, cyclists, and transit users carrying compatible devices. Collectively, these components form the connected vehicle environment.
2
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities for the First Three Quarters (January-September) of 2011," Traffic Safety Facts, Publication No. USDOT-HS-811-583, February 2012.
3
Hoyert D. L. and Xu J. Q., "Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011," National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 61, No. 6, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2012.
4
Najm, W. G., J. Koopmann, J.D. Smith, and J. Brewer, "Frequency of Target Crashes for IntelliDrive Safety Systems," Report No. USDOT-HS-811-381, Prepared by U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, October 2010.
5
Schrank, D., T. Lomax, and B. Eisele, "TTI's 2011 Urban Mobility Report," Texas A&M Transportation Institute, September 2011.
6
Glassco, R. et al, "State of the Practice of Techniques for Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of ITS Deployment," Report No. FHWA-JPO-11-142, Prepared by Noblis, Inc., Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, August 2011.
7
Moorman, J.E. et al, "National Surveillance of Asthma: United States 2001-2010," Vital and Health Statistics, Series 3, No. 35, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, November 2012.
8
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, "Achieving the Vision: From VII to IntelliDrive," White Paper, April 30, 2010.
9
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) Concept of Operations, Version 1.2," Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, VA, September 2006.
10
Federal Communications Commission, website: http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=about&id=dedicated_src [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
11
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, website: http://www.its.dot.gov/connected_vehicle/connected_vehicles_FAQs.htm [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
12
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, Safety Pilot website: http://www.its.dot.gov/safety_pilot/index.htm [Last accessed January 27, 2013]
13
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) Concept of Operations. Version 1.2." Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, September 2006.
14
Booz Allen Hamilton and the VII Consortium, "VII POC Applications Concept of Operations. Version 1.4," prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, January 2007.
15
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, "Achieving the Vision: From VII to IntelliDrive. Policy White Paper," April 30, 2010.
16
Davis, Greg, "V2I Safety Applications: An Overview of Concepts and Operational Scenarios," Presentation to the New Jersey State Chapter of ITS America 2012 Annual Symposium, December 14, 2012.
17
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, website Connected Vehicle Applications, Dynamic Mobility Applications, http://www.its.dot.gov/dma/index.htm [last accessed January 15, 2013]
18
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, "Smart Roadside Initiative Concept of Operations," Prepared by SAIC, May 21, 2012.
19
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration website, AERIS Transformative Concepts and Applications Descriptions, Last Updated: August 2012, http://www.its.dot.gov/aeris/pdf/AERIS_Transformative%20Concepts%20and%20Applications%20Descriptions%20v10.pdf [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
20
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Concept of Operations for Road Weather Connected Vehicle Applications," Report # FHWA-JPO-13-047, Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, February 11, 2013.
21
Federal Communications Commission, Report and Order 03-324; adopted December 17, 2003; released February 10, 2004, http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-324A1.pdf [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
22
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration website: http://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/dsrc_factsheet.htm [Last accessed January 15, 2013]
23
Booz Allen Hamilton, "Communications Data Delivery System Analysis. Task 2: High-Level Options for Secure Communications Data Delivery System," Draft Interim Report, Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, February 2012.
24
Ibid.
25
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, Communications Data Delivery System Analysis Read Ahead Document, Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, April 9, 2012.
26
Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, ITS Joint Program Office, "Organizational and Operational Models for Certificate Management Entities as part of the Connected Vehicle Program." Revised Working Paper (Task 2), Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton, Draft, August 2012.
27
U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, "Core System Concept of Operations," Prepared by Lockheed Martin, Report Number 11-U.S.DOTSE-LMDM-00049, October 24, 2011.