Concluded Task Forces

The development and deployment of TM 2.0 services involves the cooperation of several actors and stakeholders from both “road side traffic management” and “in-vehicle” perspective, but also spread throughout the public and private sector. This task force collected the experiences and lessons learned from recent European initiatives and projects in the domain of innovative traffic management.

The different driving forces and expectations identified from public and private sector stakeholders confirmed the need for a simplified concept for depicting the organisational aspects associated to TM 2.0. Together with an initial set of traffic management related services and use cases, this information formed the basis for a further organisational architecture practical research.

The task force worked on the initial identification and structuring of the roles and responsibilities associated with the actors involved in different European local scenarios, projected for different TM 2.0 services. An organisational model architecture has been developed, accommodating different combinations of role and task allocation between public and private sectors.

The application of the reference architecture to future TM 2.0 pilot deployment locations will support the focus work of the TM 2.0 platform on identifying win-win business solutions for all the stakeholders involved and reinforce the cooperation with a view to enhancing the effectiveness and success of the services envisaged. Finding out where values lie within the different organisational schemes, helps us identify where values can be further enhanced or created.

This task force surveyed the latest developments and trends which may facilitate the development of innovative traffic management services and the areas where more work is needed and specific actions should be undertaken so as to facilitate the provision of such services by Traffic Management Centres and service providers.  It is expected that the provision of such services will be greatly facilitated by the high penetration of navigation devices in vehicles and nomadic devices and by the increase in availability of reliable traffic information provided by connected mobile users as well as by the progress already made in Europe as regards cooperative ITS data. In addition, the consensus in the development of appropriate standards will play a crucial role in this direction. Probe data should possibly be open and there should be a commonly accepted methodology ensuring the reliability of processed data. Probe data as well as the interface for data transfer between navigation systems and Traffic Management plans could be standardised and secured by a security infrastructure. This is even more true for intermodal traffic information. Users’ privacy concerns should be respected. Also, an agreement among service providers as regards the exchange of information presented on maps would greatly facilitate such services. To collect reliable data and to provide reliable mobility services a sufficient penetration should be reached and the mobile networks should be set up according to the expected data traffic resulting from the development of such services.

Moreover, the existing infrastructure of TMCs could be upgraded to become interoperable with vehicles of several manufacturers and several service providers. The relevant return of investment required for this upgrade should become evident to decision makers, although it should not be based only on monetary profits. Finally, relevant policies should be put in place and actions to increase awareness should be undertaken.

The focus of this task force was to provide the basis for data exchange between traffic management plans and procedures and in-car service providers, which should enable TM 2.0 services. This includes identifying the necessary data sets, determining quality requirements for these data sets, and defining requirements concerning privacy and security.

The task force engaged in carrying out the following tasks: collection of data sets that are necessary to close the loop between traffic management and in-car service providers; characterisation of the identified data sets; identification of the most important TM 2.0 services; visualisation of interrelations between services and data sets; definition of the use case – Traffic measures and individual routing information based on PVD; graphical representation of potential data exchange links; identification of the data sets that are most important to be exchanged; and identification of critical issues.

  • Advanced navigation services
  • Adaptive and dynamic traffic control
  • Traffic status and event detection

The conclusion of the task force is that the information concerning data is available on a general level and is very often complementary on each side of the data chain. However, for a more efficient understanding of the traffic and better navigation services, detailed data sharing would be necessary including agreed metadata.

The task force has raised important clarifications related to the data sets, the exchange of data and possible options for scalable implementation.

The work has led to the creation of additional task forces on the clear definition of traffic management plans and other measures and on the evaluation of the benefits of the TM 2.0 concept.

The following two illustrations show the exchange of data elements between traffic management centres and in-car service providers. The first diagram depicts the data exchange towards traffic management centres while the second diagram provides data exchange in the other direction towards mobility service providers. Nevertheless access and exchange procedures as well as options for contracts and agreements have to be discussed (considering possibilities for a bilateral approach, common fusion engine or TMC2.0 traffic management engines).


This Task Force has addressed the steps that can be taken to achieve an interactive and dynamic TM 2.0 by undertaking the following tasks:

  • Identify candidate areas (cities / regions) for the implementation of TM 2.0
  • Provide an overview of TM status and of the deployment steps needed to realise TM 2.0 in different representative cities / regions
  • Present the future plans and next steps towards further implementation of TM2.0

This Task Force does not engage in the deployment tasks but supports the TM2.0 members and candidate areas by providing guidance through a common framework, supporting local deployment plan and approach. It is important to note that this Task Force looks only at the deployment steps, leaving other aspects such as the identification of data, benefits, best practices, business models, contractual aspects, etc. to be addressed by other TM 2.0 Task Forces.

A common framework is seen by the TM 2.0 members as an important instrument for achieving a shared understanding of the benefits and challenges involved in the implementation of TM 2.0. It supports the identification and description of the relationships and interdependencies between ITS stakeholders involved in traffic management, and that includes the distribution of roles and tasks, and win-win situations sought to be achieved with the delivery of a specific TM 2.0 service solution. It also facilitates an efficient exchange of knowledge between different TM 2.0 deployment areas, allowing these cities and regions to capture and understand lessons learnt from each other.

The TF published its report in November 2016

The TM 2.0 ERTICO Innovation Platform Task Force (TF) on Value Proposition envisaged the definition of value propositions under consideration of different ITS stakeholder perspectives. In order to assess the diversity of needs, and ensure the ‘win-win’ principle is followed, the TF on Value Proposition examined four cities / regions in Europe, namely Thessaloniki, Helmond – Eindhoven – Tilburg, Salzburg and Barcelona and assessed their common vision in how TM 2.0 can help in facing the different challenges in their traffic management practices.

The following elements have been identified as key to enable a more efficient and effective traffic management:

  • TM 2.0 can establish a new bi-directional communication channel between users (as well as their service providers) and TMCs.
  • Some contents to be shared among the different stakeholders in the TM value chain are already well defined and there are standards available to format them (e.g. DATEX II for many TM-related concepts; or the widely accepted “Floating Car Data” specification etc.).
  • The four regions share the common vision that TM may not end with road traffic management only. Specifically, the vision is that efficient traffic management must integrate and exchange information from other modes of transport as well
  • Common to the four regions is the need to elaborate viable business cases for the deployment of win-win scenarios for all actors involved aiming at the shared goals of reducing congestion and pollution, improving road safety and being cost-effective at all levels. The public benefit ranks equally with the private driver’s satisfaction in the TM 2.0 concept.

The TF published its report in April 2016.

Automation along the entire chain of road transportation and services will play a key role in future transport systems. Traffic Management has to be ready to accommodate the circulation of automated vehicles. The main objective of this TF is to assess how the gradual road presence of automated vehicles, at automation level 3 and above, will affect the current Traffic Management practices.
Another objective is to analyse how new Traffic Management practices can facilitate the smooth integration of automated vehicles in real traffic, while gaining the maximum benefits from this introduction. Moreover, the TM 2.0 TF aims to explore the interaction between Traffic Management, automated vehicles and human drivers. The TF works under the principle that in order to establish an efficient and valuable interaction, “both ends” of the Traffic Management chain need to be prepared to communicate not only in the same language but also on the basis of similar technical and functional quality levels.
The Task Force on “Role of Automation in Traffic Management” has finalised its first and second phase report.

Quantifiable benefits and KPIs are essential when building a solid business case for deploying the TM 2.0 concept. The data exchange between Traffic Management Centres (TMCs) and Mobility Service providers (MSPs), has to be able to be assessed and measured so that success can be evaluated.
This TF focuses on defining a methodology for the Quantification of Benefits of TM2.0 by simulating TM 2.0 on two specific cities (Verona and Thessaloniki), which are treated as case studies.
The proposed methodology for the assessment of the impact TM 2.0 has with regards to traffic, environmental objectives, and safety, is using microscopic traffic simulation applied to the two cities that exhibit different sets of needs but a common approach to TM (TM 2.0). Interactive traffic management is based on the utilization of real-time traffic information (i.e. floating car data etc.) from traffic management operators for the optimization of the network performance. Thus, a dynamic micro simulation model is being developed for the evaluation of the effects of different traffic regulation schemes. For example, updated traffic signals and other traffic measures are being deployed in modeling and micro simulation in order to effectively quantify the benefits of TM 2.0 for all users and stakeholders.

The TM 2.0 concept on the exchange of Traffic Management Plans (TMPs) aims to enable, facilitate and accelerate the information exchange among traffic management stakeholders and in particular the access to policy and strategy based plans and actions as these are set by the public authorities and road operators. Specifically, TF8 works to define the concept of TMP (decisions, procedures and strategies) as it is key for the better understanding and development of TM 2.0, and what is included in TMPs and how to exchange it. The TM 2.0 TF on the exchange of TMPs work closely with TISA, the Travellers Information Services Association on defining and recommending possible harmonised standards on the format of TMPs. As TMPs have to be able to flow between traffic information service providers and traffic management centres/road operators, the format should be cost-effective and widely acceptable.

Traffic Management operations in general, and exchange of traffic management plans in particular, are very heterogeneous across Europe in terms of availability and quality. These can be explained by the different levels of available facilities (ICT infrastructure), tools or processes and the lack of standards in place within road infrastructure providers responsible for implementation of traffic management plans.

Traffic management ensures a minimum number of stops per driver, optimal routing of vehicles across the network and real time traffic information that enhances a ‘good’ driving behaviour (i.e. without unnecessary acceleration, deceleration, gear changes, etc.), which in turn favours the safety of all users within the road network and mitigates congestion. The main objective of an evolved traffic management strategy is to ensure smooth flows of vehicles across the entire road network, where vehicles travel at a steady and optimum speed so that fuel consumption and CO2 emissions can be reduced to a minimum.

Task Force Proposal Objectives

  • Ensure that the evolution of TM  is taking Road Automation into account
  • Build on the results of the former phases of the Task Force on Automation in TM

Work Plan

  • Survey the needs for new “digital infrastructure” (new schemes for TMCs taking into account high precision maps, etc.) related to automation
  • Examine the evolution of the infrastructure from classical one to digital and the path through a hybrid infrastructure which is expected to be available for a long period of time, always in relation with the special needs imposed by highly automated driving
  • Survey the needs for location referencing standards and quality of relevant data
  • Analyse the possible needs for new interfaces and communication technologies (e.g. G5 or 5G or both, LTE-V) that will be able to address the needs of highly automated driving and communicate outcomes to relevant EU standardization committees (e.g. EIP and TISA)
  • Examine and start working towards a classification of infrastructure in relation with the requirements of automation in cooperation with the newly funded H2020 project, INFRAMIX

Task Force Proposal Objectives

  • Use the results of the finalized Report of the TF on Deployment Steps in order to identify Best Practices on the deployment of aspects (individual components) of the general TM 2.0 concept, and collect them on a template/Survey format (on roles of stakeholders/business cases/ex of TMPs etc.) at city and region level
  • Elaborate deeper on what is needed with regards to TM 2.0 innovation procurement process
  • integrate in the TF Report the assessment of the new role the TMCs are taking in the future (PP cooperation)
  • Implement a TM 2.0 market place via the deployment of new solutions & new services coming out of TM 2.0 by linking into existing projects and pilots/trials (and by possibly profiting from the TM 2.0’s members participating in new ones)
  • Put to the test the results of the TF on ‘Quantification of Benefits’ and those of the TF on “Value Proposition” by observing the benefits in real-traffic- if possible
  • Identify TM 2.0 practices and potential for TM 2.0 Use Cases in the H2020 projects currently commencing under ERTICO
  • Link the TF members with H2020 and CEF schemes

Work Plan

  • Create an inventory of best practices and classify these at city, service, and objective level.
  • Implement TM 2.0 market place for cities and industry on new solutions for advanced active traffic management.
  • Expected report mid-2017