EU Transport Research – Transport Research on the move.
A nicely designed website from the EC on transport research covering the key areas of raod, rail, air and sea. Its good to see something clearly laid out like this and accessable, now just to get the public to look at it!
A site for sore eyes…
Imagine our new website as a brand new, Formula 1 racing car… we’ve been keeping it under wraps for months and employed security guards to make sure no interlopers get a sneak peek at it. Now, we are about to whip off the big black dust sheet and reveal all… on Wednesday by the looks of things. It’ll have been well worth it, I can assure you but we thank you for your patience and we’ll be right back after these messages..
via ThinkingHighways.
Thinking highways have a brand new website for us to view, even better is the blog just started by the Editor Kevin Borras. go over and show him some love and support.
TripIt, the helpful travel site that lets you generate an itinerary by simply forwarding the service your Email confirmations from hotels and airlines, has opened up an API for outside developers. The API will give third party applications access to TripIt’s itinerary sytem, which now accepts data from 350 travel sites. Developers can find all the details for joining the program here.
via TripIt Launches An API. Travel Sites, Please Use It.
I’ve blogged about this application before, the release of the API hopefully means that we may see more integrated solutions, the software already uses the API to interface with other applications, Expensd allows you to track your expenses while Flight track interfaces with TripIt to track your flights, mapping is provided by Where I’ve been, which is a social networking application that looks up your destination while also plotting your journey on a map.
The main focus of this type of application is business and long distance travel, i-Travel has the objective to bring together long distance and urban travel with context awareness, using standard interfaces and developing specifications that allow seamless travel between modal modes. At present applications such as TripIt provide a limited reaction to events on your route and do not incorporate GNNS technology to track your progress along the journey and feed this information back to the travel provider.
It is easier to develop applications that support long distance travel since the information for flights delay, booking and mapping are readily available, the key to seamless travel is to be about to gather all the information from all provides, no matter what the travel mode and feed it into an API such as TripIt provides. This can only be done through industry cooperation, and while the release of this API is a benefit to the long distance travel industry it is still a propriety format designed for TripIt’s own application, and not for all appliactions.
MEPs discuss pros and cons of “intelligent transport systems” .
The hearing on the ITS action plan took place yesterday at the European Parliament with some interesting highlights and comments made by many.
One question is now will eCall be mandated for the EU to meet its target?
Another comment that interests me is one made by Robert Evans (PES, UK) after the ERTICO CEO, Herman Meyer, was discussing new ITS technology to improve safety, such as red light warnings, car to car hazard warnings and traffic flow optimisation.
Mr Evans is worried about people relying on “this sort of autopilot of the car” and losing the skill to drive it themselves. “Is there a danger” he asked “that we replace drivers with complacent computers?”
Rant now coming….
I’m sorry but in my opinion this is just a stupid statement and the kind made when people are arguing based on ideology and not facts.
Lets take the aviation industry as an example would Mr Evans wish to return to a situation where pilots fly the aircraft manually all the time, separation from other aircraft isn’t kept by autopilot, radar and collision avoidance systems?
Probably not?
Why is flying still the one of the safest forms of transport? Because of the automation and redundancy in aircraft systems.
“But!” I hear you cry “there was an accident just recently where a flock of birds brought down one of your mighty triple redundant aircraft! So you are wrong! ha!”
Well yes thank you Mr/Mrs Pedantic.
But lets look at that in a little detail shall we? As an ex Royal Air Force engineer and hobby pilot I do speak with a little authority here.
Birds hit the aircraft which then lost engine thrust, but due to a fail safe system called a RAT (Ram Air Turbine) which deploys in such a situation there was enough power for the hydraulic systems, with out this our dear old Captain Sully wouldn’t have been able to fly the aircraft as no control surfaces would have responded, the days of wire connecting the control column to the wings have gone (more progress)
Electrical power was still supplied to the aircraft through the RAT and batteries so that the crew could radio the air traffic control tower, doors still could be opened, emergency lighting still worked etc etc etc in fact due to automation Captain Sully could focus on just flying the aircraft.
Yes there will always be a situation whereby the automation will not save you from a catastrophic event, but in this case did the fact we replaced the pilot with complacent computers hinder the efforts to get the plane down or not?
No I think not.
The very well trained pilot who, and trust me on this, has a huge amount of automation in his job, took over quickly, reacted quickly, was able to still fly and control the aircraft due to fail safe systems and was able to land it safely and save a great many people.
Not only should we applaud the pilot and crew the aircraft designers and engineers should also be congratulated.
Maybe we should take a leaf out of the aviation book?
Automation plus back up systems plus training equals a safer situation.
It seems incredulous to me that people even in the ITS industry argue against automation. We can go from 40,000 deaths a year, and to put that into perspective that’s about one plane load of Captain Sully controlled aircraft crashing every day or two with no survivors, to a situation with a failure rate of 1 in millions.
Why do we argue that humans killing themselves and each other is a better situation?
The lawyers all come out and say but we will get sued by the family of the 1 in a million for millions if not billions once computers take over, in the situation of humans killing humans we don’t get sued at all….well not much at least.
Now here I have an idea, and bear with me while I seem to go off on a tangent.
Do you like bungee jumping?
I’ve never tried it to be honest, would like to, but my doctor has advised against it due to an old neck injury…that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it, fear is not a factor.
Any way in the UK and the states the extreme sports industry is always complaining about liability insurance in our litigation happy culture, and it’s not just extreme sports that suffer, horse riding a stable (pun intended) sport of 7-13 year old girls also suffers, I’m not a 13 year old girl myself but I have in the past taken horse riding lessons and finding stables that still give lessons is becoming harder.
Many cite the rising cost of insurance as a barrier to giving lessons, and the British readers of this blog will identify that its getting harder to do any sport that has any risk attached with it.
In New Zealand this issue has been tackled by the government under the accident compensation scheme which covers all residents and temporary visitors to New Zealand for personal injury cover. The controlling body for this scheme, the accident compensation corporation, is a crown entity and is responsible for.
In return for having this cover you give up your right to sue for personal injury, other than for exemplary damages.
Imagine that, you give up your right to sue…..
Now I am aware that with any scheme there are it’s detractors, and the scheme has evolved over time to incorporate market changes and issues and it is not perfect, but the concept is a good one and cover is not only for bungee jumping but cover is given for wide number of incidents, if you are interested the details can be found here.
The point is that in essence the scheme does not cover people for reckless behaviour and recourse can be made against those that are guilty of this, but it does cover situations where risk needs to be considered when there wasn’t any risk profile before, for example your car taking over emergency braking.
Maybe such a framework could be put in place that covers the increased automation of vehicles, ITS systems could be deployed that reduce the risk of accidents through automation and warning systems, better training can be given to drivers on how to respond to situations where they have to take control and in vehicle safety systems need to be designed with redundancy in mind. The last point I feel we need to make progress on as well – fail safe redundancy has brought huge improvements to industries such as aviation.
And finally a government sponsored framework to cover liability, and we can then hopefully reduce the number of road deaths every year. That should be our focus and not be sidetracked by arguments on losing control to computers.
Comments?
So the effects of the recession are starting to hit home after the fall of the stock market, which is a leading not following indicator we are seeing large lay offs and cut back in the transport sector mostly focused on automotive companies.
The beg big 3 in America are the hardest hit, unemployment in hard-hit cities like Detroit and Cleveland is expected to top 10%
via WLNS TV 6 Lansing Jackson Michigan News and Weather – WLNS.COM | Job Cuts Imminent Across Country.
In the UK, we are seeing the effects of the recession as well, Jaguar Land Rover starts a 2 week production stop today only shortly after the Christmas shutdown, along with hundreds of job cuts, Nissan has cut staff and production, Honda has followed suit and Toyota is declaring its first loss in years.
My feeling, coming from an automotive background, that with the cost cutting internally at the companies there is trend to return to the core basics of car design and thus research and development is one of the first areas to be scaled back and budgets reduced.
The economics of this is rational, why spend money on features that are not yet being sold and in essence are not going to be a large option fit? Navigation systems really stayed under 10% fittment rate for years until low cost portable systems came along, what expectation is there for car to car or car to infrastructure communication systems or other in vehicle intelligent transport systems?
Moving out of the vehicle in the States President (soon not be be) elect Obama has made much of his rebuilding America plan to improve transport infrastructure.
The plan as yet is not detailed enough to know if ITS will be at the top of the to do list, but the $175 Billion has not yet been raised and in the scheme of things to spread across a country the size of the United States is probably not that much money, hence my feeling is that money will be focused more on “hard” infrastructure upgrades, road repairing and rebuilding may be above the introduction of traffic management and ITS.
But on the other hand technology can plug the gap if government agencies need to reduce personal costs many cities are using ITS to merge traffic management and security systems to improve efficiency.
With the down turn though many ITS projects may be cancelled and scaled back, however the effect of this will be a surplus of ITS companies bidding for a shortage of projects increasing competition and reducing the amount of money that ITS integrators are willing to charge, this means that there could be an opportunity for traffic planners to implement new and efficient ITS systems at a lower cost, if they can get the project funded that is.
A side point here, I do like looking at other industries to make my point, across the country there is a reduction of training budgets when personnel need to be competitive and sharper than their rivals, going against the rational response to the recession is difficult even for the most successful of companies. But KPMG recently offered their staff the option to take a sabbatical rather than redundancy.
Earlier this month, in an article written for the BBC News website, KPMG associate partner David Knight warned of the pitfalls of sacking staff.
He wrote: “Redundancies can sometimes be seen as a quick fix as employment costs often represent a significant slice of a company’s operating overheads.”
But he warned: “A redundancy programme can lead to problems when the upturn eventually arrives.”
via BBC NEWS | Business | KPMG to offer staff shorter week.
Much the same as cutting ITS projects, a quick fix to the budget but in the long run the ITS system could offer savings that out weigh the capital cost, and if car companies and governments can see the longer term benefits then maintaining funding for projects that could improve fuel efficiency, reduce congestion and increase employment then this can only be a good thing no?
I’m not suggesting that all ITS systems should be implemented and funded over say, repairing very large holes in the road (and trust me in America there are some very large holes), but a careful analysis of the benefits of certain ITS applications before cutting them out of hand may mean that when the up turn comes you are better positioned than those that that cut to the bone.
The complexity of modern mobile phones is leaving users frustrated and angry, research suggests.
Some 61% of those interviewed in the UK and US said setting up a new handset is as challenging as moving bank accounts.
Compiled by consultants Mformation, the survey found 85% of users reporting they were frustrated by the difficulty of getting a new phone up and working.
Of those questioned, 95% said they would try more new services if the technology was easier to set up.
via BBC NEWS | Technology | New phone features ‘baffle users’.
This is a timely reminder that the majority of users are not technology buffs and that any design of applications on mobile devices has to be intuitive that its as second nature as putting the kettle on!
In my past I’ve been involved in the design of navigation and entertainment systems in the vehicle and it’s amazing to firstly see and read the feedback and complaints that come from customers about the use and features on their in car systems. No matter what the electronic device the human machine interface appears to be the issue that lets down the whole device. I’ve seen people struggle to load a multi disc CD player with one button that says “load” on.
I’ve also been in design meetings where engineers forget that not all people are as involved in the product design as themselves, and I’ve lost count of the amount of times that I’ve had to tell engineers that “really the cancel route function needs to be the first menu option” or that ” We really shouldn’t put more than one function on a button by using a long or short press as people will never understand how it works”.
The next worse thing in HMI design is to let changes be pushed through by the upper management who have no idea of the context of the device, I’ve argued against the program manager of the of the Jaguar S-Type against changing the number of times that the navigation system gives you voice guidance because he programmed a route from work to his house and I quote ” it spoke to him too many times and it took me the route I wouldn’t go”
Well it’s a navigation system if you use it on the routes you know. then one, it doesn’t know the routes you take and if you know where you are turning having someone tell you three times I can agree is annoying ( this is why wives should stay silent while their husband gets lost). But the point is if you know where you are going the navigation is of no use but if you don’t you may want the 3 instructions.
I’ve made no secret of my appreciation of the design of Apple products who seem to spend a good deal of time and money getting the HMI right, but improvements can always be made. The article goes on to say.
“If an application does not work once or twice, they just will not use it or try again…..Some 61% of those questioned said they stopped using an application if they could not get it working straight away”
If any i-Travel application will be developed then the design and use of it has to be very good least we remove a lot of users due to frustration.
As i-Travel enters in final phase its time to take stock of the concept and objectives of the project and look at the forthcoming actions and meetings.
Towards the end of January we will see the kick off for the final 2 work packages of the project. Work Package 6 and work package 7.
Work Package 6 will investigate the feasibility and risk analysis this work package will perform a detailed analysis of the proposed i-Travel framework. The work package will determine if the i-travel concept is technically and economically viable. Within the work package a risk analysis will be carried out indentify the possible road blocks and threats (technical, operational, commercial and legal) and propose mitigation measures.
The work package will tackle the above objectives through the following tasks.
Within this task the work package will investigiate the technical offering of the i-Travel concept, its trends and fitness to meet the requirements that are developed in the preceeding architecture work package WP4, it will also indentify the technological gaps that will have to be developed to fulfil the i-Travel concept. The final output of this task will be a technological roadmap.
This task will develop a realistic, highly interactive mobile user interface simulation based on the kind of dialogue expected for the request and fulfilment of i-Travel traveller services. This will show and help to
explain the end-user experience of the i-Travel concept. Based on the defined use cases and the business process demonstrator developed in WP3 a demonstration script, example data and images will be collected.
Interactive mobile screens will be developed, and the output of the task will be used in the next task in the work package.
A highly realistic highly interactive mobile user interface simulation based on the kind of dialogue expected for the request and fulfilment of i-Travel traveller services will be developed. This will show and help to explain the end-user experience of the i-Travel concept.
This task will consider the acceptance of the i-Travel concept by end-users (i.e. travellers). To this end, the project will assemble a panel of users provided by one consortium member and assess their reactions to the project concept using the above mobile user experience demonstrator. It will also look at their willingness to pay and consider issues such as privacy, personalisation, and man-machine interface. There will also need
to be acceptance by the other stakeholders.
Using the results of the earlier tasks , this task will seek to identify all possible threats that could arise inside or outside the e-market place, determine their consequences and probabilities and propose mitigation
measures. The analysis will concentrate on the i-Travel products and operational deployment of the system (considering therefore issues such as reliability and scalability of the system). The risk analysis will especially consider the needed cooperation between the public (including the public transport and road operators) and the private partners and the willingness of both sides to contribute to the system.
Based on the consolidation of the above task results, the project will carry out an overall feasibility assessment of the proposed system, confronting views of experts both inside and outside the project. The commercial aspects which were analysed in WP1 will be used in this task to create the feasibility of i-Travel in a commercial environment. The (positive) business case and the clear business model will be crucial for the success of i-Travel. It is obvious that i-Travel will only work, if it generates (commercial) benefits for the stakeholders.
Based on the above tasks it can be seen that WP6 is key to communicating the i-Travel concept and its completion will provide indentifiable benefits its to joining the e-Marketplace and becoming part of the i-Travel community.
The second work package WP7, starting in at the same time as work pacakge 6 will look at the strategy requred for demonstration of the i-Travel project.
This work package will identify key high level requirements for demonstration in relation to the supported uses cases resulted from WP2 and outcome of WP3, WP5 and WP6. There will also be Identification of
opportunities for demonstration based on pre-existing systems and i-Travel related services at European level and beyond by analysing the cons and pros, social and marketing aspect, audiences, and stakeholders
to make an i-Travel demonstration environment successful. Finally there will be a feasibility analysis for defining possible implementation scenarios, validation and time planning based on the identified key high level requirements and identified opportunities.
As always i_travel is looking for feedback on its concept and invites interested companies to contact the project provide an expression of interest on joining the e-Marketplace when it is fully developed.
The international technology show which is being held in Las Vagas has a spotlight on location based services. The BBC is reporting that this year attendance numbers are just as strong as previous and that location based services form a key theme for this years event.
Perhaps 2009 will be the year of location based services!
i-Travel Twitter Feed Tech news | Alex on Trusted Taxis |
 | Taxi Tom on Trusted Taxis |
 | hschmitk on Tripit an iPhone applicat… |
 | Fulvio on Multi modal snowy madness or t… |
| TripIt Launches an A… on Tripit an iPhone applicat… |
