Appendix F
Composite Questionnaire Responses

A. Similarities between Europe and North America

1. Public funding is essential, especially with regard to data collection. (   )


R1 (aa)
This seems to be true all around the world. Even with public funding for traffic data collection and making such data available to private firms, many ATIS businesses are still struggling financially. R2 (a)
Although Public Funding is essential for some aspects of Data Collection, by itself it may well not succeed in achieving collection to the required standards. Responsibilities may need to be agreed, and in some cases legal contracts may need to exist to ensure that the agencies responsible carry out these responsibilities. Public funding is most important to finance the setting-up of frameworks to facilitate proper data collection (e.g. data standards, protocols and procedures). R3 (d)
Public funding probably essential for the current generation of ATIS systems, but not for next generation. R4 (aa)
No question. It is virtually the only game in town today, with a few exceptions. R5 (aa)
-- R6 (a)
Especially data for public safety. R7 (a)
-- R8 (n)
Public funding for any aspect of TIS, not least data collection, must be justified in relation to the core business activities of the public authorities: e.g. traffic safety, traffic management, transport security, promoting modal interchange or promoting alternatives to the private car.
With the spread of mobile communications, and investment in Automatic Vehicle location systems for fleet management purposes, private ATIS service providers have new opportunities for data collection independent of the public sector. But data sources that directly support public sector objectives may still have to be provided by public funding.
Eventually (on a 10-20 year time horizon) there will be a market in ATIS data, with alternative sources offering different levels of quality, continuity, reliability, resolution (granularity in time and space), and price. This will happen primarily through the efforts of the private sector, although heavy investment by the public sector could inhibit private sector initiatives.
In the long run it is possible to envisage the private sector doing all the ATIS data collection and fusion, selling data back to the public sector in support of public information services.
Until this market in ATIS data develops, the short-term problem is to achieve effective data sharing arrangements between the public and private sectors. R9 (aa)
-- R10 (a)
-- R11 (aa)
-- R12 (a)
But public funding for ATMS data collection is essential and ATMS data is useful for ATIS. However, public funding specifically for ATIS data collection is not essential. R13 (aa)
For much of traffic data and for all of transit data I believe that data collection is not possible without some public funding. The market is not sufficient to support a totally private data collection effort, or at least have good quality data.

2. Public sector should not look for private sector revenue to support ITS investments. (   )


R1 (a)
First, private partners in ATIS business are not financially strong at this time to share revenue. Second, many public agencies are not allowed to share revenue. However, for those that do allow revenue sharing, there is no reason for these public agencies to ignore potential revenue sharing indefinitely. R2 (d)
-- R3 (a)
-- R4 (aa)
...to support public sector ITS investments. The private sector will invest heavily in private sector ITS investments. R5 (n)
-- R6 (aa)
Especially if ITS investment is for a public purpose. R7 (aa)
-- R8 (d)
-- R9 (d)
-- R10 (d)
I would agree that the public sector should not expect or require private sector revenues to support ITS investments; but it never hurts to look for them and may even uncover some innovative practices the community might never otherwise realize. R11 (d)
-- R13 (aa)
-- R14 (aa)
The revenues are not sufficient to provide any meaningful amount to the public sector.

3. Public sector agencies should be prepared to underwrite all costs of specific information services they wish to provide. (   )


R1 (a)
This is generally true in the near term since private partners in ATIS business are not financially strong enough to share costs reliably and indefinitely. R2 (d)
Rather, public sector agencies should underwrite the costs of providing the framework necessary to enable those services to be provided (as in the Travel Information Highway in the UK, which is planned to support a range of different services provided by different firms / agencies) R3 (a)
-- R4 (aa)
Again, the public sector can also expect the private sector to invest in information services the private sector wishes to provide. R5 (a)
as long as they have a strong idea of what services they wish to provide – could be overlap with private sector. R6 (a)
...for public purposes. R7 (a)
-- R8 (d)
This is a complex question. Some public sector funding (eg to provide and operate changeable message signs) seems inevitable. But Public-private partnerships with revenue sharing arrangements are also possible if there is synergy between the business plans of both parties. Much depends on the terms offered to the private sector and the extent to which there are exclusive contracts or more of a market in information services, which might also contribute to meeting public sector objectives. R9 (aa)
-- R10 (a)
In general, I agree with the statement, but I can envision some form of information service (e.g., subscription-based) that the public sector would only offer 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 services by the public sector, but could still be desirable. R11 (aa)
-- R12 (a)
True for free information services such as Traveler Advisory Telephone Systems, Government Access Channel Traffic TV Systems, and Government Web sites. Also true for Public Transportation information systems. Not necessarily true for commercial, personalized subscription services and for Wireless services to mobile and portable devices. R13 (d)
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.

4. Broadcast traveler information supported by advertisement has been proven to be viable. (   )


R1 (aa)
This is certainly true in North America and, as far as I know, also true in Europe. R2 (n)
Don't Know. R3 (d)
Maybe viable for profit making but does not serve the full needs of the consumer. R4 (aa)
The broadcast of information supported by advertisement has proven to be viable for years. It is a very viable revenue producing method. The question should be about market development, not about viable advertising revenue. R5 (d)
-- R6 (a)
True for case of in-Metro car services in Montreal. R7 (n)
-- R8 (aa)
Broadcast travel information on local radio is used as a way of building local interest, audience loyalty and direct involvement with the broadcasting stations.(e.g. volunteer "jam busters amongst the listeners, who call in with traffic reports.) But ATIS will require a step change in data gathering methods, from qualitative "reportage" to quantified data-rich sources. R9 (a)
-- R10 (a)
"Viable" from the general public’s perspective, but 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. R11 (aa)
-- R12 (aa)
Assuming that "broadcast" refers to live-voice traffic reports on broadcast AM and FM radio. R13 (a)
The Metro Networks model of selling airtime to advertisers during radio traffic reports has been a success. Other models, such as advertising on websites, have not been very successful or profitable. Advertising on the SmarTraveler cable TV service was not successful.

5. Fee-based and advertising-based ATIS services are not viable yet. (   )


R1 (a)
I have known a few cases of ATIS business failure due to over-dependence on such a business model. R2 (d)
The user may be prepared to pay, but it depends on how the fee is structured and it depends on the added-value that the user perceives himself to be receiving. R3 (n)
-- R4 (dd)
Again the question should not be about advertising based services but about market development. ATIS service is not a business today no matter what the source of revenue. A given business model may not be a problem, it could well be various market conditions or market maturity that keeps ATIS services from being financially viable in the early stages of growth. ATIS services may need to be packaged with other business services to achieve the necessary economy of scale and give the service time to grow. (I don’t want to get hung up on definitions, but this business services packaging could also be called a business model) R5 (a)
because the value has not yet been delivered (travel times and alternate routes) and the platforms are not yet sorted (PDA, DAB, PC-internet). R6 (n)
-- R7 (d)
-- R8 (d)
The emergence of Trafficmaster and ITIS as ATIS competitors in UK indicates that there is scope to develop a profitable business based on subscription services, serving niche markets. But their success depends on how far the prevailing traffic conditions are unpredictable and unreliable, as well as developing the right information product to suit the target market. R9 (a)
-- R10 (a)
-- R11 (n)
Have not had an environment for a full-up test yet – when we get a critical mass of data, then this can be determined. R12 (aa)
Where ATIS services are bundled with other services, subscription-fee (USA and Europe) and transaction-fee services (Europe) appear viable, but have not yet withstood the test of time. Advertising-based services have so far proven to be not viable. R13 (a)
--

6. Both Europe and North America need an enabling policy framework for public-private partnerships in ATIS. (   )


R1 (aa)
An enabling policy framework will provide the stability and risk mitigation that the private sector and public-private partnerships would need for sustaining operations. R2 (aa)
-- R3 (n)
-- R4 (dd)
In my view there is not such thing as a public-private partnership in the corporate sense. The private sector is an at-risk for profit culture and the public sector is a no-risk public service culture. The public sector rarely if ever shares risk with the private sector. The informal partnership is that the public sector provides the highways the private sector provides the vehicles. Nothing is needed to enable the ATIS Partnership framework. R5 (n)
not sure that an "enabling policy framework" might be too restrictive. R6 (aa)
-- R7 (6)
-- R8 (aa)
The policy framework can be cast fairly loosely: for example a set of codes of practice for service content (eg in emergencies or security situations), recommended procurement methods; model contracts for data exchange. R9 (n)
-- R10 (n)
-- R11 (a)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (n)
--

7. Both Europe and North America need to have a complete information value chain for delivery of ATIS services. (   )


R1 (aa)
The information value chain for ATIS describes a complete system. All the links in the system must be operative for ATIS service delivery. R2 (a)
-- R3 (n)
-- R4 (aa)
Not sure what is meant by this question. R5 (n)
not clear on what a "complete information value chain" is. R6 (aa)
-- R7 (a)
-- R8 (aa)
Service quality to end-users is only as good as the weakest link in the information supply chain. R9 (aa)
-- R10 (a)
-- R11 (n)
-- R12 (d)
-- R13 (a)
--

8. The public objectives in ATIS (safety and traffic management) are the same in both continents. (   )


R1 (aa)
It is also true all around the world, based on my observation of discussions within PIARC C16 Committee. R2 (d)
Whilst these two basic objectives are duplicated in Europe, the balance is different and further objectives exist (such as making intermodality easier) such as to make the effective objectives different. R3 (aa)
-- R4 (aa)
I consider ATIS contributes to more efficient transportation system performance rather that managing the traffic. ATMS manages traffic. R5 (aa)
-- R6 (a)
Agree for N. America but can’t comment for Europe. R7 (a)
In US, this also includes encouraging/enabling mode shift to transit or shared ride. R8 (d)
No. See the answer to question 1. Information on inter-modal transport for freight and personal mobility features much more strongly as a policy goal in Europe. Also the authorities are involved in the promotion of collective transport modes (transit, bus) as alternatives to the private car. R9 (aa)
-- R10 (d)
While certainly safety and transportation systems management are important in both North America and Europe, I doubt the levels of importance are equal. And where traffic management techniques such as variable speed limits (which use ATIS) have proven acceptance in Europe, many ATIS applications in North America provide motorists with "peace of mind" – information that is not intended to evoke a response or an action, but rather information just to explain. R11 (d)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (n)
I am not familiar enough with European objectives to know if this is true.

9. Criteria for travelers’ willingness to pay are, in a descending order of priority: data quality, data coverage, bundling of different modes of travel information (automobile and transit), bundling of different kinds of information (weather, stocks, sports, news, and traffic), and bundling of different ITS services (security/rescue, ATIS, electronic payments, and wireless communications). (   )


R1 (a)
This is generally true although one could argue about the strict order of priority. R2 (n)
-- R3 (a)
-- R4 (d)
You can’t put a priority on the list. There are too many factors the play a role in willingness to pay. For example, convenience and reliability are extremely important. You can have high quality coverage but if it isn’t available 24/7 without down time it isn’t reliable. Reliability may be a quality attribute but I believe it very important for it to be a separate factor. Convenience, which could also be considered a quality attribute, is also important as a factor because means easy access - easy to use... not a quality that is very prevalent today. Another willingness to pay criteria is free competition. If it is free elsewhere the consumer won’t pay. R5 (a)
a good start but data quality and data coverage could be strongly linked. R6 (a)
What about data relevance for main benefit – time reliability for the user? Is this covered in the list? Not sure about order. R7 (n)
Don’t know the source of this list, but back in the 2000 "Data Gap" workshop, we defined several dimensions of data "quality" (not in any priority order): (1) data coverage (geographic, time, transportation system components (modes, routes), and data types), (2) depth of information (level of detail), (3) data accuracy, (4) timeliness of data, (5) data consistency and reliability, and (6) personalization. I can’t easily rank your list, since it looks like "apples and oranges" that belong on different scales (content issues vs. marketing). R8 (n)
This is a subject for detailed market research. It depends so much on the target group, and their interest in and experience of ATIS. R9 (dd)
I do not think one can generalize a statement like this. There is much more involved. R10 (n)
-- R11 (a)
-- R12 (d)
I would have descending order be: bundling of information and services (wireless access, hands-free car phone, security/rescue, traffic, weather, stocks, sports, personal messaging, etc.), personalized traffic information, personalized routing information, coverage, quality, bundling of different modes information (auto and transit). R13 (n)
That looks like a reasonable order, but I guess that would need to be based on empirical research. Also, I think that WTP is very low for traveler information. It is probably more a function of market segment, i.e. service or delivery drivers probably have a higher WTP than most commuters.

10. The trend of ATIS services in both continents is toward travel time forecasts. (   )


R1 (a)
The trend toward forecasts represents a progression of ATIS sophistication. R2 (n)
Estimated time of arrival may become more common. R3 (n)
-- R4 (dd)
I can’t speak for Europe but I doubt it. It may be on everyone’s wish list but it is very difficult to forecast accurate travel times since it is impossible to forecast the next traffic accident. The trend is toward slow market growth and multiple flavors of information. Further it is next to impossible to predict trends in a market that hasn’t even started yet. Once there is a meaningful ATIS user base using a variety of products or flavors, we can then better judge the trend. R5 (aa)
this is one of the true value added elements along with alternate routes ... as well, a complete reporting (500 m resolution) of detailed road condition (especially in northern climates), weather condition and traffic speed would be worth paying for. R6 (n)
-- R7 (a)
-- R8 (a)
Estimated journey time (landmark A > landmark B, as displayed on electronic message signs on the Paris Boulevard Peripherique freeway), "nearcasting" and estimated time of arrival (ETA) may also become more common. R9 (aa)
-- R10 (a)
-- R11 (n)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (n)
--

11. The trend of ATIS data collection in both continents is toward increased reliance on floating vehicle data. (   )


R1 (a)
The trend is implied by the frequency, depth and breadth of discussions on the subject rather than by any actual practice, which seems to be restricted primarily to vehicle fleet tracking. R2 (n)
Estimated time of arrival may become more common. R3 (a)
-- R4 (d)
This too may be on someone’s wish list. There is certainly a growing trend in the talk. But until it is being used in the market, it is impossible to say there is a reliance on floating vehicle data. Other than a few demos, I know no main stream usage today. R5 (dd)
a lot of interest is being generated but still has to prove itself - simple, fixed point data collection is still the best – may not necessarily be the same system used for "incident management" but should be. R6 (a)
Based on the current extent of research underway. R7 (d)
-- R8 (a)
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). In the UK, point-to-point license-plate tracking is used by Trafficmaster to derive landmark A > landmark B 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. R9 (dd)
-- R10 (a)
In general, I agree with the statement, but I’m not sure that "reliance" is the correct word. I think there is 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 would be a decreased reliance on any single form of collecting data. R11 (a)
-- R12 (d)
It depends on what you consider floating-vehicle data. In the UK, license-plate tracking is used by TrafficMaster. I don’t consider that floating-vehicle data. Aside for that, floating-vehicle data has yet to be proven as viable. R13 (d)
--

B. Differences between Europe and North America

1. The fundamental and important differences between Europe and North America related to ATIS are differences in culture, land-use, and demography. (   )


R1 (a)
The land-use and demography factors are more important than the cultural factors. R2 (a)
Governmental organization is also a key difference. R3 (d)
-- R4 (d)
Without any real evidence to the contrary, I doubt it. ATIS usage is primarily driven by congestion... assuming that factors such as content, device availability and quality are a given. R5 (aa)
-- R6 (aa)
-- R7 (a)
Plus public transit availability and usage, public-private relationships, powers and expectations of central governments. R8 (n)
Governmental policy goals on personal mobility and the movement of freight 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. R9 (a)
-- R10 (a)
Given these fairly broad categories, it’s hard not to agree. 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. R11 (a)
Also political environment – we spend much less as a percentage on taxes than Europeans do. R12 (d)
Equally important are differences in government roles in ATIS and European governments ownership of traffic information and radio stations. European governments are providing free RDS-TMC broadcasts of traffic data. As a result, there is little commercial opportunity and poor quality traffic information. R13 (a)
Political, too, due to more countries in Europe and the different transportation agencies that need to be considered.

2. Europe, through the use of DATEX, is ahead of North America in moving toward interoperable traffic data exchange. (   )


R1 (n)
I am not sure about this, partly due to my unfamiliarity about the European situation in this regard. R2 (n)
Don't Know. R3 (n)
-- R4 (d)
I have no real knowledge of the value of DATEX so I may not understand the question. In our experience, traffic data exchange is a non-issue. Traffic data is being exchanged every 30 seconds anywhere anytime in the US today, without DATEX. The word interoperable is confusing to me because I associate it with ATMS not ATIS. R5 (n)
-- R6 (n)
-- R7 (a)
Not sure it’s due to the DATEX protocol, but maybe due to agreement on the data definitions. R8 (n)
There have been initiatives in this area in Europe since the original DATEX MoU (1997). A new DATEX MoU is being launched this year (2002), with a more political/strategic emphasis, supported by a code of practice on standards and technical requirements. R9 (dd)
-- R10 (n)
-- R11 (a)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (a)
--

3. There is a higher diversity in traffic data sources and formats in Europe than in North America due to diversity of countries, more diverse modes of transport, and more diverse modes of private sector involvement policies (e.g., France/Netherlands being more publicly oriented versus Germany/UK being more privately oriented). (   )


R1 (n)
The diversity of data sources in the US from many levels of government units in 50 states is just as diverse, if not more, than in Europe. However, there are probably more public transit agency sources in Europe than in the US. R2 (n)
Don't Know. R3 (a)
-- R4 (n)
I don’t know and I don’t know why that is important. R5 (n)
-- R6 (a)
Seems reasonable given the number of different implementations. R7 (n)
Don’t know enough about European data, but there are vast variations (from our perspective) across 50 states and hundreds of local road and transit agencies. R8 (n)
Work on the DATEX data dictionary and the Traffic Message Channel (TMC) in Europe have introduced some conformity, but there is still much diversity. R9 (n)
-- R10 (a)
I agree that there is a higher diversity in Europe than in North America, but the diversity level in North America is not insignificant, nor should be overlooked. R11 (a)
-- R12 (d)
-- R13 (a)
--

4. There is a larger traffic "data gap" in North America than in Europe (in other words, there are more roads wired in Europe than in North America). (   )


R1 (a)
Because of high population density, urban traffic congestion in Europe is more severe and there is more motivation to "wire" the congested roadways there. In this sense, the "data gap" in North America is probably larger. R2 (n)
Don't Know. R3 (aa)
-- R4 (n)
Again, I don’t know and I don’t know why that is important. What is important is the size of the "data gaps" in the large metropolitan urban or highly congested areas. Large data gaps in congested areas diminishes the value of ATIS. R5 (d)
-- R6 (a)
-- R7 (a)
-- R8 (n)
Many freeways and toll roads in Europe have loops and other detection systems. In urban areas the use of detectors varies greatly, depending on whether dynamic traffic control has been implemented. UK and Germany have taken special initiatives to encourage the private sector to invest in their own independent data collection sources, and this is now reflected in the Commission Recommendation to the Member States on developing the market in ATIS services. R9 (d)
-- R10 (d)
I somewhat disagree with the statement. My impression is that the continents are fairly close when it comes to the amount of detectorization of roads – urban expressways in Europe may have greater amounts of surveillance than North American counterparts, but North America has more urban expressways. And arterial street surveillance appears minimal on both continents. R11 (aa)
-- R12 (dd)
-- R13 (n)
--

5. European agencies provide greater amount and wider range of ATIS information to travelers than their counterparts in North America. (  )


R1 (a)
This is probably true regarding public transit information but the amount of ATIS information for automobile traffic may be quite comparable. R2 (n)
Don't Know. R3 (a)
-- R4 (n)
Once again I don’t understand why that is important. It is wonderful if they do. The importance should be based on the market penetration of various market segments of the traveling public are able to conveniently access information regarding their travel mode and route. R5 (a)
-- R6 (a)
-- R7 (a)
-- R8 (n)
Some European governments are providing free RDS-TMC broadcasts of traffic data. Elsewhere it has been left to the private sector to develop services which use the RDS-TMC carrier using their own sources (e.g., probe vehicles). R9 (dd)
-- R10 (d)
It is difficult to generalize, but on average, the public agencies from both continents appear to provide similar levels of ATIS information. North America may provide somewhat more robust information about incidents, whereas European agencies may provide richer real-time travel information. R11 (n)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (a)
--

6. Private ATIS companies (e.g., Trafficmaster) in Europe are closer than their North American counterparts to being financially independent of public subsidies. (   )


R1 (a)
My impression is that Trafficmaster is relatively unique in Europe and its financial success in UK has not yet been replicated in other parts of Europe. Thus, it is difficult to generalize at this time. R2 (a)
-- R3 (n)
-- R4 (n)
I have no knowledge of the facts in Europe. Certainly ATIS private companies in the US are totally dependent upon public subsidies. R5 (d)
no – I think trafficmaster still as to prove they are generating revenues from subscriptions – some of their large initial revenues were generated by sales to car manufacturers who were providing "free" 2 year subscriptions to the car buyer – I don’t believe there has been a large uptake once the subscription lapsed – one apparently successful operation is the special cell number for traffic info related to the cell you are in – it comes at a premium rate but no subscription required – the added bonus of selling extra air time! R6 (n)
-- R7 (a)
But I thought this was as at least partly due to governmental processes not available in N. America, e.g., nation-wide exclusive franchise. R8 (a)
Trafficmaster has survived 12 years without public subsidy, but the share price has been depressed of late. Other countries also have private sector information service data fusion and information publishers serving a variety of end user services (Webraska – France; Mizar – Italy; TMC4U – Netherlands; Tegaron - Germany). R9 (d)
Trafficmaster (and their latest selling of assets) still need to prove that they are even close to being "financially independent". R10 (n)
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 and never receiving subsidies from public agencies. R11 (d)
Trafficmaster is stable only in the UK, they are in investment mode everywhere else – no telling how they will do... R12 (d)
-- R13 (d)
--

7. Europe has a more formal and conscious policy statement regarding private sector participation in ATIS activities. (   )


R1 (n)
I have heard statements like this fairly frequently but don’t have direct knowledge that it is true in all European countries. R2 (a)
-- R3 (a)
-- R4 (n)
Again this question is very hard to measure and I don’t know what it buys us. I don’t why a formal and conscious policy statement is important. In the US it is a barrier to ATIS deployment. In the US we have operated without a formal policy for radio and television for years and it has worked reasonably well. Many public agencies have no formal policy regarding ATIS. They let interested parties use the data. If there is such a public policy, it should be to get traveler information in the hands of the consumer as quickly, conveniently and efficiently as possible with no strings attached. R5 (n)
-- R6 (aa)
-- R7 (a)
-- R8 (aa)
The European Commission Recommendation to the Member States of the European Union seeks to create the conditions for the development of private sector information service providers and a market in Travel and Traffic information services. This is particularly important for Value-Added Services serving the freight industry and for personalized services to motorists. It is also important for the development of pan-European and cross-border services. R9 (dd)
-- R10 (a)
In general, I agree with the statement, although locations such as Phoenix, Arizona, and the San Francisco Bay area in California, are helping to establish a base in North America for policies dealing with public agencies’ cooperation with private firms. R11 (a)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (n)
--

8. 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. (   )


R1 (n)
If a number of ATIS public-private partnerships in North America have operated without formal agreements, then why are such agreements prerequisites? R2 (a)
Don't Know. R3 (n)
-- R4 (a)
Yes they are frequently not used in the US but the agreements vary a great deal. R5 (d)
not in Canada! R6 (d)
-- R7 (d)
-- R8 (n)
Don't Know. R9 (dd)
-- R10 (d)
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. R11 (n)
-- R12 (d)
I don’t understand the statement. Was it intended to mean that agreements are prerequisite in Europe but not North America? In any case, I believe that agreements are necessary in the USA. R13 (dd)
--

9. ATIS organizational cooperation is more horizontal (between parallel countries and transport modes) in Europe but is more vertical (between state-level responsibility for expressways and city-level responsibility for arterials). (   )


R1 (a)
This is true because there are more sovereign countries in Europe. R2 (n)
Don't Know. R3 (n)
-- R4 (n)
The cooperation varies a great deal. It is both horizontal and vertical from Federal Highways, Federal Transit down to the state, regional, sub-regional and local level. It is very difficult to generalize that it is one way or another. It often depends on the circumstances and funding sources. R5 (a)
-- R6 (a)
-- R7 (n)
-- R8 (d)
Europe has both problems to contend with. There are also situations where data exchange is needed between public and private sectors, and in some cases private-private data exchange. R9 (dd)
-- R10 (d)
Because of the differing government structures in Europe, organizational cooperation likely varies between countries. But I think that there are more similarities than there are differences between North America and Europe. There seems to be relatively good vertical cooperation between levels of government, but somewhat limited horizontal cooperation between modes or jurisdictions. Europe does appear to have more horizontal cooperation than North America, but it is still fairly limited. R11 (a)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (?n)
This statement seems incomplete. If you mean that in No. America has more vertical cooperation then I would agree.

10. 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). (   )


R1 (aa)
This is due to the predominance of private vehicles in the US traffic. R2 (a)
-- R3 (a)
-- R4 (a)
Generally I would agree however it depends 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. R5 (a)
-- R6 (aa)
-- R7 (a)
Agree that is current state, but seems to be much interest in going multimodal. R8 (a)
-- R9 (aa)
-- R10 (a)
...although I’m not sure that there is a huge emphasis of cross-modal information in Europe either. R11 (n)
-- R12 (a)
-- R13 (d)
--

11. It is more complicated in North America than in Europe for private ATIS enterprises to negotiate agreements with the public agencies. (   )


R1 (n)
I don’t know whether this is true for lack of direct information for comparison. R2 (n)
Don't Know. R3 (a)
-- R4 (a)
There is no question it is difficult in the US. In a market like Los Angeles alone there are over 200 public agencies all with a different take on what should be done. R5 (a)
-- R6 (a)
-- R7 (a)
-- R8 (n)
Don't Know. R9 (dd)
Again, I do not think one can make such a blanket statement. R10 (a)
I suspect that the complexity varies greatly across Europe, given the different government structures (socialist, federalist, privatization); but because there is a bit more of a history (precedent) of public-private cooperative transportation ventures in Europe, it is somewhat easier to negotiate agreements. R11 (aa)
-- R12 (n)
-- R13 (d)
--

12. Most European ATIS firms can go to a single public source for traffic data whereas most North America firms need to go to multiple public sources for the data. (   )


R1 (n)
This is related to the 3rd statement in this section. R2 (a)
-- R3 (n)
-- R4 (a)
I don’t know about Europe, but can be true in the US. However, there are a few private sources in the US that consolidate the data. So other ATIS firms can go to these single private sources for the traffic data. R5 (a)
-- R6 (a)
-- R7 (a)
-- R8 (d)
This varies from one European country to another. For some (e.g. Netherlands, Spain) there is a single regional source. Elsewhere, (France, UK, Italy) it is more complex. R9 (dd)
Again, I do not think one can make such a blanket statement. R10 (d)
I don’t think that, in general, European ATIS firms can rely upon only a single source. There may be more sources for North America firms to coordinate with, but successful ATIS companies must deal with multiple data sources. R11 (a)
-- R12 (d)
It seems to me that European firms must also go to multiple sources if they want to work across multiple countries. R13 (a)
--
13. 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. (   )

R1 (d)
I think willingness to pay is more related to the perceived value of traffic information than to any cultural factors. R2 (a)
-- R3 (a)
-- R4 (n)
I have no evidence to support or deny that conclusion. If it is because they have always have had free traffic information on their car radio, that would make sense. R5 (a)
-- R6 (aa)
If this means there is less value-added for N. American drivers to have traffic information because they are more familiar with their local and extensive road networks, then agree. R7 (n)
Agree with the first part, but don’t think the "due to..." is a major reason. R8 (n)
-- R9 (dd)
Again, I do not think one can make such a blanket statement. R10 (dd)
I disagree that the car culture determines consumers’ willingness to pay; if anything, it 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 [in general] to be more personalized, consumers will pay premiums for this now-focused information; and traveler information should become a part of that packaged information. R11 (dd)
Until we have a pervasive ATIS that delivers personalized information, the jury is still out on whether consumers will pay. While "car culture" term is Yank-bashing, I would believe that we would be more likely to pay for information – if it is good and better than what we already get for free (the fact that in urban areas, radio stations give out info for free is the main barrier to fee-based services). R12 (n)
-- R13 (d)
--

C. Unresolved Issues

1. Compared with Europe, are North American transportation agencies more interested in preserving current modes of public funding than trying out financial innovation and, if so, why?
2. Where should the line be drawn between free public information and paid private information in any country or region?
3. 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?
4. Do we need further studies to prove that travel time reliability is the principal benefit to users?
5. 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?)

Other suggested issues for discussion:

6. What are the benefits to a public sector agency, if any, in encouraging the development of value-added services?
7. 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?
8. What balance should be struck between multi-modal and road based information?
9. 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?)

Notes / References

Return to ATIS Practices in Europe and North America Report