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

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 > 150km
 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 :20m
 Reaction time 1sec
 Braking capability :
[ –2m/s2, –5m/s2]
 Speed accuracy knowledge :
10%
 Results :
 Capacity Niv 1 :
994 Trucks/h
Static and dynamic platoons’
4 PL par convoi scenarios
•
• 15m intra-convois
 Hypotheses
• 45m entre convois






Speed : 110 km/h
Inter-distance between trucks in a platoon : 15m
minimal inter-distance between platoons : 45m
Homogeneous emergency braking inside a platoon (–5m/s2 )
Reaction time for emergency braking : 0.4sec
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€
6-7B€
7B€
Toll that balances
discounted expense costs at
50% capacity for 40 years
0,13-0,27€
0,040,13€
0,42€
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