Contract No. DTFH61-96-C-00077
Battelle Subcontract No. 167383
Battelle – ITS Program Assessment Support Task Order 7738
This report available for download as a Microsoft® Word file (626 Kb).
Appendix A: Summary of US ATIS Update Report
Appendix B: European Comments on US ATIS Update Report
Appendix C: Canadian Comments on US ATIS Update Report
Appendix D: ATIS issues Identified in a Canadian Workshop
Appendix E: Executive Summary of the Data Sharing Report
Appendix F: Composite Questionnaire Responses
Appendix G: Summary of Questionnaire Responses
Appendix H: Questionnaire for Privately Run ATIS Services
Appendix I: Presentations at the 9th ITS World Congress
Appendix J: Participants in ATIS Exchanges
Appendix K: ATIS Group Messages
Kan Chen
This is the final report related to the ATLANTIC (A Thematic Long-term Approach to Networking for the Telematics and ITS Community) Project subtask of comparing current practices of advanced traveler information systems (ATIS), including business models, that have been tried in recent years in countries on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean – the three communities of ITS experts in Europe, Canada, and US. The subtask began with the distribution of the report on "ATIS U.S. Business Models Review" (frequently referred to as the US ATIS Update Report) to all the ATIS group members within the ATLANTIC Project [1]. Written comments from Europe and Canada were obtained and distributed to the same group members via e-mail. In order to seek further discussion and to search for consensus, a questionnaire was composed mainly on the basis of these comments and distributed to the ATIS group members. Thirteen responses from fifteen experts have been received, combined and analyzed. To seek further understanding and consensus, follow-up discussions on selected issues were conducted on the ATLANTIC website. The significant results as well as the methodology for the comparative analysis constitute the core of this report.
To demonstrate the value of the ATLANTIC Project in the pilot year of US participation, additional work beyond comparative analysis was done by the ATIS group, including discussion on the US initiative on INFOstructure, collecting information about mostly privately run ATIS services, and organization of a special session for the 9th ITS World Congress held in Chicago to describe the entire ATLANTIC Project as well as its ATIS portion. Summaries of these work elements can be found in the latter part of this report. The concluding section reflects on the methodology and the use of electronic communications for international exchanges for research and education. Since much of the ATIS group interaction during the pilot year has been through e-mail, all the 12 group e-mail messages are attached as the last appendix for the record.
The ATIS subtask of the ATLANTIC Project, established in September 2001, was blessed at the beginning by the availability of the US ATIS Update Report, entitled "ATIS U.S. Business Models Review" prepared for US Department of Transportation, ITS Joint Program Office, by Rick Schuman and Eli Sherer, PBS&J, November 2001. This excellent report, including detailed information about ten ATIS public-private partnerships in the US, provides information of direct relevance to the subtask. A summary of this US ATIS Update Report may be found in Appendix A.
The corresponding report on ATIS business models available from Europe (the WELL-TIMED Study [2]) is now dated, and new European ATIS case studies are still being undertaken. There is no equivalent report for Canada available for comparative analysis. In order to get interactions started among the three ITS communities, comments on the US report were sought from European and Canadian ATIS group members. The European comments (by John Austin, Janet Walker and John Miles) may be found in Appendix B; and the Canadian comments (by Paul Frigon, with input from Bill Johnson) may be found in Appendix C.
Although the European and Canadian comments were circulated to all the US participants for their responses, only a co-author of the US ATIS Update Report provided a relatively brief response. It was felt that the European comments were too wide-ranging for any volunteer to respond in a focused and specific manner. Therefore the questionnaire shown in Appendix F, consisting of a number of candidate statements and questions was constructed, primarily on the basis of the European and Canadian comments, for a survey among all the ATIS participants. The preparation of the survey questionnaire also took into consideration the list of ATIS issues of interest to Canada identified in a special workshop involving Canadian experts participating in the ATLANTIC Project (see Appendix D) and some of the ideas and findings in the report on "Sharing Data for Public Information: Practices and Policies of Public Agencies," co-authored by Zimmerman, Raman, Mallet and Roberts for the ITS Joint Program Office in January 2002. The Executive Summary of the Zimmerman report, also known as the US Data Sharing Report, may be found in Appendix E in this report.
The objective of the survey was to determine whether a consensus could be developed on (1) the similarities among ATIS practices (including business models) on both sides of the Atlantic; (2) the differences between these practices; and (3) the priority of unresolved ATIS issues that should be further discussed among all the ATIS group members. Each of the first two categories was broken down into "bite-size" candidate statements that a knowledgeable ATIS expert could express her/his degree of agreement or disagreement, with the option of expanding each answer with text. The third category consists of five unresolved issues to be prioritized for electronic discussion on the ATLANTIC website.
The questionnaire turned out to be very useful in getting the desired group participation, although it is worth noting that comparatively few of the respondents have first-hand experience of the ATIS scene in both North America and Europe. Fifteen experts from all three ITS communities have provided 13 responses, one of which represented joint inputs from three European experts. The 15 respondents’ names and organizations, grouped under the three international communities, are listed below:
Canada
Europe
US
Appendix F also tabulates the composite responses without attributing specific answers/questions to individual respondents. However, with the code names of R1 for the first respondent, R2 for the second respondent, etc., the reader can gain a better understanding, if deemed desirable, by finding out how the same respondent answers the various statements and questions.
Results of Comparative Analysis [3]
The 13 inputs have been compared with some straightforward statistical analysis. (The joint input from Austin, Atkinson and Wolfram has been counted as one vote.) For statements about similarities and differences (in categories A and B) between Europe and North America, the following weights were assigned:
Strongly agree (aa) = 100 Somewhat agree (a) = 50 Neutral (n) = 0 Somewhat disagree = -50 Strongly disagree = -100
For the relative importance of the 5 unresolved ATIS issues (in category C), the following weights were assigned:
Priority 1 = 100 Priority 2 = 75 Priority 3 = 50 Priority 4 = 25 Priority 5 = 0
The results of the statistical analysis are tabulated in Appendix G (in bold italics). For the statements in categories A and B, the number at the end of each statement indicates the collective level of agreement with that statement. For example, any number above 0 would mean that the group collectively agrees more than disagrees with the statement. Any number close to 50 would mean that the group generally agrees with the statement, with some qualifications. In category C, the numbers for the 5 unresolved issues are relative; the larger the number the higher the priority assigned by the group members collectively to that issue. Some of the responses also nominated additional issues for further discussion over the ATLANTIC website.
A quick scan of all the numbers in Appendix G indicates that the "average" numbers for the statements in category A are higher than those in category B. Thus, taken as a whole, the 15 ATIS participants agree more with the statements related similarities than with those related to differences between Europe and North America.
The numbers within the brackets are standard deviations. As most of the standard deviations are fairly large, it shows that there is substantial diversity of opinion among the group members for almost all the statements, which is, of itself, an interesting finding.
Based on the statements with general agreements among the participants (those scoring higher than 30 average in category A of the questionnaire returns), one can point out the following four similarities between Europe and North America, with some qualifications:
Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information value chain for delivery of ATIS services. The information value chain (or information supply chain) for ATIS describes a complete system from data collection, data fusion, to data distribution. All the links in the system must be operative for ATIS service delivery. Service quality to end-users is only as good as the weakest link in the information supply chain.
Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been proven to be viable. In fact, the broadcast of traffic information supported by advertisement has proven to be viable for years. It is a very viable revenue producing method. Perhaps the next question should be about market development, not about viable advertising revenue. In the US, the Metro Networks model of selling airtime to advertisers during radio traffic reports has been a success. However, given the conglomeration of services that has occurred over the past few years (i.e., Westwood One incorporating Shadow, Metro Networks, and Smart Routes), it could be questioned how viable the competitive broadcast market really is. In Europe broadcast travel information on local radio has been used as a way of building local interest, audience loyalty and direct involvement with the broadcasting stations (e.g. volunteer "jam busters" among the listeners, who call in with traffic reports.) It should be noted that ATIS is beyond traffic broadcast. ATIS will require a quantum change in data gathering methods, from qualitative "reportage" to quantified data-rich sources. Other models, such as advertising on websites, have not been very successful or profitable. For example, advertising on the SmarTraveler cable TV service was not successful in the US.
The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are the same in both continents. In both continents, the public objectives also include encouraging/enabling mode shift to transit or shared ride. While the basic objectives are in principle the same, the balance is different such as to make the effective objectives different. Between Europe and North America, the relative levels of importance for these different public objectives vary considerably, as much within the two regions as between the regions. For example, information on inter-modal transport for freight and personal mobility features is much stronger as a policy goal in Europe. While traffic management techniques such as variable speed limits (which use ATIS) have proven acceptable in Europe and successful in evoking driver responses, many ATIS applications in North America provide motorists with "peace of the mind" – information that is not intended to evoke a response or an action, but rather information just to explain.
Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of specific information services they wish to provide. This is certainly true for information services free at the point of use and offered as a public service, such as Traveler Advisory Telephone Systems, Government Access Channel Traffic TV Systems, and Government Websites. It is also true for some public transportation information systems but not necessarily true for commercial, personalized subscription services and for wireless services to mobile and portable devices. There may be certain services (e.g., subscription-based services) that the public sector would offer only if partnered with another firm that would assume fiscal responsibility for the service. These types of services may be akin to "bells and whistles" in that they would not be deemed essential public services, but could still be very effective in meeting public policy goals. Thus, there may be some services that the private sector can provide, especially for niche markets such as commercial vehicles or business travelers. The public sector would have an interest in seeing these markets served but public support may not be required. In this case, public sector agencies might consider underwriting the costs of providing the framework necessary to enable those services to be provided, or proceed in partnership with the private sector, as in the Travel Information Highway (TIH) in the UK, which is planned to support a range of different services provided by different firms/agencies.
Based on the statements with general agreements among the participants (those scoring higher than 30 average in category B of the questionnaire returns), one can point out only a couple of differences between Europe and North America, with qualifications:
Compared to Europe, North American ATIS services put much greater emphasis on integration of traffic information across jurisdictions than across modes (e.g., between mass transit and automobile traffic). This is generally true but would depend on the market area and the traveler segment. In some areas where only one mode is used, personal car or public transit, the user of one mode has no desire for information on the other mode. In areas or market segments where multi-modal travel is used, then having information across modes is important. In North America, as in Europe, there seems to be much interest in going multi-modal, and inter-modal door-to-door trip planning is being promoted heavily in some parts of Europe in response to increasing road congestion.
The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and demography. Among these, the land-use and demography factors are more important than the cultural factors. Land use patterns, as well as the availability of alternate modes, help to drive a commuter’s transport mode preference, hence the overwhelming popularity of the personal vehicle as the mode of choice in North America. Differing public financing methods (e.g., fuel and other user taxes) also contribute to differences between Europe and North America, perhaps contributing to the increased availability and use of mass transit in Europe. North Americans spend much less as a percentage on taxes than Europeans do. Governmental organization is also a key difference. Governmental policy goals emphasizing personal mobility and the movement of freight in Europe are also important differences, as is the level of transport infrastructure (highway and rail capacity) relative to the transport demand. Finally, environmental objectives are important in some corridors, for example trans-alpine routes, and historic cities. Equally important are differences in government roles in ATIS and European governments’ ownership of traffic information and radio stations. Some European governments are providing free RDS-TMC (Radio Data System – Traffic Message Channel) broadcasts of traffic data. Elsewhere it has been left to the private sector to develop services that use the RDS-TMC carrier, using their own sources (e.g., probe vehicles).
Some of the statements in categories A and B have negative "average" numbers, indicating that the ATIS group as a whole disagrees more than agrees with these statements. This implies that either the group thinks the particular comments from Europe and/or Canada are wrong or that the author of this paper has misinterpreted the comments from which the following statements were elicited.
The trend of ATIS data collection in both continents is toward increased reliance on floating vehicle data. This statement is not quite right. While there has been an increase in discussions and research on the use of floating vehicle data, there are only a few examples of actual practice in relying on such data for ATIS in both continents. Simple, fixed-point data collection is still the most common practice. There is evidence in Europe that floating vehicle data is becoming more common, but problems still exist of communications costs, data reliability and quality (spatial coverage, time sampling, and understanding the causal factors behind any abnormality). It also depends on what one considers as floating vehicle data. In the UK, point-to-point license-plate tracking is used by Trafficmaster to derive journey times, but is not truly floating vehicle data. Floating car data based on the radio taxi fleet has been used in metropolitan Paris. A UK company, ITIS, has formal arrangements with the operators of a national truck fleet and a long-distance express coach fleet to gather journey time data in real time across Britain, and for historical data across mainland Europe. Other European companies are experimenting with floating vehicle data to determine how it can complement traditional traffic data collection methods. Aside for that, floating vehicle data has yet to be proven as viable. On the other hand, estimated time of arrival may become more common but not necessarily based on floating vehicle data. There is certainly an increased interest in trying to mine whatever data and information sources may be out there to enhance infrastructure-based sensor systems, and exploring non-intrusive methods of gauging system performance. Perhaps an alternative way to look at this statement would be a decreased reliance on any single form of collecting data as a way of improving data richness and quality, and as a way of developing competing (and therefore more cost-effective) methods of traffic data collection.
Private ATIS companies (e.g., Trafficmaster) in Europe are closer than their North American counterparts to being financially independent of public subsidies. This statement may err on the side of over-generalization. Trafficmaster is a relatively unique case that should not be generalized to represent all private ATIS companies in Europe. Trafficmaster has survived 12 years without public subsidy, but its share price, like many high-technology stocks, has gone through a difficult patch recently. Other European countries also have private sector information services covering data fusion, with information publishers serving a variety of end user services (Webraska – France; Mizar – Italy; TMC4U – Netherlands; Tegaron – Germany). However, these private companies in Europe continue to depend heavily on public information sources, where these are of sufficient quality and reliability. While Trafficmaster has a longer history of providing information directly to end users, North American firms such as Metro Networks (now part of Westwood One) have a long history of providing traveler information to broadcasters and never receiving subsidies from public agencies. It is significant that the business model for Trafficmaster depends heavily on the revenues generated by sales of equipment and follow-up services to car manufacturers who are providing "free" 2-year subscriptions to the car buyer.
Formal agreements (mostly in the form of Memo of Understanding) are prerequisite for ATIS public-private partnerships but are frequently not necessary in North America. This is a misleading statement. Since most "partnerships" in North America are really just modifications of contracts, the contracting instrument replaces the MOU. Many North American ITS projects have required MOUs but often the formal "standing" of the MOU is not clear among the affected parties. Some form of formal agreements is required in North America although the specific form may vary a great deal.
North American consumers are more reluctant than European consumers to pay for traffic information due to the more deeply-rooted car culture in North America. Many North American group members disagree with this statement. If anything, the car culture in North America may cause an increased willingness to pay, if there were recognizable value in the information. Since traffic information is usually a "news" item that is at best informative and at worst historical, the consumer has seen little value in the information – how could it improve his/her quality of life, or at least improve the quality of the current trip? As it becomes possible for information to be more personalized, consumers will pay premiums for this now-focused information; and traveler information should become a part of that packaged information. Until we have a pervasive ATIS that delivers personalized information, the jury is still out on whether consumers will pay. In other words, willingness to pay is more related to the perceived value of traffic information than to any cultural factors. Like anyone else in the world, North Americans would be more likely to pay for information if it is good and better than what we already get for free. The fact that radio stations give out information for free in urban areas is the main barrier to fee-based services.
Based on the results the questionnaire returns to category C, the collective opinion of the ATIS group members suggests the first three issues (a to c, each with a score higher than 50) in the following list of nine issues for further electronic discussion. The next group of four issues (d to g) on the list was suggested from the respondents to be added for discussion in category C. The last two issues (h and i) on the list were derived from two statements in categories A and B for which there was little agreement (average score below 30) and high diversity of opinion (standard deviation over 60). The hope was that further discussion might lead to some convergence of opinion.
How do we distinguish the success and failure of a business model from the success and failure of its implementation? (In other words, should we abandon a business model just because its implementation has failed?)
Where should the line be drawn between free public information and paid private information in any country or region?
What should the public agencies do in their traffic sensor investments in view of the uncertain rate of development and implementation in floating car usage?
What are the benefits to a public sector agency, if any, in encouraging the development of value-added services?
The TCC project in England suggests a two-tiered market for information services: "public" information and commercial services, but where is the line between "public" and "commercial" information? [This is akin to, and may be combined with, the second issue "b" listed above.]
What balance should be struck between multi-modal and road-based travel information?
How can the management of travel information for the urban network be integrated with inter-urban travel choices? (Is this of more significance for the European conurbations than in North America?)
Should public sector look for private sector revenue sharing to support ITS investment?
Is an enabling policy framework needed for public/private partnerships in ATIS?
The availability of time and competent leaders was such that five out of nine issues in the above list were chosen for electronic discussion through the Traffic and Travel Information (TTI) Forum within the ATLANTIC website. Partly due to the lack of complete user-friendliness of the website, and partly due to the varying degree of familiarity with web-enabled e-dialog among the ATIS members, the set of web-based discussants and the set of email-based discussants were not identical but had a significant overlap. The summaries of the electronic discussions on the five issues are given below.
Business Model Failure (issue "a") - Discussion Summary
The interest in the topic of business model failure was quite low. Only 3 TTI registrants (from both Europe and US) have contributed inputs to this discussion strand over a 2-week period (July 15 to August 1, 2002).
One discussant pointed out that, from a public sector point of view, there is not really a business model. The public sector will play a small role in ATIS by providing the public some free public information. From a private sector point of view, it is up to a given company to decide if it can make a business case for a given product or service.
It’s difficult to distinguish the failure of a business model from its implementation. One would think that the choice of a business model would be more fundamental than its implementation so that, given time, a good business model would lead to good business success. On the other hand, a truly successful business model should be robust enough to withstand short-term growing pains and adapt to business environment. Private sector companies will probably abandon the application of a business model quickly if it fails. However, they may try to achieve success in another region if the circumstances are different, but they will certainly refine the model to get over the problem that caused its first application to fail. A useful question would be: what are the best set of market conditions known today that will accelerate ATIS deployment?
Floating Car Data (issue "c") – Discussion Summary
The interest in the topic of floating car data (FCD) was quite high. The 8 TTI registrants who contributed inputs to this discussion strand over a period of a month (July 15 to August 16, 2002) came from both Europe and US, both public and private sectors.
It is apparent that, while FCD has its challenges in coming to maturity, there are some very promising synergies with fleet approaches (ITIS) and nsurance billing based on driving pattern and behavior.
There are several "nuts to be cracked," and it appears that some of the cracking is already in process:
The end state of FCD will be defined principally by the degree to which OEMs will equip new cars with FCD equipment. OEMs could uniquely collect data that non-OEM telematics suppliers cannot collect (since the non-OEM companies cannot as affordably put special equipment in thousands of cars), and therefore gain a marketplace advantage.
We have seen some OEMs having begun to launch their telematics products. However, they will have to see how soon and how strongly the market responds before they will jump with both feet into telematics (including related FCD equipment) to help sell and differentiate their vehicles.
Revenue Sharing (issue "h") – Discussion Summary
The interest in the topic of revenue sharing was rather high. The 7 TTI registrants who contributed inputs to this discussion strand over a period of a month (July 15 to August 16, 2002) came from both Europe and US, both public and private sectors.
The consensus appears to be that, in an ATIS public/private partnership, the first consideration should be on sharing of functions rather than sharing of revenue. The sharing of functions can be considered most effectively in terms of the ATIS information supply chain. Along that chain, the roles and responsibilities can then be defined in business terms, specifying how each partner will fund and perform its functions, within the legal and regulatory restrictions that vary from place to place. The latter explains why revenue sharing is more feasible in one country than another. It would be helpful also to consider the basic complementarities between public and private sectors. For example, the public sector is probably better able to leverage low cost capital, whereas the private sector is better geared to handling and dealing with revenue. However, the economic reality in ATIS today is such that very few of the private partners have enough revenue to share with their public partners.
Boundary between Public and Private Information (issues "b" & "e")
The interest in this issue was extremely high, drawing vivid comments from 12 discussants representing all three communities (Europe, Canada, and US) over a 2-week period (July 31 to August 16, 2002). The summary of their inputs follows:
Provision of free public information
Commentators suggested that the difference between policy goals in Europe and the US makes it difficult to set hard and fast universal rules, because local, regional and national government policy goals on personal mobility and the movement of freight are so variable. It seems unlikely that a fixed level of minimum service can apply to all public agencies with different policy goals, tasks and resources.
The "public benefit" rule was the most widely and strongly supported – that public authorities should provide that information for free that is relevant to reach their public goal(s). This implies that public authorities need clear goals to define what information is being delivered to the public and why. However policy objectives may actually compete – e.g environmental protection versus strategic route management.
Suggested core policy requirements were:
With these requirements in mind, there is always likely to be a base level of free public information in support of: traffic management, crisis and emergency management, bad weather, and public safety and security and transportation network operations (road closures, etc.).
In Europe, congestion is prevalent in urban areas and the suggestion is that there is a general desire to promote collective transport as an alternative to individual travel at the level of national policy. That implies that there is a certain minimum level of information that is accepted as being provided for free. However, others felt that because congestion is so prevalent in urban areas this is a rather weak criterion to define situations in which the public authority might wish to pay for ATIS services.
There was no agreement on whether or not kiosk services for collective transport services can be charged for and, if so, whether this might alienate customers from public transport. One view is that public transport information should be an integral part of marketing public transport, thus the situation is different from road traffic where nobody has to go out of his/her way to sell private car transport.
Services provided by the market
Current experience in both Europe and the US suggests that the size of the market for commercially operated ATIS information systems is still uncertain. Presumably this is because the utility of the information to individual users is not at present widely perceived nor sufficiently valued.
It is suggested that there will always be a percentage of the market that will pay for information that is also available for free through other channels. This is due to the perceived level of quality or convenience being greater from the individual’s point of view - timeliness, accuracy and relevance being well established metrics for information quality. Others will use lowest price as the main distinction and will perhaps put up with less good information as a result.
Four factors have been identified which could form the criteria for an ATIS market – very high regional congestion, high quality and coverage of traffic information, the pattern of the road network (with alternative routes), and the characteristics of the individual users. These criteria can apply to collective public services but they apply equally well to anticipate the value of personalized ATIS services targeted at the individual user.
The ITS movement has been worldwide since its beginning in the 1980s. There had been many international exchanges as well as marketing activities in the ITS arena before the ATLANTIC Project was established. Naturally there were questions raised as to what value ATLANTIC could add to the existing international activities in the US ITS circle. Thus, within the ATIS subtask, additional work was done, beyond its core mission to perform comparative analysis, to explore how ATLANTIC might add value to the on-going activities, between the ITS World Congresses as well as during the 9th ITS World Congress held in Chicago. This section will report on some of these additional work elements.
The discussion was initiated as a result of the USDOT's declared interest in developing the INFOstructure to help meet the information needs for operating the surface transportation system. Extensive consultation within the US was being conducted within ITS America and through a number of special sessions and workshops sponsored by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). The additional work element within the ATLANTIC/ ATIS group was to solicit international inputs (from Europe and Canada) to the INFOstructure discussion.
The proposed national roadway information infrastructure "The Roadway INFOstructure" is intended to have a pivotal role in:
To facilitate the discussion the following questions were posed:
Several responses/comments were received related to:
The above questions and proceedings have been presented by the discussion leader Pierre Pretorius during a special session at the 9th ITS World Congress in Chicago.
The US ATIS Update Report included ten case studies, all of which were public/private partnerships. The new European ATIS case studies still being undertaken intended to include privately run ATIS services as well as public/private partnerships. For the sake of future comparison, the US ATIS group agreed to collect information about privately run ATIS services in the US on a voluntary basis. Nine US privately run services were nominated for such information collection. In order to facilitate comparative analysis, to be conducted in the future if not within the pilot year, a common questionnaire was developed jointly between the European and US ATIS participants. Unfortunately, two of the US privately run ATIS services (Comworxx and Wingcast) went of business or were merged with other companies. Other nominated services did not come forth with the information in the common format as originally promised. At the end, thanks to John Cox who is a member of the ATIS group, TANN was the only US privately run ATIS service that filled out the questionnaire as shown in Appendix H. The problem with getting information from other privately run services was probably a combination of reluctance to reveal potentially proprietary information and the extremely poor business climate in 2001-02, which had unanticipated and tremendously negative impacts on the high-tech industry, including many of the private firms in the ATIS business.
On the other hand, the European effort to use the common questionnaire to collect information for ATIS case studies, under the e-Europe Program, has continued under the direction of Siegfried Rupprecht. A progress report on this European effort was given in Rupprecht’s presentation in a special session at the 9th ITS World Congress in Chicago. A composite report on the privately-run ATIS services in the US was given in the same special session by Larry Sweeney as well, as will be described in the next subsection.
Beginning around the middle of the pilot year, the ATIS group decided to propose and plan for a special session on "Benchmarking ATIS Activities in Europe and North America" for the 9th ITS World Congress to be held in Chicago with the following session description:
Presentations and panel discussion based on one-year interactions among key people in Europe, Canada, and USA related to research and deployment of advanced traveler information systems (ATIS). Topics include business models used in private initiatives and public/private partnerships, infostructure investments, and preparation for third-generation (3G) mobile telecommunications. (The one-year interactions have taken place within the ATLANTIC Project supported by European Commission, ITS Joint Program Office, and Canadian government agencies.)
Planning for the special session helped the ATIS group to focus its work. The original plan was based on the assumption that the description of the entire ATLANTIC Project would be presented in another session in the Chicago World Congress. When it became clear that there was no other program space given to the ATLANTIC Project, the special session, moderated by Bob Rupert, was rearranged to begin with presentations about the entire Project (by John Miles) and the US participation in the Project for the pilot year (by Chelsea C. White, III). The subsequent presentations described the results of the ATIS work elements, including the ATIS comparative analysis (by Kan Chen), the European and Canadian ATIS activities (by John Miles and Bill Johnson, respectively), interim results of the European case studies (by Siegfried Rupprecht), the INFOstructure discussion (by Pierre Pretorius), and the private sector view (by Larry Sweeney). Slides for all the presentations may be found in Appendix I. [4]
The core objective of making a comparative analysis of ATIS practices, including business models, between Europe and North America has been met during the pilot year of US participation in the ATLANTIC Project. To demonstrate how the ATLANTIC Project could add value to existing ATIS activities, additional work has also been conducted on INFOstructure discussion, collecting information about privately run ATIS services, and organizing a special session on ATIS for the 9th ITS World Congress in Chicago. Toward the end of the ATIS subtask, 17 US experts were involved in international exchange with a group of ATIS experts of comparable size from Europe and Canada. Their names are listed below.
US ATIS Participants (17)
Non-US ATIS Participants (19)
The results of comparative analysis indicate that there are more similarities than differences between ATIS practices and business models in Europe and North America. Among the more prominent similarities are:
Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information value chain for delivery of ATIS services.
Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been proven to be viable.
The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are the same in both continents.
Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of specific information services they wish to provide.
Among the more prominent differences are:
Compared to Europe, North American ATIS services put much greater emphasis on integration of traffic information across jurisdictions than across modes (e.g., between mass transit and automobile traffic).
The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and demography.
Each of the above statements needs to be qualified to avoid the risk of oversimplification, as discussed in detail within the report.
One might argue that the accomplishments of the ATIS group cannot be considered outstanding since the number of experts could have been greater and their interactions through electronic communications could have been deeper and more frequent – especially if the web-enabled dialog tools had been user-friendlier from the beginning of the pilot year. However, the ATLANTIC website went through several stages of improvement so that, at the later stage of the pilot year, the ATIS group was able to take advantage of the e-dialog on the website to carry out effectively the follow-up discussion on five of the remaining ATIS issues. Overall, the ATIS group experience has demonstrated the feasibility and desirability of developing and maintaining international exchanges through electronic communications, and the results of the comparative analysis have certainly added to the ATIS knowledge base. The extra work of receiving European and Canadian comments on the US initiative on INFOstructure, and the contribution by the ATIS group (both its US and non-US members) to the 9th ITS World Congress have been valuable and appreciated.
The lessons learned through the ATIS group interaction experience are also valuable. One lesson learned is that the methodology for electronic discussions needs to be flexible, depending on the group members’ available time, interest in the topic, and their experience in various modes of electronic communications. In the case of ATIS comparative analysis, the following 8-step process was used as the methodology:
This methodology was not pre-determined but was adaptive to several factors as time went on: (1) the existence of the US ATIS Update Report, (2) the lack of response to general calls for responses to comments received from Canada & Europe, (3) the initial lack of group members’ interest to participate in e-discussion on the not-so-user-friendly web at the early stage, and (4) the need to coax all ATIS members to register as users of the much improved ATLANTIC web at the later stage. Several steps and sub-steps had to be improvised to meet the challenges.
The lessons learned from the ATIS group experience can be generalized in terms of five essential factors for success in any future sustainable international exchanges through electronic communications:
Note that, for the pilot year of US participation in ATIS international exchanges, the most important mode of electronic communications has been group e-mail. For the record, the 12 group e-mail messages are shown in Appendix K in this report.
The central funding for the US leadership of the ATIS group is expiring at the end of October 2002. Fortunately, the funding for the Canadian participation in the ATLANTIC Project has just begun. With the understanding of both the European and Canadian leaders in the Project, Bill Johnson and Paul Frigon of Canada will assume the North American leadership of the ATIS group after October 2002. It is hoped that all the current US ATIS members (and additional ones in the future) will continue their voluntary participation in the international exchanges in ATIS. The author of this report will certainly continue his participation in the ATIS group on a voluntary basis. It is also hoped that, with the expected overhaul of the ATLANTIC Project website, and possible development of comparable websites in Canada, US and other parts of the world, there will be an effective and global confederation of websites to stimulate and facilitate future international exchanges in research and education, including ATIS.
Notes / References:
1. - In spite of the words of "Business Models" in its title, the US ATIS Update Report has a broad coverage of all ATIS practices, including business models. This report has the same broad coverage of ATIS practices as the Update Report.
2. - J.C. Miles and A.J. Walker (eds.) "West European Local Legal Arrangements for Transport Information Management and Exchange of Data," European Commission Telematics Applications Program, April 1998.
3. - The results in this section have been distributed to all members of the ATIS group for comments. There has been no indication of disagreement by any one with any of the results.
4. - The plan for the special session also included a presentation by Robert Libbrecht on telematics program in Europe. Unfortunately he was unable to attend the World Congress at the last minute. However, he had prepared and sent in a set of slides, which are also included in Appendix I.