SMARTFREIGHT FACT SHEET TOPIC / ACTIVITY Proof of concept and verification of ICT solutions PURPOSE OF THIS TOPIC / OBJECTIVES OF THIS ACTIVITY IN SMARTFREIGHT This work is based in two approaches: - The innovative concepts defined within the SMARTFREIGHT software development and the framework architecture implemented and tested technologically by the use of CALM and a set of applications communicating through open services on top of the CALM platform. -The impact of the new innovative concepts studied in the other selected European cities; in Bologna and Winchester through simulations and in Dublin with a desktop study. The future services and functions (to be used) at the different sites were identified in order to describe the different concepts to be analysed to proof the logical functionality when full scale implementations were considered (services and support tools from the traffic and distribution management services, the system architecture and the on board support and control). The communication addressed for the onboard support and control was also considered and a special focus was given to the potential limitations of every site in relation to the generic specification as developed for the system architecture (based on local ICT-related conditions and the type of infrastructure to be expected). Local scenarios were developed so these could be used for the impact evaluation of new concepts. The necessary local data collection was also used for a site-related base line scenario and a list of performance indicators as identified within WP2 (analysis of urban freight transport challenges and requirements). This list of indicators was further revised and applied.

WORK CARRIED OUT SO FAR / CURRENT STATUS The SMARTFREIGHT concept has been developed in some detail and put into the context of the transportation process. A multi-perspective approach to urban freight was applied combining three conceptual models with different scientific origins and an analytical toolbox was created. This approach makes it possible to capture urban freight more comprehensively and to address not only topics related to technical and business perspectives but also to include the human actors involved. A list of extended functionalities was described based on contributions from stakeholders involved in SMARTFREIGHT, either at the test sites or in the European Reference Group. In order to better match the services identified in the real world, further development took place and ‘functional module’ was introduced as a term. This was necessary after an in-depth analysis of the SMARTFREIGHT extended functionalities in which they were found to be quite heterogeneous. Some functionalities are basic to the idea of SMARTFREIGHT, such as allocating service levels in a flexible way to specific nonanonymous freight vehicles in the traffic flow. Some are rather complex, others rather straight forward. Some relate strongly to each other, others are independent.

Moreover, some functionalities relate to the traffic process and are thus strongly dynamic by character; they are called operational functionalities functionalities. Some relate to the transport process and are thus transactional by nature, such as allocating a specific service level to a loaded freight vehicle; they are called tactical tical functionalities functionalities.. Finally there are functionalities that more or less explicitly include the business demand process, such as “Transport operation planning support”; they are called strategic functionalities. This made it possible to identify and desc describe ribe the future services and related decomposed functionalities in relation to FDMS (Freight Distribution Management System), UTMS (Urban Traffic Management System) and OSCS (Operator Support and Control System). The decomposition into functional modules w was as distributed on strategic, tactical and operational levels. Functional modules can be combined in a number of ways with other functional modules to form a composite function able to provide a system with a specific desired set of functionalities. A single sing functional module can of course in some situations offer sufficient functionality alone, but each functionality usually has to be split into strategic, tactical or operational functional modules. The fundamental principles of SMARTFREIGHT were discussed based on a terminology introduced within the SMARTFFREIGHT framework architecture ((deliverable D5.2) with the aim to capture the core elements of the SMARTFREIGHT idea. There is a policy policy-related related Access and Priority Assignment (APA) Act that will result in Access and Priority Offers (A (APO) PO) tuned into individual SMARTFREIGHT SMART equipped vehicles. A separate virtual AP Centre (with an AP Manager) wass introduced in parallel with the vehicle fleet dispatcher unit (as part of the FDMS) to act as the facilitator facilit of the crucial SMARTFEIGHT services.

The local scenarios to be generated were replaced by a priority list of functionalities that the different test site cities saw as the most urgent in the near future. All test sites listed “Timeslot allocatio allocation for loading/unloading”” as a priority; In Bologna and Dublin “Routing support”, “Incident management support” and “Data collection for statistics and planning” were added; and finally in Winchester “Return load coordination” and “Shared use of vehicle coordination” rdination” were highlighted (as well as in Dublin).

These functionalities were supposed to be the backbone of the test activities to be performed at the sites, but with one exception there are no such links to be found. For instance in Bologna, the tests were based on a field experimentation and a simulation of functionalities (and services) that had an origin in the features of the Van Sharing system already in place in a minor scale. Van Sharing is a virtual platform for small operators linked to the control centre of the municipality. This created a situation where it became clear that there is no strong dependency on one technical standard (CALM) to be the necessary condition for implementing SMARTFREIGHT. The test site activities are described with full reports from the tests in a separate document (i.e. Deliverable 6.1 and its Appendix A). As the Trondheim site was dedicated to technical tests it was also described in detail as such, and a demonstration was prepared for a scenario that included access control, dangerous goods and on-board cargo monitoring. These services were realised by means of the CVIS platform and the CALM standard adapted to the needs of the SMARTFREIGHT concept. NEXT STEPS The work has been completed (PRELIMINARY) KEY RESULTS / CONCLUSIONS The main conclusions were that the proof of concepts and logical functionality and verification of the ICT solutions have been made. MORE INFORMATION Deliverable 6.1 and Appendix A will provide an overview of the SMARTFREIGHT concept and the different ICT solutions and functionalities for the different test-sites. Contact: Stig E.R. Franzén, PhD, Professor in Human Machine Interaction – HMI, Design & Human Factors, Dept of Product and Production Development, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden. Phone : +46 31 772 42 48, Fax: +46 31 772 58 58, e-mail : [email protected], www.chalmers.se/ppd