COBRA+ Monitor Specification



ANACONDA

Specification of the COBRA+ Monitor

Deliverable No 2.1

October 2016

[pic] [pic] [pic]

Project Nr. 850708

Project acronym: ANACONDA

Project title:

Assessment of user Needs for Adapting COBRA including ONline DAtabase

Deliverable No 2.1 – Specification of the COBRA+ Monitor

Due date of deliverable: 31.03.2016

Actual submission date: 31.10.2016

Start date of project: 01.09.2015 End date of project: 28.02.2017

Author(s) this deliverable:

Simon Ball, Jean Hopkin, Andy Wells, Peter Vermaat, Alan Stevens (Transport Research Laboratory, UK)

Kerry Malone, Aroen Soekroella, Martijn de Kievit (TNO, the Netherlands)

Philippe Nitsche, Isabela Mocanu, Klemens Schwieger, Stephan Wittmann (AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Austria)

Version: 0.08 – Draft

Executive summary

Current Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) share information and data using either Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) and/or Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) communication. The systems can provide advice, warnings or take actions with the objective of improving safety, sustainability, efficiency and comfort, thus contributing to a road authority’s objectives. However, to keep up with the fast development of C-ITS, road authorities are confronted with various challenges, such as determining the role that the road authority must play in the interaction between automotive manufacturers and information providers, investing in a cost-beneficial way in roadside infrastructure to support the information provision between vehicles and infrastructure, positioning of road authorities across CEDR countries towards C-ITS.

The “Assessment of user needs for adapting COBRA including online database” (ANACONDA) project builds on the results of the previous COBRA project and aims to position COBRA+ as a major tool for decision- support for deployment of C-ITS for National Road Authorities (NRAs). The COBRA+ tool builds on the strengths of the original COBRA tool. COBRA is a decision support tool in the form of a spreadsheet that enables NRAs to compare the costs and monetised benefits of C-ITS in various contexts to support investment decisions under different deployment scenarios. The new COBRA+ tool will be enhanced with new functionalities, greater geographic coverage and more flexibility and therefore updated to meet the requirements of users who, having made use of the COBRA tool, have a clear idea of what may be improved and enhanced.

This deliverable sets out the specification of the COBRA+ Monitor which accompanies the COBRA+ tool. It should be read in conjunction with ANACONDA deliverable D3.1 (Specification of the COBRA+ Tool).

This specification document starts by summarising the requirements for the COBRA+ Monitor which were gathered from potential users of the COBRA+ tool. It sets out the six key functions of the Monitor which are defined in terms of the six key questions, which the Monitor is intended to help NRAs to answer:

A. Who is using the COBRA+ tool, what scenarios are they conducting and what outputs are they obtaining?

B. What user-defined inputs are being used in the COBRA+ tool, e.g. different cost data?

C. What is the experience of users of the COBRA+ tool?

D. What are the impacts of different C-ITS services and bundles, measured in terms of indicators within the COBRA+ tool?

E. What are the impacts of different C-ITS services and bundles, measured in terms of indicators not within the COBRA+ tool, from other ad hoc data sources?

F. What strategic plans are there for C-ITS in different countries?

This specification provides a brief diagrammatic overview of the way in which the COBRA+ Monitor works, a description of the key functions, the web site and the online database that will support the web site.

Table of contents

1 Introduction 6

2 Summary of requirements to be addressed 6

2.1 Requirements collection 6

2.2 Functionality / Questions the COBRA+ Monitor will attempt to answer 7

3 Overview of COBRA+ Monitor 8

3.1 Data sources for each function 8

3.2 Data flows 8

4 Functionality of the website 10

4.1 [A] Scenario-specific data (output from the COBRA+ tool) 10

4.2 [B] User-defined input data (output from the COBRA+ tool) 10

4.3 [C] User feedback on experiences (optional user survey) 11

4.4 [D] Impact assessment data (D3 from previous COBRA project and also updated data in COBRA+) 13

4.5 [E] Ad hoc impact data sources (shared by individual users via a web form, with email alerts) 14

4.6 [F] Survey of CEDR members (one-off online survey) 14

5 Website details 15

5.1 Hosting 15

5.2 Website look and feel 15

5.2.1 [A] Scenario-specific data 15

5.2.2 [B] User-defined input data 17

5.2.3 [C] User feedback on experiences 17

5.2.4 [D] Impact assessment data 18

5.2.5 [E] Ad hoc impact data sources 18

5.2.6 [F] Survey of CEDR members 18

6 Database details and upload procedures 19

6.1 Overview 19

6.2 [A] UploadScenario() function 20

6.2.1 Data flows 20

6.2.2 Table: T_Scenarios - uploaded scenario-specific data 20

6.2.3 Table: T_Graphs - uploaded graphs 23

6.3 [B] UploadUDI(UDI_Identifier) function 24

6.3.1 Data flows 24

6.3.2 Table T_UDI – uploaded user specific data 24

6.4 [C] Feedback webpages 28

6.5 [E] Ad hoc impact data sources 28

7 References 29

Annex A. Preliminary requirements for COBRA+ Monitor 30

Annex B. Examples of graphs exported to COBRA+ Monitor 31

List of tables

Table 1 – Example table for scenario-specific data 10

Table 2 – Example table for user-defined data 11

Table 3 – Fields in database table 'T_Scenarios' 21

Table 4 - Fields in database table ‘T_Graphs’ 23

Table 5 – Fields in database table ‘T_UDI’ 25

List of figures

Figure 1 – Overall system operation 9

Figure 2 – Example of user-defined input data within the COBRA+ spreadsheet 11

Figure 3 – Example of feedback form 12

Figure 4 – Example of main web page for uploaded scenarios 16

Figure 5 – Example of more detail available for each scenario 16

Figure 6 – Example interface for user-defined inputs 17

Figure 7 – Example of feedback received web page 17

Figure 8 – Example of impact assessment web page 18

Figure 9 – Example of ad hoc impact assessment web page 18

Figure 10 – Class diagram 19

Figure 11 – Sequence diagram for the UploadScenario() function 20

Figure 12 – Sequence diagram for the UploadUDI(UDI_INDEX) function 24

Introduction

Current Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) share information and data using either Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I) and/or Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) communication. The systems can provide advice, warnings or take actions with the objective of improving safety, sustainability, efficiency and comfort, thus contributing to a road authority’s objectives. However, to keep up with the fast development of C-ITS, road authorities are confronted with various challenges, such as determining the role that the road authority must play in the interaction between automotive manufacturers and information providers, investing in a cost-beneficial way in roadside infrastructure to support the information provision between vehicles and infrastructure, positioning of road authorities across CEDR countries towards C-ITS.

The “Assessment of user needs for adapting COBRA including online database” (ANACONDA) project builds on the results of the previous COBRA project and aims to position COBRA+ as a major tool for decision-making support for deployment of C-ITS for National Road Authorities (NRAs). The COBRA+ tool builds on the strengths of the original COBRA tool. COBRA is a decision support tool in the form of a spreadsheet that enables NRAs to compare the costs and monetised benefits of C-ITS in various contexts to support investment decisions under different deployment scenarios. The new COBRA+ tool will be enhanced with new functionalities, greater geographic coverage and more flexibility and therefore updated to meet the requirements of users who, having made use of the COBRA tool, have a clear idea of what may be improved and enhanced.

The COBRA+ spreadsheet tool will be accompanied by a private website called the COBRA+ Monitor. This document sets out the specification for the COBRA+ Monitor which forms part of work package WP2 within the ANACONDA project. This document is structured as follows:

• Section 2: Summary of requirements to be addressed

• Section 3: Overview of COBRA+ Monitor

• Section 4: Functionality of the website

• Section 5: Website details

• Section 6: Database details and upload procedures

• Annex A: Preliminary requirements for COBRA+ Monitor

• Annex B: Examples of graphs exported to COBRA+ Monitor.

Other related deliverables include the following:

• D1.1: Results from the stakeholder requirement analysis (Mocanu et al. 2016)

• D3.1: Specification of the COBRA+ spreadsheet (Ball et al. 2016).

Summary of requirements to be addressed

1 Requirements collection

The first stage in developing the user requirements for the COBRA+ Monitor involved presenting an initial proposal for the COBRA+ Monitor to the workshop for representatives of the NRAs held in November 2015, and capturing the feedback from the NRAs during the workshop. This feedback was then used to refine the initial proposal; the revised proposal was then presented to some of the PEB members individually during January and February and in the second workshop in May 2016. The full list of requirements collected from these meetings can be found in Annex A.

The following requirements were identified from these discussions.

Purpose:

• The COBRA+ Monitor is intended to monitor:

o plans for deployment of C-ITS

o implementations of C-ITS

o impacts of C-ITS

o use of the COBRA+ tool.

• It should promote information sharing between countries to enable them to learn from each other. This information-sharing is voluntary.

Countries covered and access to information:

• Countries where the COBRA+ tool is being used – the six countries covered by the tool as a minimum.

• Users of the COBRA+ Monitor are expected to mainly be users of the COBRA+ tool; however other CEDR road authorities may also wish to use it. Access will be granted to these five countries (and possibly the PEB) via a private website (possibly hosted on the new CEDR website).

Content of the COBRA+ Monitor should include:

• Cost data used by the NRAs in the COBRA+ tool;

• Bundles of services analysed by the NRAs in the COBRA+ tool to indicate deployment plans;

• Outcomes of analyses carried out by NRAs in the COBRA+ tool to provide lessons learned;

• Monitoring C-ITS implementations using common indicators;

• Monitoring use of the COBRA+ tool.

Timing and flexibility:

• The Monitor should be designed so that it is flexible enough to be refined during the remainder of the ANACONDA project (i.e. 2016) to take account of the results of current deployment projects; an iterative process is envisaged.

2 Functionality / Questions the COBRA+ Monitor will attempt to answer

A further proposal for the COBRA+ Monitor was developed on the basis of the requirements summarised above. This outline proposal was presented to the CEDR ITS Group in February 2016 and was well received.

The various functionality requirements were synthesised into six proposed questions that the COBRA+ Monitor will help NRAs to answer:

A. Who is using the COBRA+ tool, what scenarios are they conducting and what outputs are they obtaining?

B. What user-defined inputs are being used in the COBRA+ tool, e.g. different cost data?

C. What is the experience of users of the COBRA+ tool?

D. What are the impacts of different C-ITS services and bundles, measured in terms of indicators within the COBRA+ tool?

E. What are the impacts of different C-ITS services and bundles, measured in terms of indicators not within the COBRA+ tool, from other ad hoc data sources?

F. What strategic plans are there for C-ITS in different countries?

Overview of COBRA+ Monitor

1 Data sources for each function

The COBRA+ Monitor will draw on a range of data; specifically it is proposed to use the following sources to enable for the six functions outlined above, respectively:

A. Run-specific data (output from the COBRA+ tool)

B. User-defined input data (output from the COBRA+ tool)

C. User feedback on experiences (optional user survey)

D. Impact assessment data (D3 from previous COBRA project and also updated data in COBRA+)

E. Ad hoc impact data sources (shared by individual users via a web form, with email alerts)

F. Survey of CEDR members (one-off online survey)

2 Data flows

Figure 1 sets out the anticipated operation of the COBRA+ Monitor system, with the six data sources labelled A-F.

[pic]

Figure 1 – Overall system operation

The intention is that the various users of the COBRA+ tool will keep a local copy of the spreadsheet on their own machines. The default settings for these parallel versions will be identical, although there will be the opportunity to modify some parameters and include user-defined data.

Users will be able to use their version of the COBRA+ tool to share inputs and outputs with authorised users via a private webpage interface. This will be achieved with buttons within the tool so that the user can decide when they want to upload to the online database system. Some but not all of the data will be pushed from the tool into a central database, while the majority of the data is stored only within the COBRA+ tool.

The user webpages for each of the six functions and data sources are discussed in turn in Section 4. The database for four of the data sources (A, B, C and E) is discussed in Section 6.

Functionality of the website

1 [A] Scenario-specific data (output from the COBRA+ tool)

Function: Who is using the COBRA+ tool, what scenarios are they conducting and what outputs are they obtaining?

The user of the COBRA+ Tool will have an option to ‘Export scenarios to Monitor’. On doing so, the selected use case (bundles selected, communications platform, business model, etc.) for each of the two scenarios in the tool will be exported to the Monitor along with outputs (graphs, BCR, etc.). Thus, the export from the tool will create two new records (one for each scenario) in the database and on the Monitor web pages. Graphs contain information for both scenarios in the tool and will only be exported once and linked to the scenario records to which they relate. Samples showing the format of the graphs in the COBRA+ Tool which will be exported to the Monitor are included in Annex B.

The user will also be asked to provide an additional set of free text input fields, namely a brief description of the project being assessed: what, where, why and when. This will help users to interpret outputs from the Monitor which have been generated by other users and to understand the deployments which are being considered by those users. Outputs will be in the form of both tables and graphs; example outputs are given in Table 1.

Table 1 – Example table for scenario-specific data

|Scenario |Inputs |Outputs |

|Tool version |Date of scenario run |

|Tool version |Date of scenario run |Type of cost |Unit cost |Lifetime (years) |

|AT |dd/mm/yy |Wireless beacons |€10k |10 |

|NL |dd/mm/yy |Wireless beacons |€15k |20 |

|DE |dd/mm/yy |VMS |€200k |30 |

|DE |dd/mm/yy |VMS |€250k |30 |

2 [C] User feedback on experiences (optional user survey)

Function: What is the experience of users of the COBRA+ tool?

A link to an optional user survey will be included on the Monitor, whereby users can share their experiences of the tool. This user will need to log in to the password protected area, which will in turn identify the NRA of the user to the feedback system. The user will then be able to provide feedback on the webpage in one or more of the following categories:

• Best practice for use of the COBRA+ tool – The primary purpose of the feedback function is to share best practice on the use of the COBRA+ spreadsheet: what worked; what didn’t work etc.

• Suggestions for improvements – A secondary function is to provide suggestions for improvements on the COBRA+ tool and/or the COBRA+ Monitor webpages. These suggestions will be logged for consideration in future updates of the tool and Monitor[1].

Answers to the optional survey will be automatically uploaded to the Monitor when the user presses ‘submit’. If feedback is about the COBRA tool, then the user will be asked to specify which version of the COBRA tool they are using[2]. This will require the version of the tool to be displayed and easily accessible to the user. The date of submitted feedback will also be recorded. An example of the feedback form for the website is provided as Figure 3.

[pic]

Figure 3 – Example of feedback form

3 [D] Impact assessment data (D3 from previous COBRA project and also updated data in COBRA+)

Function: What are the impacts of different C-ITS services and bundles, measured in terms of indicators within the COBRA+ tool?

Deliverable D3 from the original COBRA project presented the findings of the synthesis of various C-ITS impact assessment studies (Mocanu et al. 2013). The main impacts were in terms of the following indicators:

• Road Safety - Number of fatalities

• Road Safety - Number of serious injuries[3]

• Road Safety - Number of slight injuries

• Road Safety - Damage cost of injury accidents

• Travel time - Total time spent travelling[4]

• Fuel consumption - Money spent on petrol (excluding tax)

• Fuel consumption - Money spent on diesel (excluding tax)

• Emissions - CO2

• Emissions - NOx

• Emissions - PM-2.5

As part of the ANACONDA project, these findings will be revisited and updated and included in the COBRA+ tool where appropriate. (Note that the COBRA+ Tool will not include NOx and PM-2.5 emissions because in order to adequately take account of these air quality impacts it would be necessary to accurately reflect the exposure of people to emissions which is not possible given the data available.) A webpage will be included within the Monitor to summarise the key points for each source:

• Type of impact assessment, date, authors

• C-ITS services included

• Findings on predicted impacts for key indicators

• Links to source documents for further information

This will not be included in the database; rather, it will be a one-off activity to create a webpage.

4 [E] Ad hoc impact data sources (shared by individual users via a web form, with email alerts)

Function: What are the impacts of different C-ITS services and bundles, measured in terms of indicators not within the COBRA+ tool, from other ad hoc data sources?

Users of the COBRA+ Monitor may be interested in impact assessment data that is not included within the current version of the COBRA+ tool. As such, it is proposed to create a function within the Monitor whereby it is possible to share information on new impact assessment studies. Such studies may include indicators not within the COBRA+ tool, e.g. response time to incidents, detection time etc. Alternatively the studies may just include new estimates for impacts for indicators already within the COBRA+ tool e.g. a different % reduction in collisions etc.

Users of this function will populate information in a web form, with information similar to the fields described in Section 4.4. Upon submitting this information, the relevant webpage within the Monitor will be updated.

Additionally if the functionality of the server allows, it is proposed to set up an email subscription alert so that when new information is added to this part of the Monitor those that have subscribed will receive an email. There will need to be webpages or an email response system for the user to manage their subscription – frequency of alerts, change address, cancel alerts etc.

5 [F] Survey of CEDR members (one-off online survey)

Function: What strategic plans are there for C-ITS in different countries?

CEDR conducts a biennial survey on the deployment of ITS and C-ITS. The CEDR 2015 report on KPIs now has defined 4 levels of ITS equipment:

0= no ITS

1= monitoring of the road section by the NRA with ITS

2= travel and traffic information available via ITS

3= active management of the network with ITS

4= C-ITS.

Thus the results of this survey will provide information on existing implementations, but the project will also assemble information for CEDR on future plans.

In order to do this a survey will be carried out among CEDR members on the C-ITS deployment and implementation plans, to provide additional data to monitor C-ITS deployment which is not available from the COBRA+ tool itself. This one-off survey will be emailed to the appropriate staff within the NRAs and the responses will be processed and uploaded onto the Monitor.

Questions for the survey will be as follows:

• What existing implementations are there of V2I C-ITS on your network?

• What existing implementations are there of V2V C-ITS on your network? (these may not involve any roadside infrastructure)

• What future plans are there for V2I C-ITS on your network?

Website details

1 Hosting

The database will reside alongside the web pages. This will be on the CEDR web server to enable CEDR to manage the website after the ANACONDA project has been completed.

The hosting company used by CEDR has indicated that the new website will run as a LAMP (ubuntu, mysql, apache, PHP) stack. Accordingly, if hosted by CEDR, the database behind the COBRA+ monitor will be in mysql and the web pages will be written in PHP.

Each NRA will be setup with a login for the COBRA+ monitor web page. Each NRA COBRA+ tool will also have a login to allow upload of scenarios and user-defined inputs to the database.

Storage space is anticipated to be needed for up to 500 scenarios (i.e. 250 user uploads). The largest component in terms of file size is likely to be the graphs. Some graphs contain lines for both scenarios, whereas for others there is one graph for each scenario. In total for every two scenarios uploaded there will be 16 graphs. The file size for the total number of graphs is estimated at 400kb (png file format) and therefore for the assumed maximum 250 uploads the total storage size for graphs would be 100MB. The anticipated maximum size of the database is estimated at 250MB.

2 Website look and feel

It is anticipated that the website will comprise a number of tabs corresponding to the different types of information, as set out above. Selecting a tab will provide outputs relevant to that type of information:

• [A] Scenario-specific data (output from the COBRA+ tool)

• [B] User-defined input data (output from the COBRA+ tool)

• [C] User feedback on experiences (optional user survey)

• [D] Impact assessment data (D3 from previous COBRA project and also updated data in COBRA+)

• [E] Ad hoc impact data sources (shared by individual users via a web form, with email alerts)

• [F] Survey of CEDR members (one-off online survey).

1 [A] Scenario-specific data

This tab of monitor web pages will allow users to view the submitted scenarios in a summary tabular format with the option to filter and sort the records; an example interface is provided in Figure 4. Each entry in the initial tabular summary of runs will be presented alongside a link for the user to obtain more detailed information about the run.

The scenario-specific data web pages will interact with the database using SQL commands such as “SELECT”, with “WHERE” conditions, and “ORDER BY” to return the records which the user is interested in. The corresponding records will be listed and provide the opportunity for the user to get more information about each scenario and the graphs; an example interface is provided in Figure 5.

[pic]

Figure 4 – Example of main web page for uploaded scenarios

[pic]

Figure 5 – Example of more detail available for each scenario

2 [B] User-defined input data

This tab of the monitor web pages will allow users to view the submitted user-defined inputs. A summary tabular format will be provided, allowing the user to select user-defined inputs for either costs or impacts. Each entry will provide a link to the relevant scenario to which the user-defined input relates; an example interface is provided in Figure 6.

The user-defined input web page will interact with the database using SQL commands such as “SELECT”, with “WHERE” conditions, and “ORDER BY” to return the records which the user is interested in.

[pic]

Figure 6 – Example interface for user-defined inputs

3 [C] User feedback on experiences

This tab will allow users to view the submitted feedback, both the suggested best practice and suggestions for improvements in a future project; an example interface is shown in Figure 7. A link to the feedback web page will be provided, as indicated in Figure 3 above.

[pic]

Figure 7 – Example of feedback received web page

4 [D] Impact assessment data

The updated synthesis of impact assessment data will be presented in tabular format for each service and bundle in turn. An example is shown in Figure 8.

[pic]

Figure 8 – Example of impact assessment web page

5 [E] Ad hoc impact data sources

The ad hoc impact assessment data will be presented in tabular format with one row for each submission, see Figure 9.

[pic]

Figure 9 – Example of ad hoc impact assessment web page

6 [F] Survey of CEDR members

A link to the summary of the CEDR members’ survey will be included on a web page.

Database details and upload procedures

1 Overview

This section outlines the design of the online database; as discussed in Section 3, data sources A, B, C and E will be contained in the database. Data sources D and F will not be in the database (D is in the COBRA+ tool and can be referred to there, while F is gathered via stand-alone survey that cannot readily be integrated into the database.

The database should be SQL compliant using the utf8 character set. It will reside within a password protected location such that only authorised users can upload to it using the COBRA+ tool and only authorised users can interact with the database via the webpages. The database is likely to contain the following tables:

• [A] Uploaded Scenarios – populated by country instances of COBRA+;

• [B] Uploaded User-Defined Inputs – populated by country instances of COBRA+;

• [C] User Feedback – populated by the Feedback webpage(s); and

• [E] Ad hoc impact data sources – shared by individual users.

The main CEDR website is running Linux Apache and therefore the simplest choice for an SQL compliant database is likely to be MySQL. However, other databases are available for Linux server systems and CEDR may already have another system installed.

Figure 10 outlines the design of the online database. The following sections specify the various functions within it.

[pic]

Figure 10 – Class diagram

2 [A] UploadScenario() function

1 Data flows

The UploadScenario() function will allow a COBRA user to upload details of the two scenarios in the COBRA+ tool to the central database. Uploaded scenarios will be available to view by all users via the Monitor webpages (see Figure 1 on page 9).

When making an upload, the user will have the opportunity to either create a new entry in the database or overwrite a previous entry in the database. Figure 11 provides a sequence diagram showing the interaction between the user, COBRA+ tool for a specific country and the database for the scenario upload functionality.

The COBRA+ tool allows two scenarios to be run side-by-side and a comparison made with graphs showing the difference between the two scenarios. Both scenarios will be output when the user chooses to export from the COBRA+ tool and then the graphs will be output and linked to the two scenarios as Figure 11below shows.

[pic]

Figure 11 – Sequence diagram for the UploadScenario() function

2 Table: T_Scenarios - uploaded scenario-specific data

The database table T_Scenarios will contain the details of uploaded scenario-specific information. This table could potentially be split by type into: scenario information, inputs, parameters, and outputs; if the database design is more efficient with smaller tables. The fields within the table are anticipated to be as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 – Fields in database table 'T_Scenarios'

|Field Name |Worksheet |Data type |Optional or mandatory |Description |Input / |Monitor page |

| | | | | |Output | |

|COBRA_ver |Version control |String(15) |Mandatory |Identifier of which version of COBRA the run was |Run Info |Detailed |

| | | | |undertaken on | | |

|Run_ID |N/A |String(10) |Mandatory |Unique identifier for the run. Likely formed of the |Run Info |Not shown |

| | | | |COBRA_ID concatenated with a unique identifier for | | |

| | | | |the run on that NRA’s instance of the tool. | | |

|Run_timestamp |N/A |Datetime |Mandatory |Time stamp when run was uploaded |Run Info |Detailed |

| | | | |Format 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS' | | |

|Run_description |N/A |Var-String |Mandatory |Description of run |Run |Detailed |

| | |(65536) | | | | |

|Country |INPUT_Scenarios |String(2) |Mandatory |Country code for the run |Input |Summary |

|Network_corridor |INPUT_Scenarios |String(1) |Mandatory |Full Network or corridor |Input |Summary |

|CITS_services |INPUT_Scenarios |String(4) |Mandatory |C-ITS services (bundles or individual) |Input |Summary |

|Communications_platform |INPUT_Scenarios |String(2) |Mandatory |Communications platform |Input |Summary |

|Business_model |INPUT_Scenarios |String(4) |Mandatory |Business model |Input |Summary |

|Veh_smart_pen_curve |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 2 |Mandatory |Aftermarket/Smartphone vehicle penetration curve |Input |Detailed |

|Veh_OEM_pen_curve |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 2 |Mandatory |OEM vehicle aftermarket penetration curve |Input |Detailed |

|Year_costs_borne |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 16 |Mandatory |Year that the costs are borne from the back office /|Input |Detailed |

| | | | |other costs | | |

|Beacons_start_year |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 16 |Mandatory (only required if |Start year for deployment of ITS-G5 wireless beacons|Input |Detailed |

| | | |ITS-G5 or Hybrid selected in |roadside units (only required if ITS-G5 or Hybrid | | |

| | | |Platform) |selected in Platform) | | |

|Beacons_end_year |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 16 |Mandatory (only required if |End year for deployment of ITS-G5 wireless beacons |Input |Detailed |

| | | |ITS-G5 or Hybrid selected in |roadside units (only required if ITS-G5 or Hybrid | | |

| | | |Platform) |selected in Platform) | | |

|Beacons_percent_inf_end |INPUT_Scenarios |Float (4,3) |Mandatory (only required if |Percentage of infrastructure equipped with ITS-G5 |Input |Detailed |

| | | |ITS-G5 or Hybrid selected in |roadside beacons in end year | | |

| | | |Platform) | | | |

|Beacons_percent_existing_poles |INPUT_Scenarios |Float (4,3) |Mandatory (only required if |Proportion of ITS-G5 beacons that are installed on |Input |Detailed |

| | | |ITS-G5 or Hybrid selected in |existing poles / gantries | | |

| | | |Platform) | | | |

|Beacons_percent_new_poles |INPUT_Scenarios |Float (4,3) |Mandatory (only required if |Proportion of ITS-G5 beacons that are installed on |Input |Detailed |

| | | |ITS-G5 or Hybrid selected in |new poles | | |

| | | |Platform) | | | |

|Year_service_goes_live |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 16 |Mandatory |Year that the service goes live (i.e. when start |Input |Detailed |

| | | | |acrruing benefits) | | |

|Inc_CAPEX_cost |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 2 |Mandatory |Include in-vehicle CAPEX costs? |Input |Detailed |

|Inc_OPEX_cost |INPUT_Scenarios |Boolean |Mandatory |Include in-vehicle OPEX costs? |Input |Detailed |

|Inc_development_costs |INPUT_Scenarios |Boolean |Mandatory |Include development costs? |Input |Detailed |

|Inc_inf_cost_savings |INPUT_Scenarios |Boolean |Mandatory |Include infrastructure cost savings? |Input |Detailed |

|Time_horizon |INPUT_Scenarios |Integer 16 |Mandatory |End year of assessment |Input |Detailed |

|Total_benefits_2030 |CBA_MwayAndOtherNRA |Integer 64 |Mandatory |Total benefits in end year, Euros |Output |Summary |

|Total_costs_2030 |CBA_MwayAndOtherNRA |Integer 64 |Mandatory |Total costs in end year, Euros |Output |Summary |

|NPV_2030 |CBA_MwayAndOtherNRA |Integer 64 |Mandatory |Net Present Value in end year, Euros |Output |Summary |

|BCR_2030 |CBA_MwayAndOtherNRA |Float |Mandatory |Benefit-cost ratio in end year |Output |Summary |

| | |(4, 3) | | | | |

|Pay_back_year |CBA_MwayAndOtherNRA |String(15) |Mandatory |Year the BCR first goes over 1 |Output |Summary |

3 Table: T_Graphs - uploaded graphs

The graphs compare one scenario with another within the COBRA+ tool. Therefore, for efficiency, the graphs are only uploaded once per export from the COBRA+ tool and a link is provided to the relevant scenarios in T_Scenarios. The fields within this table are anticipated to be as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - Fields in database table ‘T_Graphs’

|Suggested Field Name |Data Type |Description |Type |Monitor Page |

|Scenario_ID_1 |Cross Ref |Link to entry in T_Scenarios for first |Output |N/A |

| | |scenario to which these graphs relate. | | |

|Scenario_ID_2 |Cross Ref |Link to entry in T_Scenarios for second |Output |N/A |

| | |scenario to which these graphs relate. | | |

|Graph_01 | BLOB[5] |CBA_1_split |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_02 | BLOB |CBA_2a_Tot_Euro |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_03 | BLOB |CBA_2b_Tot_EuroKm |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_04 | BLOB |CBA_3_byYear |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_05 | BLOB |CBA_4_cumul |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_06 | BLOB |CBA_5_ratio |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_07 | BLOB |NRABusinessCase_6_split |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_08 | BLOB |NRABusinessCase_7_Tot |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_09 | BLOB |NRABusinessCase_8_cumul |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_10 | BLOB |NRABusinessCase_9_netCosts |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_11 | BLOB |SocietalProblemCost_BAU_MwayAndOther_Sc1 |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_12 | BLOB |SocietalProblemCost_BAU_MwayAndOther_Sc2 |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_13 | BLOB |MonetisedImpacts_All_MwayAndOther_Sc1 |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_14 | BLOB |MonetisedImpacts_All_MwayAndOther_Sc2 |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_15 | BLOB |Costs_MwayAndOther_Sc1 |Output |Detailed |

|Graph_16 | BLOB |Costs_MwayAndOther_Sc2 |Output |Detailed |

3 [B] UploadUDI(UDI_Identifier) function

1 Data flows

The UploadUDI() function allows the COBRA tool to upload the User-Defined Inputs (UDI) to the database, where these are associated with an uploaded run. It is anticipated that the UploadUDI() function will only be called by the UploadScenario() function and only when a scenario which has been selected for upload contains UDI. It is not anticipated that the user would instigate an upload of UDI outside of a scenario upload, but this functionality could be considered if it was felt that it added value.

Uploaded UDI will be available to view by all users via the Monitor webpages (see Figure 1).

When making an upload, the COBRA+ tool will check whether the UDI has already been stored in the database for a previously uploaded scenario and only upload new UDI information if it is not already present in the database.

Figure 12 provides a sequence diagram showing the interaction between the user, COBRA tool for specific country and the database.

[pic]

Figure 12 – Sequence diagram for the UploadUDI(UDI_INDEX) function

2 Table T_UDI – uploaded user specific data

The database table T_UDI will contain any user-specified data. The fields within the table are anticipated to be as shown in Table 5.

Table 5 – Fields in database table ‘T_UDI’

|fieldName |Worksheet |Data type |Optional? |Description |Input / |Monitor page |

| | | | | |Output | |

|COBRA_ver |Version control |String(15) |  |Identifier of which version of COBRA the UDI was input|UDI |Detailed |

|Run_ID |N/A |String(10) |  |Unique identifier for the run to which this UDI is |UDI |Not shown |

| | | | |linked. | | |

|Run_timestamp |N/A |Datetime |  |Time stamp when UDI was uploaded |UDI |Detailed |

| | | | |Format 'YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS' | | |

|Any_user_defined_inputs |N/A |Integer 8 |  |Count of user-defined data fields |UDI |Not shown |

|Parameter_beacons_per_km |INPUT_Parameters |Float |Optional |Number of ITS-G5 wireless beacons per km (only |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

| | | | |required if ITS-G5 or Hybrid selected in Platform) | | |

|Parameter_Num_control_centres |INPUT_Parameters |Integer 8 |Optional |Number of back office control centres |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Parameter_Discount_rate |INPUT_Parameters |Float |Optional |Various parameters |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Parameter_Bundle_L_overlap |  |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Parameter_Bundle_I_overlap |  |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Parameter_Bundle_T_overlap  |  |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Parameter_After_smartphone_2015 |INPUT_Parameters |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Parameter_After_smartphone_2030 |INPUT_Parameters |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_OEM_equip |Component_costs |Integer 16 |Optional | In-vehicle costs |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_OEM_install |Component_costs |Integer 16 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_OEM_annual_subs |Component_costs |Integer 8 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_OEM_annual_comms |Component_costs |Integer 8 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_after_equip |Component_costs |Integer 16 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_after_install |Component_costs |Integer 16 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_after_annual_subs |Component_costs |Integer 8 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_after_annual_comms |Component_costs |Integer 8 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_phone_equip |Component_costs |Integer 16 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_phone_install |Component_costs |Integer 16 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_phone_annual_subs |Component_costs |Integer 8 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_in_veh_phone_annual_comms |Component_costs |Integer 8 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_beacons_existing_equip_per_unit |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional |Various other costs |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_beacons_existing_install_per_unit |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_beacons_existing_annual_op_maint_per_unit |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_beacons_new_poles_equip_per_unit |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_beacons_new_poles_install_per_unit |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_beacons_new_poles_annual_op_maint_per_unit |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_back_TMC_infra_TC |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_back_TMC_annual_OandM_TC |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_back_dev_app |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_back_dev_annual_op_maint |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_development |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_development_annual |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_other |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Cost_other_annual |Component_costs |Integer 32 |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_safety_fatalities |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional |Impact of selected services assuming 100% of problem |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

| | | | |situations equipped | | |

|Impact_mway_safety_severe |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_safety_slight |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_safety_damage_cost |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_time_travelling |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_lost_hours |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_fuel_consuption_petrol |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_fuel_consumption_diesel |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_mway_GHG_CO2 |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_safety_fatalities |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_safety_severe |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_safety_slight |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_safety_damage_cost |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_time_travelling |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_lost_hours |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_fuel_consuption_petrol |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_fuel_consumption_diesel |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

|Impact_other_GHG_CO2 |Impacts_at_100% |Float |Optional | |UDI |Detailed and UDI |

4 5 [C] Feedback webpages

The feedback webpages (as discussed in Section 4.3 and 5.2.3) will feed into a simple database with the following fields:

• COBRA_ID (identifier of which NRA uploaded the data)

• COBRA_ver (identifier of which version of COBRA the feedback relates to)

• Timestamp

• Feedback type [best practice | suggested improvements]

• Feedback text.

6 [E] Ad hoc impact data sources

The feedback web form for information on new impact assessments (as discussed in Section 4.5 and 5.2.5) will feed into a simple database with the following fields:

• Study name

• Name of uploader

• Timestamp

• Services included in study

• Comments on impacts identified

• Hyperlink to documents.

References

Ball et al. (2016). ANACONDA D3.1: Specification of the COBRA+ spreadsheet. [Available from CEDR web site.]

Mocanu et al. (2013). COBRA D3.1: Impact Assessment. Retrieved from

Mocanu et al. (2016). ANACONDA D1.1: Results from the stakeholder requirement analysis. [Available from CEDR web site.[

1 Preliminary requirements for COBRA+ Monitor

|Theme |Requirement |Source |

|Content |NRAs to see what other NRAs are doing in this field, what bundles are |ANACONDA first stakeholder workshop, November,|

| |used, what are their costs etc. |2015 |

|Content |Contain more information than the COBRA+ Tool. |ANACONDA first stakeholder workshop, November,|

| | |2015 |

|Content |Could contain outcomes of different model runs, BCRs for different |ANACONDA first stakeholder workshop, November,|

| |services. |2015 |

|Content |Key figures for input data should be defined e.g. cost/km, cost/ RSU, |November workshop |

| |cost/ ITS station etc. Ideally the indicators should correspond to the|CEDR N7 Group meeting, February, 2016 |

| |Monitor and the tool’s results e.g. safety (accident rates of road | |

| |users, road workers); network availability (congestion rate – | |

| |specified by cause); level of information (number of informed users); | |

| |response time to incidents; detection time, etc. | |

|Content |If the PEB countries use the tool and the monitor, as their plans and |CEDR N7 Group meeting, February |

| |investments are changing, one can monitor the C-ITS implementation, | |

| |figures, developments, what business cases are chosen, results, | |

| |mistakes etc. Two data sources: infrastructure data and results from | |

| |cost benefit calculations of the countries. | |

|Content |The Monitor should be a tool of working together, sharing data and |CEDR N7 Group meeting, February |

| |information to learn from each other, through ideas, assumptions, | |

| |market figures. | |

|Countries |What are the C-ITS deployments across CEDR countries? |ANACONDA first stakeholder workshop, November,|

|Content | |2015 |

|Countries |Limited to COBRA+ users. |ANACONDA first stakeholder workshop, November,|

| | |2015 |

|Countries |The Monitor should not be a copy of the C-ITS inventory, but should |CEDR N7 Group meeting, February, 2016 |

|Content |focus only on the 5 countries and go into detail. | |

|Countries |The Monitor is not meant to be a public web site, but available only |CEDR N7 Group meeting, February,2016 |

| |to the small group, for PEB. | |

|Countries |What is happening in other PEB member countries in terms of their |CEDR N7 Group meeting February, 2016 |

|Content |developments, their plans. Sharing of information can translate into | |

| |lessons learned. | |

|Hosting |The tool could be placed on the new CEDR website. |ANACONDA first stakeholder workshop, November,|

| | |2015 |

2 Examples of graphs exported to COBRA+ Monitor

[To be added in next version]

-----------------------

[1] Requirement 24 relates to the ongoing maintenance of the tool and is discussed in D3.1 (Ball et al. 2016)

[2] At this point the user is using the Monitor web pages and the system will not know which version of the tool they are running

[3] Impacts on serious and slight injuries are listed separately where these are available.

[4] A limited amount of impact data was available on: proportion of total time that is ‘lost vehicle hours’; and [pic]

23ABEFJNRSTXproportion of total time that is spent in ‘congested conditions’. However, these were not included in the COBRA tool.

[5] The graphs will be exported from the COBRA+ tool as image (png) files and stored within BLOB (Binary Large Object) fields within the database

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download