Truck automation deployment studies in France International Task

Truck automation deployment studies in France International Task Force on Vehicle-Highway Automation, Detroit, July 22, 2004 J. M. Blosseville, S. Mammar

Content of the studies (1/2) · · · · Context (INRETS) Layout and costs (Cofiroute) Scenarios (All) Capacity & safety (LIVIC) Reliability and critical functions ( CNRS) Similar systems ( LCPC, INRETS) Entrance control (CNRS)

Content of the studies (2/2) · Dynamic simulation (INRIA) · Economy of the project (EMC, ENPC, INRETS) · Comparison with rail (INRETS) · Drivers’ point of views (YO consultants) · Research in US (RB consultant)

French Context : main elements · Predominance of the road haulage : trucks carry 80% of the goods (95% in economical value) · High dynamics : annual increasing : 3. 2%/an · High productivity of the road haulage : ~5%/year · Concentrated sector : 50% of the sector turnover is made by « 50 employees and + » companies · Big trucks : 90 % of tons. km are carried by tractor + semitrailors or trucks+trailors · Long distances : 3/4 of tons. km regard distances > 150 km · Importance of the travel on freeways : 50 % of the trucks’ travel are made on freeways

Studied layouts · Existing highways - Mixed traffic with dynamic separation · Additional lane - Modification of entrances, exits, parking platforms, bridges · Dedicated, independent infrastructure Chosen option · Advantages - Non mix traffic - Layout adapted to RA - Easy access control · Difficulties - Delay due to contruction Cost Profitability Ground to be found

Network layout & geographic situation · 1020 km · Calais-Bayonne · 1 lane/direction + emergency lane · 8 interchanges with the existing radial freeways

Studied Scenarios · Improved present situation : - Trucks manually driven +specific ADAS • Truck location tracing through radio+ GPS • Adaptive ACC (speed and interdistance fixed by infra) • Guided entrance operations : metering wrt available gaps + guidance through adapted IHM (giving optimal speed trajectory ) · “static platoon” scenario : - Platoons made in a static way on merging platforms + specific ADAS · “dynamic platoon” scenario : - Platoon are made dynamically on the freeway · RA : automated trucks

Studied similar systems · Chauffeur 1 and 2 (European FP 5 &6) - Platooning based on electronic tow bar -… · Safe-tunnel (European FP 6) - Truck on-board failure detection - Interdistance and speed control - Vehicle continuous checking thanks to two ways communication -… · ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) - Self-localization of the trains - Coordinated emergency braking - Capacity & safety management through bi-directionnal communication…

Capacity/safety considerations · Principles - Capacity =f (speed, inter-distances, vehicle length) - Safety =g(speed, braking capabilities, braking homogeneity, reaction time, emergency notification propagation) - One lane in a pipe-line, steady state (constant speed) - 2 safety levels : • Level 1 : no collision when hard braking ahead • Level 2 : minimum collision when brick wall ahead · Method : - Simulating various technological solutions (speed and distance control, emergency braking (fixed intensity, triggered by radio signaling…) on the same traffic model

Reference case : dedicated lane / manual driving · Hypotheses · Manual driving corresponds to safety level 1 · Speed : 90 km/h · Vehicle length : 20 m · Reaction time 1 sec · Braking capability : [ – 2 m/s 2, – 5 m/s 2] · Speed accuracy knowledge : 10% · Results : · Capacity Niv 1 : 994 Trucks/h

Static and dynamic platoons’ 4 PL par convoi scenarios • • 15 m intra-convois · Hypotheses • 45 m entre convois · · · Speed : 110 km/h Inter-distance between trucks in a platoon : 15 m minimal inter-distance between platoons : 45 m Homogeneous emergency braking inside a platoon (– 5 m/s 2 ) Reaction time for emergency braking : 0. 4 sec 4 PL par platoon · Results · Safety level 1 /Capacity compromise : · 2600 Trucks/h, accident brick wall type 14 trucks involved · Safety level 2 /Capacity compromise : · 1800 trucks/h, accident brick wall type 4 trucks involved

Automated trucks scenario · Hypotheses · Same as platoon scenarios · Results · Safety level 1 /Capacity · 3100 Trucks/h, accident brick wall type 8 trucks involved · Safety level 2 /Capacity c · 1800 trucks/h, accident brick wall type 4 trucks involved

Economy of the project Project cost ~ 6, 3 billions € Coût per unit Number Cost Freeway km 6, 10 M€HT 1 020 km 6 222 M€HT Service and parking area 3, 83 M€HT 8 31 M€HT Interchange 5, 11 M€HT 8 41 M€HT Control at entrance & toll 0, 04 M€HT 32 1 M€HT TOTAL 6 295 M€HT

Economy of the project · Good internal rate of profitability : 9 to 10, 6% · A less profitability (~2 to 3%) to be expected if - Restrictive policy regarding road construction - Slow deployment of automatisms · Significant economical advantages for road haulage companies - Travel time reduction due to speed increase and time break spent in vehicles · Reduction of the external costs - Moderate benefits, high if fuel cells develop

Comparison with alternative modes R-Shift-R RAPL Combined transport Number of trucks/day 16000 64000 8000 Investment costs 4 -9 B€ 6 -7 B€ 0, 040, 13€ 0, 42€ Toll that balances 0, 13 -0, 27€ discounted expense costs at 50% capacity for 40 years R-shift-R : improved railway solution RAPL : automated trucking Combined transport : road + rail existing solution

Driver’s points of view · Their main social values - Freedom, autonomy, responsibility · Their vision of the future : rather negative - competition due to arrivals of drivers from emergent countries - An feeling of loss autonomy due to increasing regulations - A negative view from light vehicle drivers - Fear that transportation by rail becomes predominant

Driver’s points of view · Reception of the concept - Higher speed than manual mode : allow longer travels but more dangerous - Automation : compatible with sleep or rest if safe - Recurrent questions • Is automation safe ? • Is it possible to take over in manual mode at any time ? • Economical model ? · Reception of the scenarios - Platoons : highest opposition • Follower : to depend on s. o. else, Leader : too heavy responsibility, in the middle risks maximum • Static : loss of waiting time • Dynamic : to be linked with unknown drivers - Autonomous automated trucks • More acceptable if take over always possible

Conclusion · Truck automation appears as a rather good solution. Several characteristics seems attractive : - Dedicated freeway - Only one automated lane appears as compatible with a long term demand - Technology can be progressively deployed - Platoons not an advantage except for fuel reduction - Economically viable, more than rail based solutions - Compatible with driver’s views if take over possible