Main Conclusions


3.3 On Pan-European Basis

3.3.2 Main Conclusions

The main remarks and conclusions arisen during the workshop (which, in reality, further support the findings of the national surveys and the Greek workshop) are summarised below (Bekiaris and Gemou, 2006):

 There are several differences in upper level management and operation of DG transport. For example, in each region the authorised body for the handling of DG accidents may be different (i.e. in Germany the authorised body is the Fire Brigade).

 In many cases and countries, the emergency services are not as efficient as they should be due to the lack of the relevant know-how of the personnel with regard to the DG accidents mitigation.

Hellenic Institute of Transport / Centre for Research & Technology Hellas 18  In some cases, there are some restrictions for DG transportation

concerning specific regions and roads, especially in densely populated areas.

 The main info needed for emergency services are the specific position of the accident, early notification of the type and mainly the properties of the cargo, preferably in national language, the in-time and accurate notification of provoked injuries and/or fatalities, the notice on involvement of other vehicles, detection of leakage and/or fire, the direction and speed of the wind, other weather conditions, etc.

 In addition, info related to the reaction of DG transported as well as guidelines/tactics to be followed from the fire fighters (or other emergency personnel) in case of an accident/incident would be very helpful.

 A portal that would enable connection of the Fire Brigade (or other services) to the information centre in a direct way would be helpful.  There are some regions (i.e. Greece), where DG vehicles are not allowed

to use tunnels and some of the bridges, because there are great risks and costs related. Societal risk seems to be of great importance also for the companies’ profile. Companies need to convince on security provision and social sensitisation. Thus, they are in general keen in avoiding sensitive areas and vulnerable populations.

 DG trucks may be also used as a means for other purposes, like terrorism; thus, the company needs to know exactly and in a dynamic way their route and position for security reasons.

 There is an emerging need for safety enhancement and horizontal compliance with existing European and national regulations for DG transportation.

 New technological systems need to support driver monitoring, their compliance to traffic regulations, etc.

 There is an obvious need for as much as possible cost effective operations, engaging fewer vehicles, less mileage and low cost trips and, if possible, other added value allied services (i.e. tolls for special infrastructure).

 The actual added value of a cooperative system like the one envisioned would be the most effective combination of added value services from safety, security if possible, cost-efficiency and minimisation of societal risk overall.

 The most feasible Business Cases want such systems to be owned both by system owners and transporters, since some of the latest may want to buy it themselves.

Hellenic Institute of Transport / Centre for Research & Technology Hellas 19  There are three possible Business Cases3 (BC) for such a system

successful penetration:

o BC 1: Voluntarily use for internal purposes. o BC 2: Voluntarily use with additional benefits. o BC 3: Mandatory use.

 Such a system could be also used in a reverse way, for the establishment of a regulation for example. This would give added value in some countries like Greece. However, this would require availability of statistical data, which may be difficult to gather and process at the beginning but, in a few years horizon, these data will be available anyway.

 Some of the parameters that were considered important for the system ontology were the type of trailer (if it is a bulk), the maximum dimensions of the vehicle, the turbo and the breaks temperature, etc.  Tyres pressure sensors and sensors measuring cargo temperature,

leakage, etc. should be ideally incorporated in the system.

 For the conflict resolution, the following two principles were proposed for consideration:

o 1st case: Design of conflict resolution in view of the infrastructure operator benefit.

o 2nd case: Design of conflict resolution taking into consideration the business priorities for the whole logistic network.

However, the principle “First in (first that requests) first out” was proposed to be the safest way to go in terms of various conflicts encountered.

 Expert rules that will be embedded in the system algorithms should be better customisable in order to comply with the infrastructure policy.

3 Please note that this finding was the basis for the deployment scenarios elaboration, as

Hellenic Institute of Transport / Centre for Research & Technology Hellas 21



4.1 Introduction

Responding to the identified key concerns in Dangerous Goods Transportation as indicated by the major problems noticed in the field (see section 1.1), the accident statistics (Chapter 2) and, the needs of the relevant stakeholders of the Dangerous Goods logistic chain (Chapter 3), and, finally, the gaps and deficiencies in the current market and research solutions as these have been recognized in detail through a thorough market analysis (Bekiaris et al., 2006), a cooperative system for DG transportation was developed in the context of the GOOD ROUTE project.

The GOOD ROUTE initiative was launched, as a project of the FP6 eSafety initiative, starting on 01/01/2006 and lasting 37 months. It has been a multidisciplinary Consortium of 14 Partners, led by the Informatics and Telematics Institute (Coordinator) and the Hellenic Institute of Transport (HIT) of the Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH), including all key actors in the field, such as a route guidance manufacturers (PTV), a telematic systems developer (SIEMENS), a telecom operator (TID), vehicle manufacturers (CRF, IVECO), 3 major road operators (GST, FINRE, SITAF) with particular infrastructure elements, end user representatives (ELPA, an Automobile Club of FIA) and key know-how providers (CERTH, UPM, USTUTT, ICCS and COAT) for user needs, legal and ethical issues. In addition, one of the biggest dangerous goods producers and carriers worldwide, BP, was committed to provide support to the Consortium during the whole project duration.

In specific, the vision was a cooperative system for dangerous goods vehicle routing, monitoring, re-routing (in case of need), enforcement and driver support, based upon dynamic, real time data, aiming to minimise the Societal Risks related to their movements, while still generating the most cost efficient solution for all actors involved.

In order to approach this aim, the main objectives set were as follows:

 To analyse dangerous goods accidents and needs of the dangerous goods companies, transporters, drivers, recipient clients, transport infrastructure owners, authorities, etc., as well as the best practises followed so far, for the specification of an integrated, cost-efficient, fair and modular system.

Hellenic Institute of Transport / Centre for Research & Technology Hellas 22  To develop an ontological framework, which will classify and correlate

the dangerous cargo, vehicle types and road infrastructure elements, to automatically permit or re-route specific dangerous good vehicles through specific road infrastructures (i.e. tunnels, long bridges, etc.).  To develop a collaborative platform, able to gather and process in real

time vehicle, cargo and environmental data (road status, unexpected obstacles, weather conditions, population density) as input to an optimal routing and route guidance system.

 To develop a minimum risk guidance system, that is able to route and re-route dangerous goods vehicles, taking into account individual and societal risk (based upon the collaborative platform based dynamic data), as well as conflict resolution and equity schemes.

 To develop Control Centre algorithms that will deal with movements of all participating dangerous goods vehicles within a certain geographical area, to provide the necessary traffic and environmental data to them and inform in real time their logistic chain for any unscheduled re- routing required.

 To develop an on-board automatic data retrieval and storage system, to monitor key dangerous goods vehicle parameters (actual vs. planned route, speed, weight per axle, etc.), able to supply it to local nodes (i.e. police car at toll station or before tunnel/bridge, etc.) for enforcement purposes.

 To develop optimal user interfaces for both the drivers of the dangerous goods vehicle and the control centre operators, to provide them with appropriate information and/or warnings, without adversely affecting their workload or causing unnecessary behavioural adaptations.

 To integrate all functions in a prototype vehicle and test them in three Pilot sites, across Europe, to evaluate their reliability, usability, successfulness, cost efficiency and thus estimate their potential safety impact and viability.

 To involve all key actors in the dangerous goods transportation chain, as well as OEMs and sensor suppliers in order to result in a viable business strategy for wide and quick diffusion of the system.

Major innovation of the integrated system developed lies in the following:

 Development of a decision support system (and algorithms) for dangerous goods vehicles routing and re-routing, that takes into account dynamic data about the vehicle, the cargo, the infrastructure and the environment; individual risk, societal risk, as well as logistic chain requirements, constraints and equity schemes.

Hellenic Institute of Transport / Centre for Research & Technology Hellas 23  Integration of this decision support system within an on-board route

guidance system, an infrastructure control operators’ management system and the dangerous goods supply logistic chain intranet.

 Development of an appropriate monitoring and enforcement system, that makes use of all gathered data, and provides automatically key enforcement indicators to local enforcement positions.

 Provision of priority to the safety of dangerous good transportation, while taking into account business demands, network efficiency and conflicts resolution.

 Provision of support to dangerous goods drivers through “pushed” (when a traffic or other event requires it) or “pulled” (when they need navigation) services, without the need of communication to a control center (high cost) or a local node (language barriers).

In summary, the major intended innovation and impact envisioned was to contribute in making European infrastructure (roads, tunnels, bridges, etc.) safer, by providing supported and enforced minimum risk routing/rerouting of dangerous goods vehicles instead of the arbitrary and unguided practices of today.

The following Chapters of this issue elaborate on the approach followed in order to achieve the above targets as well as on the final outcomes and the assessment of the system impact in several aspects, with safety being the premium, followed by cost efficiency, transport operation efficiency, comfort and quality of life of interconnected users and, finally, market penetration, assessment of its competitiveness and deployment potential as well as contribution to dominating standards, policies and practices in the area.