General Comments

I think we can concur with the general summary and recommendations of the review:

1. Public funding is essential, especially with regard to data collection.
2. Public sector should not look for private sector revenue to support ITS investments.
3. Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of specific information services they wish to provide.
4. The ATIS Committee of ITSA should regularly review ATIS business models.

Some additional observations and factors for success include:

There is a wealth of information to be mined in the Site Reports provided in Appendix A of the US report, and perhaps there still might be benefit in summarizing the results in a table that includes, say: city; business model type; physical data sources (loops, CCTV, anecdotal); dissemination method (telephone, website, PDA etc.). Such a summary could be used in future reviews.

There is little discussion on "business models" per se. There would be benefit in attempting to classify the types of business models that could be used, what has been tried, successes and failures and insights as to what might emerge. However, this is moving into the realm of private sector business strategies and may well be a "protected domain"!

The terminology in the Canadian and US ITS Architectures might be utilized for consistency in reporting so that there would be no confusion, for example, when speaking of Broadcast Services vs. Interactive Services; or when differentiating between Traffic Management Systems and Traveler Information Systems for another.

In fact, the ITS Architecture for both Canada and USA distinguishes between Traffic Management Services, Traveler Information Services and Public Transit Information Services. This is a POSITIVE in that it divorces traffic management needs from traveler information needs (each could require different quantities and quality of data). But it is also a NEGATIVE in that it fragments the delivery of traveler or journey information for multi-modal travel in an intra-urban and even inter-urban environment.

As the European review (Austin, Walker and Miles, March 2002) points out, European governments are moving towards information services aimed at intermodality and public transit (as required by the dense urban land use and population patterns). However, in the USA and Canada, where the vast majority of land use is rural in nature, there are only selected regional areas where densities facilitate intermodal travel patterns. These regional areas include (among others) the North East USA, Southern California and the Greater Toronto Area. In these areas, intermodality and public transit is as important as it is in Europe. For example: California, through its universities and transportation agencies, has a long term investment in public transit research with PATH, a program that, among other things, focuses on the intermodal nature of individual trip planning. Perhaps the next review could include some of the public transit information services that are in use in various North American communities such as Vancouver, British Columbia in Canada and Houston, Texas in the USA.

Future business model reviews could perhaps be more focused and include attempts to distinguish between business models, contractual arrangements, implementation factors and performance factors. As well, the criteria for success could be established. It may be that some business models that should have been investigated further were passed over due to failure of their implementation rather than failure of the business model itself.

Also, there should be emphasis on market requirements/expectations and market segmentation – although, once again, this enters the private sector domain – not very many private companies would be willing to release their market research studies.

Notes / References:

12. - The Canadian comments have been reviewed by, and include inputs from, Bill Johnson.

Return to ATIS Practices in Europe and North America Report

A planning workshop was conducted on the Canadian ATLANTIC Project in Montreal on March 6, 2002. The workshop included overview presentations by project leaders from Europe, US, as well as Canada. Breakout groups were organized to discuss (1) overall strategy and (2) specific priority research topics for the Canadian node within the general structure of 8 Atlantic working groups: The breakout group for Telematics-based Traffic and Travel Information (TTI) identified the following high-priority issues for ATIS international exchange:

• Accessibility requirements for presentation of transport text and graphical information in multimodal and multimedia communications – compatibility with US and European Union requirements
• Pricing policies for bundled data including traffic and other information
• Driver distraction caused by display of in-vehicle display of travel information
• Whether to focus on hardware technology (i.e. delivery) or on software technology (i.e. intelligence) or both

Return to ATIS Practices in Europe and North America Report

As the primary source of basic data on travel conditions, public agencies through their data sharing practices can have a powerful effect on deployment of 511 telephone numbers and other types of traveler information services. This report documents the current state of the practice, describing how the public and private sectors deal with data ownership and sharing, and examines policies aimed at facilitating data sharing and ultimately improving the quantity and quality of information that reaches travelers.

The report is based on information collected from two sources. Surveys were conducted with thirty-four public agencies and seven private firms. The surveys consisted of interviews with representatives of public and private sector entities that are active participants in data sharing. The 30-minute interviews included a variety of questions about data sharing practices, such as the types of information shared, recipients of the data, and types of conditions placed on users of the data. The surveys were complemented with a review of the literature about data sharing practices related to traveler information and other types of data.

Major findings of the research are highlighted below. It should be noted that the use of the term "data" in the study encompasses digital, video, and verbal forms of information.

• Agencies have two major objectives in sharing their data with private sector and other public sector recipients: improving transportation operations through better interagency coordination and optimizing the use of the transportation system by providing information to travelers. Enhancing interagency coordination was the top-ranked motive for data sharing.
• Even though their motives are different, public and private sectors are active participants in use of traveler information as a transportation management tool. Almost all agencies directly provide information to the public typically with VMS, HAR, kiosks, and interactive voice response telephones. Although agency data are a fundamental source, private providers generally need to enhance public data before they are marketable. The most common types of information provided are traffic and road conditions, incident information, and planned construction information. Transit data are generally less useful to private providers, and only a third of them report transit delay information.
• Agencies who have data to share protect their interests by placing restrictions on access to data, but firms generally do not find these conditions to be onerous. Two or more conditions on access are common, the most frequent being acknowledgement of the agency as the source of the data when distributed to the public.
• Formal policies on data sharing were reported by half the surveyed agencies and several more have plans to issue one. The principal advantage of a formal policy is that it provides a process for handling requests for agency data.
• In addressing the costs associated with the data sharing process, agencies frequently employ two or more cost recovery mechanisms in data sharing relationships. Most frequently agencies require the receiving party to cover its own cost, such as hardware, software and communications cost to connect to agency data sources. The second most popular mechanism involves a private firm sharing its "value-added" information with the agency.
• The two most controversial topics in the private sector's relationships with agencies regarding agency data are revenue sharing and exclusivity.
• The idea of revenue sharing is optimistically viewed by many agencies, although in practice it has not had much success. The private sector tends to oppose revenue sharing either because of practical difficulties in administering it or because it violates the principle that public data should be available to all taxpayers for free.
• Exclusivity is the model used by only about 15% of the surveyed agencies, which see its value in assigning to some other entity the burden of dissemination of agency data. Private firms are generally opposed to exclusive arrangements because they constitute monopolistic, anti-competitive franchises and because they violate the principle of right of access to data collected at taxpayer expense.

The data sharing policy of the National Weather Service (NWS) was examined. The NWS minimizes the control it exercises on its data used by others and does not seek to profit in the dissemination. The economic benefits of the booming private sector weather information business are seen as validation of the NWS policy. The data sharing practices of the NWS could serve as a useful model for transportation agencies which generate data in the course of performing their planning and operations functions and, at the same time, share data with private entities to create economic benefits.

Return to ATIS Practices in Europe and North America Report