Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computer Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comnet

Development of V-to-X systems in North America: The promise,

the pitfalls and the prognosis
James A. Misener a,, Subir Biswas b,1, Greg Larson c,2
a

Booz Allen Hamilton, 101 California Street, Suite 3300, San Francisco, California 94111, United States
Associate Chair for Research, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, 2120 Engineering Building, East Lansing,
Michigan 48824, United States
c
Ofce of Trafc Operations Research, Division of Research and Innovation,California Department of Transportation, MS-83, 1227 O Street, Sacramento, CA
95814, United States
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Available online 21 April 2011
Keywords:
Vehicle Infrastructure Integration
IntelliDriveSM
Connected vehicle
SafeTrip-21,DSRC,3G,4G

a b s t r a c t
The development of V-to-X systems in North America is described with a focus on the services and applications that may appear, particularly in the United States. The scope of this
article is therefore broad, and while it involves engineering the emphasis is on transportation applications from V-to-X; this dictates consideration of societal and institutional considerations. Different types of over-the-air interfaces are covered, followed by a description
of the evolution of the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration program into IntelliDriveSM, and
subsequently to the more generic term, connected vehicle next, vehicle-to-infrastructure
and vehicle-to-vehicle components are covered. The vehicle-to-vehicle section describes
an analysis that suggests that the USDOT path toward mandating Dedicated Short Range
Communications transceivers on vehicles may be well-founded. Anticipated institutional
arrangements in addition to research and deployment ideas for the vehicle and infrastructure are then covered in a section entitled the short horizon. Finally, the future of V-to-X
in North America is discussed from the long horizon view.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
To describe the development of V-to-X systems in North
America is a difcult proposition, as this is a large and diverse continent, not only with the obvious geographical
denitions but also with regard to other key factors. These
factors coupled with important scientic and engineering advancements that will allow the practice of V-to-X
communications will largely dictate the types of V-to-X
services and applications to appear in North America and
in particular in the United States. However, one may generally categorize them in three ways:
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 415 627 3322; fax: +1 415 627 4283.
E-mail addresses: misener@path.berkeley.edu (J.A. Misener), sbiswas@egr.msu.edu (S. Biswas).
1
Tel.: +1 517 432 4614; fax: +1 517 353 1980.
2
Tel.: +1 916 657 4369; fax: +1 916 654 8177.
1389-1286/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2011.04.003

 by demographics and in particular in land use which

shapes travel demand and in turn, the type and demand
of mobility services which may be delivered V-to-X;
 by topography, which certainly affects not only physical
layer performance but may affect the types of travel and
again, the types of mobility services; and nally,
 by sometimes disparate local, regional (State or Provincial) and Federal or national regulations which certainly
determine which V-to-X services may be deployed.
The sum of these differences may translate into a variety of potential marketplaces, with each marketplace portending potentially different interpretations of and
demand for V-to-X. To begin, shifting demographics in
North America may presage a host of V-to-X connectivity
scenarios, given trends that are well-described in the
transportation planning literature: a seminal conference
on aging in place, or resistance to moving from low den-

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

sity suburban homes with older North Americans [1]; the

emergent younger traveler who is not necessarily a driver
but someone who may share vehicles in segments of multi-modal trips [2]; and new immigrant populations who
may have no choice but to use public transit [3]. The older
population may need increasingly reliable and therefore
high quality of service, safety-of-life driver assistance technologies, whereas other populations may prefer use of
ubiquitous nomadic devices with readily available realtime multimodal trip planning and en route traveler
information.
Topography is another strong consideration. There are
vast areas of North America where long-range communication is needed to deliver weather-related and other traveler information and even emergency services to mobile
travelers. Short range communication may not be a onesize-ts all means of transporting information which enables these services.
Finally, regulation is an important aspect of the form
and function of any V-to-X deployment. In most subregions within North America, much of the road (and particularly the highway) infrastructure design and build is
signicantly funded with Federal aid. However, the actual
design and operation of these roads is conducted locally.
Therefore, the preponderance of roads is controlled at the
municipal level, with but a few controlled at the State or
Provincial level. While there is what may be characterized
as a loose fabric of transportation standards, roadways are
built, owned and operated by many jurisdictions with concomitant different levels of needs, philosophies and
processes.
National or even ubiquitous roadside infrastructure a
potential X in V-to-X is difcult for many to conceive.
This difculty gave rise to the US DOT IntelliDriveSM program [4]. While the program is evolving both in name
and emphasis due to public and private stakeholder concerns which essentially reect the tripartite of demographics, topography and regulations, it is still largely focused on
research and development to support to-be-determined
regulatory decisions which will enable implementation
of Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) Wireless
Access for Vehicular Network (WAVE) standards-enabled
transceivers in all new cars.
The introductory concepts covered here are quite broad
and complex as they involve engineering as well as societal
and institutional considerations, particularly when the
objective is deployment. Therefore, this article is broad enough to provide a moderately-detailed and relatively panoramic snapshot of the state of V-to-X deployment in the
United States. While some elements of network and communications design are covered in the article, the dual
emphasis here is on transportation applications and its
companion, institutional reality. Sections are organized to
rst dene in a primer-like fashion what is meant by the
-to- in the shorthand expression V-to-X. The types of
over-the-air interfaces that can establish wireless connectivity in our transportation world are addressed next. We
then broadly cover the chronology of the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) program, as this legacy sets an
important context, particularly in the United States. We
next cover vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle

3121

components, with focus on current developments on the

former and issues with low market penetration with the
latter. Anticipated institutional arrangements and research
and deployment ideas for the vehicle and infrastructure
are then covered in a section entitled the short horizon.
Finally, and based on the discussion in our article, we will
try to prognosticate the future of V-to-X in North America
in the long horizon.
2. Dening over-the-air interfaces
To set the stage for the future, it is important to note
that V-to-X applications in North America have been
evolving using the following three primary communication
technologies, namely:
 3-G/4-G based medium range cellular links,
 IEEE 802.16 based long-range WIMAX both static and
mobile links, and
 DSRC based short range links.
While the rst two over-the-air interfaces are typically
offered and managed by cellular service providers, the
operating modes for DSRC are still unfolding. The V-to-V
component of DSRC is expected to work in an ad hoc mode
such as WiFi Direct, whereas the V-to-I component is likely
to be managed either by local or state transportation agencies in partnership with USDOT or by the traditional cellular service providers on a leased basis.
2.1. 3G/4G cellular networks
Cellular networks provide a particularly rich communication option via high download bandwidth of up to 20
30 Mbps directly provided to individual vehicles. These
are attractive because such high bandwidth can be provisioned using ongoing technology deployment by the cellular service providers without having to depend on separate
V-to-X specic communication standards or deployment.
For high bandwidth and delay-tolerant applications such
as multi-media, trafc information, and content in general,
this technology provides an attractive approach that can
add to the cellular service providers revenue from day
one. A prominent example of a V-to-I application using
such cellular service is GMs OnStar system, which uses a
cellular pipe to each OnStar-equipped vehicles to enable
a large number of managed service offerings.
It should be noted that in this communication option,
since all data need to travel through the cellular service
providers backbone network, the expected end-to-end latency can be quite high (i.e. of the order of hundreds of
ms). As shown in [5], communication with such high
end-to-end latency cannot usually cater to safety-related
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) applications such
as cooperative collision avoidance (CCA) in both highway
and urban intersection settings. Therefore, it is envisioned
that while the cellular based 3G/4G services are well suited
for data-heavy applications such as content download, for
latency-critical safety applications a different V-to-X communication technology will be needed.

3122

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

and Materials (ASTM), the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO), the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the USDOT.
Other stakeholders include vehicle manufacturers and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). State and local
transportation agencies also have an interest due to their
role as users of proposed wireless applications.
In response to the need for high speed and low latency
data exchanges between roadside equipment and vehicles,
as well as between vehicles, ITS America submitted a petition to the FCC in 1997 to allocate a 75-MHz band in the
5.8505.925 GHz range for ITS applications while retaining
the 915-MHz band for near-term electronic toll and commercial vehicle systems already using it. This petition
was approved in 1999 and led to the adoption of the rst
5.9-GHz standard (ASTM E2213-02) in 2002. This standard
was initially based on the 802.11a, and most recently
based on the 802.11p WiFi standard, to allow usage of
built-in security mechanisms already widely accepted by
business agencies, to provide product interoperability with
existing equipment, and to reduce the cost of designing
and manufacturing DSRC-based products.
As shown in Fig. 1 [7], the performance envelope of the
5.9-GHz band is designed to cover a wide variety of applications not supported by the older 915 MHz standard. The
new standard specically extends the effective communication range from 30 m up to 1000 m, when transmitters
with appropriate power are used. This allows for the development of long-range ITS applications. Data rates are further increased from 0.5 Mbps to a range of 627 Mbps.
This enables the development of data intensive real-time
ITS applications, in addition to providing opportunities
for high-speed in-vehicle internet services. The sloped

2.2. WiMAX/802.16 networks

The desire to provide broadband wireless connectivity
across metropolitan areas has resulted in the development
of worldwide interoperability for both static and mobile
versions of the WiMAX/802.16 standards. Within this family, the 802.16 standard addresses frequencies from 10 to
66 GHz, while the 802.16a standard addresses the 2
11 GHz range. WiMAX standards provide up to 50 km of
service area without direct line-of-sight requirements,
with typical cell radius of 610 km. Data transmission
rates of up to 70 Mbps are allowed on a single channel that
can support thousands of users, allowing the standard to
adapt to available spectrum and channel widths or to be licensed to different service providers [6]. Much like the 3G/
4G technology as discussed above, WiMAX provides a high
bandwidth option for content based V-to-X applications.
2.3. Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC)
DSRC is currently envisioned to be the technology capable of offering low communication latency, which is important for the V-to-X safety applications. The key idea is to
use short range links for creating ad hoc style V-to-V and
V-to-I networks that can offer low latency packet transport
by avoiding long haul providers backbone networks as
needed in 3G/4G and WiMAX systems.
The development of DSRC standards is closely related to
efforts to standardize wireless communications across ITS
applications to achieve interoperability between different
applications, i.e., allow vehicles to interact with roadside
equipment and other vehicles wherever they may be
encountered [7]. Among the organizations involved in the
development of the standards are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the American Society for Testing

54

33

~
~

Data Transfer and

Internet Access Services

30
27
Data Rate (Mbps)

5850 - 5925 MHz Band

Performance Envelope

24

(Approximate)

21
18
12

Emergency Vehicle Services

Safety Message Services

9
6
Toll and Payment Services

Range (ft)

Fig. 1. Data rate vs. range of DSRC [7].

3600

3400

3200

3000

2800

2600

2400

2200

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

400

200
0.5 Mbps

600

902 - 928 MHz Band Performance Envelope

3123

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

automobile manufacturers and drew considerable attention to the research community and organizations from
the public sector, most notably AASHTO.
It was rst conceived as the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative
(IVI) but began fading out in 2003 [10] and was built
around the proposition that DSRC is the enabling technology to create the desired V-to-X connectivity. As such, a
technical element in the program was established to oversee development of the DSRC standards, and to test these
emerging standards to ensure that they provided the necessary performance. Three other elements were also created, including outreach, investigation of potential
business models, and analysis of institutional and societal
issues, such as privacy preservation, governance, and legal
liability.

upper edge of the performance envelope shown in Fig. 1

further indicates that a tradeoff exists between the data
rate and radio range. The increase in data transmission rate
typically results in a reduction in the range over which
data can be broadcast [8]. This translates into a need to balance communication range and costs, as the use of higher
transmission power levels typically increases communication costs.
The 5.9-GHz standard denes seven channels, each covering a 10-MHz band. One channel is set aside for control
applications (Ch178). Two other channels are dedicated
to public safety applications, with one targeting intersection applications (Ch184) and the other applications using
vehicle-to-vehicle communications (Ch172). The four
remaining channels are opened for both public and private
applications using short-range and medium-range vehicleroadside communications [8].
The most attractive feature of DSRC is its ability to form
short range ad hoc networks in both V-to-V and V-to-I
modes so that low latency communication can be accomplished in order to support latency-critical safety
applications.

3.1. VII technical architecture

The VII system in the United States would have been
enabled by roadside wireless hotspots generated by DSRC
transceivers operating within 75 MHz of free, FCC-licensed
bandwidth near 5.9 GHz as described in Section 2.3. These
transceivers are incorporated in roadside units, which are
connected by edge backhaul communications into a network architecture that addresses security, privacy and
other design considerations. The envisioned system was

3. The Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) program

VII was rst and foremost a USDOT research program. It
had signicant cost-sharing stakeholders from a host of

Network Users

VII System
X-0
23

Roadside
Infrastructure
Local Safety
Systems

I-06

I-09

3
-05

4
05
X-

I-0 3

Local Transaction
Processors

I-07
I-08

2
X-05

Roadside Sensors

ALL
ALL

DGPS Corrections

X-0
11

Administrative
Users
X-012

X -0
71
X-072

3
X-07

OBE
I-14

I-01

I-02

GPS Signals
X02
1

Certificate
Authority

5
I-1

Public Service Vehicle

43
X-0

Key
A-nnn

Physical and Logical

A-nnn

Logical
Between Instances

X-0
41
X-042

Service Provider
Management
Systems X-062

I-13

External Data Source :

PS Vehicle
HMI

GPS Signals

X-027

X06

2
02
X-

PS Vehicle
Applications

External Data Sources

Reference Maps

Vehicle

PS Vehicle
Systems

Transaction Service
Provider
X-034

X-0
24
X-0
25
X- 0
26

I-12

Vehicle
Applications
Vehicle
HMI

Advisory Provider

ENOC

X-055

Vehicle
Systems

X-033

Data Subscriber

I-10
I-11

I-11

Signal Controllers

SDN

RSE

X-051

I-05

GPS Signals

1
X -03
X -032

VII Infrastructure

External Data Source :

A-nnn

PSOBE

A-nnn

I-16

I-04

Fig. 2. The VII system and users [11].

Registered Entity (RE) Interface to

ENOC
Managed Network Element (MNE)
Interface to ENOC

3124

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

quite elegant and complex. As illustrated in Fig. 2, it was

architected to comprise six subsystems:
 Certicate Authority (CA): Issues digital keys and corresponding certicates. Maintains and publishes lists of
revoked certicates such that all users can verify that
messages emanate from valid sources and therefore
be trusted.
 Enterprise Network Operations Center (ENOC): Provides
the centralized monitoring and control for the entire
network, to include components. It is the hardware/
software complex which includes computer servers,
storage and operational software enact management
and security.
 Service Delivery Node (SDN): Provides support for communications and data services associated with the VII
roadside equipment (RSE).
 On-Board Equipment (OBE). Consists of in-car DSRC
WAVE radio and an associated processor, connected to
the vehicle serial (Controller Area Network) bus.
 Public Service On-Board Equipment (OBE). Special
category of in-car DSRC WAVE radio and associated processor for public service (e.g., emergency, police)
vehicles.
 Roadside Equipment (RSE). Roadside DSRC radio and
associated processor, connected to the roadside infrastructure eld elements and signals as needed.
From left to right (clockwise) in Fig. 1, a number of
external entities are shown to be connected to the system
[11]: public service vehicles, external data sources (e.g.,
GPS), vehicles, roadside infrastructure, network users,
roadside infrastructure, administrative users, and service
provider management systems (i.e., customer or user relations and interface), external data sources (e.g., GPS). Some
of these (vehicles, entities related to provision of service),
clearly, are users. The balance of these entities is envisioned to support users.
3.2. VII institutional and political architecture
An important and in some quarters, even more important complement to the technical architecture is the
institutional or political architecture, which may have in
principle provided VII the wherewithal to succeed. Hence,
to guide the program and make decisions on policy, USDOT
established two levels of oversight. At the highest level, the
Executive Leadership Team (ELT) was responsible for setting policy related to VII. At the working level, a VII Working Group was created with committees to match each of
the four program elements: Technology Development,
Investigation of Potential Business Models, Societal and
Institutional Analysis, and Outreach. Each of these committees was composed of representatives from the three
stakeholder groups most directly responsible for the success of VII:

Administration (NHTSA), Federal Transit Administration

(FTA), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Administration (FMCSA).
 Several key AASHTO or State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), to include California, Florida, Idaho,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Utah, Virginia, and
Washington.
 In addition to the state DOTs, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which is the Municipal
Planning Organization for the San Francisco Bay Area
Region, also participated because of its reputation as a
leader in the eld of ITS and its membership in AASHTO.
 Members from eight major auto manufacturers, including the then DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and GM (US);
Honda, Nissan, and Toyota (Japan); and BMW, and
Volkswagen/Audi (Europe).
From 2004 to 2008, the VII Working Group met regularly
to review the progress in these four areas and to plan
upcoming work, and the VII ELT met approximately twice
each year to discuss matters related to VII policy. As time
progressed, the auto industry formed a private, non-prot
legal entity under IRS Code 501(c)(6), called the VII Consortium (VIIC), to represent it in pre-competitive matters pertaining to VII. After working independently at the
beginning of the program, the state DOTs and MTC eventually decided to work together under the leadership of
AASHTO, in a manner analogous to that of the VIIC. Representatives from the AASHTO states served on all four teams
responsible for VII research and led the efforts for Outreach.
During these deliberations, while several business models for potential VII deployment were considered, including
all manner of publicpublic and publicprivate partnerships, the one model that seemed most realistic was the
traditional model of Federal Aid, where state and local
DOTs would design and install VII infrastructure in accordance with accepted national standards and specications,
then be reimbursed for the costs using Federal funds. The
cost for a national deployment in the United States is speculated to be about $10 billion.
On the vehicle side, it was expected that the automotive
industry would make a commitment to install the DSRC
OBE in all new cars, which was about 15 million each year
at the time (though considerably less now) [12]. Since the
infrastructure and vehicle components were presumed to
be available nearly simultaneously, this approach to VII
deployment was given the name Big Bang, and until
2008 was assumed to be the preferable business model.
The decision was made early in the SafeTrip-21 program to exclusively use DSRC as the communications technology of, specically for safety (for which DSRC is deemed
to be essential), as well as for mobility and e-commerce
applications that might be enabled using technologies
other than DSRC. This decision would have repercussions
that impact the program even to this date.
3.3. VII proof of concept

 USDOT, in the form of its ITS Joint Program Ofce

(JPO), as well as members of the surface transportation
modal administrations: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Highway Trafc Safety

The USDOTs VII Program had as its primary objective to

reach a conclusion about the technical feasibility of VII
by the end of 2008, and if deemed feasible, make a

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

recommendation that its deployment be adopted as

national public policy. The cornerstone of this process was
a set of Proof-of-Concept (POC) tests that occured primarily
in the Southeast Michigan region near Detroit, with some
additional testing conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area.
In Oakland County, Michigan, just north of the city of Detroit, 55 DSRC-based Roadside Equipment (RSE) locations
were installed at freeway and intersection locations, with
assistance from Michigan DOT and the Road Commission
of Oakland County. The RSEs consisted of a DSRC radio and
antenna, a GPS receiver and antenna, and a computer that
managed the operation of the system. The RSEs were also
equipped with backhaul communication to a single Service
Delivery Node (SDN) using either a T1 line (wired) or WiMAX
or a 3G cellular data modem (both wireless). As described in
Section 2.1, the SDN managed the backhaul network and
provided network level data services that enabled the VII
applications to operate. As part of the POC, two Enterprise
Network Operating Centers (for back-up and redundancy)
would be needed to coordinate backbone communications
among the SDNs. In a real world deployment, each SDN
was designed to accommodate 10002000 RSEs, meaning
that about 100200 SDNs would be needed for a nationwide
deployment under the Big Bang approach [13].
On the vehicle side, the VIIC equipped about a dozen
light duty passenger cars with OBE, consisting of an
embedded DSRC radio and a computer that managed the
interface to the systems inside the car. This interface included access to the data on the proprietary CAN bus that
manages data communications within the vehicle.
The original vision for the POC test was to develop and
demonstrate so-called Day 1 safety and mobility applications for VII, applications that would be benecial from the
rst day of VII deployment. As the schedule slipped due to
unforeseen technical and institutional challenges, the
scope of testing was refocused to a direct validation of
the VII architecture, demonstrating that data could be
transferred between the cars and the roadside infrastructure, and showing that high-level network communication
services between the RSEs and SDN were performing ade-

3125

quately. This testing was completed by October 2008 and

is fully described in [14].
There was also a component of POC testing that occurred in the San Francisco region in early 2008. This testing included mapping DSRC radio characteristics at three
urban canyon locations (near tall buildings in the downtown area), primarily to measure the multi-path effects of
the radio signals bouncing off the buildings. There was also
a similar test on State Route 1 south of San Francisco to
identify radio propagation effects related to vertical and
horizontal curves (or more generally, the effects of hilly
terrain). A nal test was performed at the Dumbarton
Bridge Toll Plaza, which conrmed the use of DSRC for
electronic toll collection, including a verication of the entire back-ofce processing of the toll transaction [15].
In sum, the POC experiment was to have provided a
multi-stakeholder basis for decision on deployment of a
roadside-based network delivering low-latency, highly
reliable data communications to support safety and mobility services to users. The POC was therefore not a deployment; rather, it was an engineering and feasibility test,
concluded in 2008 [14]. The POC applications can be categorized as a complex of experiments in three classes [14]:
1. Probe Data Collection. Experiments included vehicle
interface experiments, DSRC propagation tests, examination of positioning options, security tests, experiments with probe data message and distribution
functions, examination of utility of probe data for
mobility (trafc, planning, etc.).
2. In Vehicle Signage Tests. Additional experiments
included advisory distribution schemes and message
and application prioritization.
3. HeartBeat. Additional tests included data exchange
between diverse vehicles, and an examination of radio
propagation (utility and radio congestion) effectiveness
of the system for safety (utility and radio congestion).
Fig. 3 illustrates the legacy RSE equipment and architecture described in Section 1.2.3. All these were developed

Fig. 3. VII Michigan Testbed RSE.

3126

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

under the VII POC. At the end of the POC, there were 55
DSRC RSE units available, with 11 limited access roads
(spread along 52 km), 44 on arterial roads (spread along
70 km). There were also 10 vehicles equipped with DSRC
OBE.
As a note, this testbed is currently being supplemented
by RSE on Telegraph Rd, and US DOT has a plan to upgrade
and standardize these RSE. However, the testbed is now
open to any qualied user to conduct V-to-I experiments
with the technical assistance of a test bed contract operator. The intent is to allow the automotive industry full access to modern DSRC roadside infrastructure and
encourage private development and investment to further
DSRC applications and with this, DSRC adoption into new,
retrot or aftermarket systems.

4. IntelliDriveSM and the connected vehicle

4.1. Transition from VII to IntelliDriveSM
In 2006 the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration (RITA) in USDOT and shortly thereafter
the Intelligent Transportation Systems-Joint Program Ofce (ITS-JPO), which managed VII, was moved to RITA.
The RITA Administrator at the time did not believe that
the United States government would not fund a largescale, nationwide deployment of DSRC-based infrastructure at a cost of about $10 billion. This high cost encompassed a vision for a fully deployed system which would
include OBE installed on every new vehicle manufactured
after a specied date and RSE installed at all signalized
intersections in major urban areas and at primary intersections in other areas. RSE would also be installed at all highway interchanges and along major intercity and many
rural highways. The coverage would be extensive: the proposed VII system had the potential to cover all urban roads
within 2-min travel times, 70% of all signalized intersections in 454 urban areas and up to 15 new million vehicles
per year [13]. This network would make it possible to collect transportation operations data of great breadth and
depth, to implement sophisticated trafc safety systems,
and to manage trafc ows with previously unthinkable
precision.
Therefore, by early 2008 it became clear to RITA that a
research approach to develop a mid-term and transformative integrated transportation data network was of unprecedented and perhaps too large a scope and complexity
from all viewpoints: institutional, political and technical.
Based upon this realization, a number of changes were
made, namely the advent of SafeTrip-21 (described in the
next section) which was at the cutting edge of movement
to rebrand VII and consideration that perhaps multiple
over-the-air interfaces to include 3G and 4G might complement DSRC for applications that may not need the
safety-of-life Quality of Service (QoS) measures.
The USDOT also began to more fully engage other
modes of surface travel, such as transit and commercial
trucks, which have the potential to be early adopters of
VII-like technologies. With this new emphasis on more
than just DSRC, and in considering other vehicle modes be-

sides cars, it also seemed appropriate to rename the program. A marketing consultant was retained, and the
representatives of the ELT and Working Group helped to
select a new name for the program, IntelliDriveSM.
4.2. SafeTrip-21
While the IntelliDriveSM program was proceeding, a
new initiative, called Safe and Efcient Travel through
Innovation and Partnership for the 21st Century or SafeTrip-21, was initiated to explore the possibility of achieving at least some of the safety and mobility benets of
VII using existing or emerging technology. In other words,
the emphasis for SafeTrip-21 would not be on using DSRC.
It would instead focus on possible substitutes, including
Wi-Fi and the 3G network.
As there was one remaining year in the Bush Administration, SafeTrip-21 was put on a fast track. A competitive
solicitation was advertised in early 2008, and the initial
project began in early April. One of the primary objectives
of the SafeTrip-21 initiative was to formally unveil the project and objectives with technology demonstrations during
the 2008 ITS World Congress that took place in New York
City in November. The initial project, called the California
Connected Traveler, was selected for funding. It was conducted by a team led by Caltrans and its academic partners,
at UC Berkeley. This team also included other public sector
members, including MTC, and two transit agencies and private sector companies, Nokia and NAVTEQ, and Nissan.
The focus for the Connected Traveler project was to
investigate the potential for the highly capable smart
phones that were just beginning to emerge and to determine whether some safety and mobility aspects of IntelliDriveSM, could be implemented on smart phones. One of
the three elements of the project, the Mobile Millennium,
focused on the notion of collecting trafc data for GPSequipped smart phones as they were transported in cars
[16]. This element included a client application that was
downloaded into the smart phone, and when this application was running, it would send speed and location data
from the car using the existing cell phone network. In exchange for sharing this data, the user received trafc information back to the phone, and it was displayed in the form
of a speed map, with redyellowgreen colors telling the
driver the trafc conditions around them and therefore enabling them to make better choices of routes and times of
travel.
A second element of the Connected Traveler project
(called Networked Traveler Situational Awareness) was
a soft safety application, again running as client software
on a smart phone [17]. The objective here was to alert drivers of slow or stopped trafc just slightly (about 1 mile)
ahead of them on the freeway. Since about half of the
crashes on freeways are the end-of-queue type, where distracted or inattentive drivers come up suddenly on slow or
stopped trafc and do not have enough time to stop before
crashing into the cars in front of them [18], this application
seemed to have tremendous potential for improving freeway safety. The hypothesis was that an audio alert delivered via smart phone just upstream from the queue
might give the driver a better chance to prepare to slow

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

and stop in advance of the queue. While the source for the
queue formation information for this application was
existing infrastructure-based sensors, it is envisioned that
the trafc data collected using something akin to Mobile
Millennium might be a better source, since freeway queues
can form at any time and any place, not just where sensors
are located.
The nal element of the Connected Traveler project
(called Networked Traveler Transit and Smart Parking)
had an objective to improve the accessibility and quality
of real-time traveler information and to make transit a
known and viable choice for travelers [19]. Prior survey
data that have been collected and analyzed suggested the
need to test the following major hypothesis: will travelers
benet from access to real-time integrated multi-modal
information and therefore be more likely to use transit?
When trafc along a major freeway corridor is heavily
congested, public transportation can be a better choice
for travel. Parking availability, travel time for buses/trains
compared to driving, and real-time bus/train arrival information delivered to drivers enables them to make informed decisions on both time and mode choice of travel.
The research evaluated a pre-trip integrated, multi-modal
trip-planning tool that compared the real-time freeway
driving time based on current trafc condition and provided information about transit alternatives and parking
information. This trip information was also sent to GPSequipped smart phones to provide additional benets
(such as bus/train arrival time, ETA to your destination,
connection/transfer information, your stop next, etc.),
while taking the trip.
For drivers already on the freeway, the project also
incorporates the use of Changeable Message Signs (CMS)
to display information comparing travel times for staying
on the freeway (e.g. US-101 between San Jose and San
Francisco) compared to using the adjacent heavy commuter train.
During pre-launch pilot testing, a variety of transit riders were interviewed, and it was found that many of them
use iPhones. Researchers developed an iPhone version of
the mobile application, in addition to an initial Windows
Mobile version. In order to attract more users, researchers
also completed a version of the application to operate on
the new Android phones.
In addition to the Connected Traveler project, several
other SafeTrip-21 projects were also funded beginning in
late 2008. The biggest one involved the I-95 Corridor Coalition, and their project also focused on providing travelers
with real-time information to enable them to make better
travel choices [20]. All the SafeTrip-21 projects are either
completed or nearly completed at this time.

5. Vehicle-to-infrastructure projects
There is more to VII than the testbed and SafeTrip-21,
however. The legacy is in technical work on multipath
and channel loading [21,22] and also a set of concepts
and ideas which remain as valid today as during the VII
program. For example, V-to-I applications present opportunities to improve operational efciency and mobility

3127

and challenges to deployment and operations. The most

logical deployment is at signalized and stopped controlled
intersections where safety improvements could potentially
reduce the number of fatalities. However, it is difcult for
public operating agencies to commit to the investment required to install and operate these new technologies when
the market penetration of equipped vehicles remains low.
In short, the realized benets will likely not be apparent
for some time. It is possible that some benets could be
realized by rst addressing the needs of other modes, such
as transit, public safety vehicles, and commercial vehicles,
and then leveraging these installations to improve safety
and mobility as the total vehicle eet becomes equipped.
In addition to the obvious application to intersection
operations, there are signicant benets that can be realized by applications that may initially provide more information that realize operational benets. For example,
collection of performance data from equipped probe vehicles could provide information for travelers and system
operators that could have a signicant impact on a travelers trip selection and on an operators ability to make
changes, such as signal timing improvements, to improve
mobility. Similarly, it has been suggested that the vehicle
probes can provide information about roadway conditions
(e.g. pavement, potholes, ice, etc.) and weather. These data
sources do not require signicant market penetration in
order to provide valuable information.
5.1. Intersection operations and safety
Improving intersection operations and safety have long
been goals in the deployment of advanced technologies.
Hence, one of the VII application domains, intersection
safety, was conducted under the aegis of the Cooperative
Intersection Collision Avoidance (CICAS) program was a
multi-year, cooperative research program including Federal, state, academic, and industry partners. The program
began in 2003 was divided into three functional segments
based on crash type. The largest programmatic segment is
CICAS-V (Violation) which is led by a consortium of US DOT
and automobile manufacturers, the Collision Avoidance
Metrics Partnership (CAMP) [23], with support from
researchers at Virginia Tech. CICAS-V aimed to address
the problem of straight crossing path collisions which tend
to be the result of stop sign or stop light violations. A second programmatic segment was CICAS-SSA (Stop Sign Assist) which is led by the Minnesota DOT, with support
from researchers at the University of Minnesota. CICASSSA aimed to address the problems associated with crossing or entering a high-speed, rural road from a stop sign at
a minor road. The nal programmatic segment was CICASSLTA (Signalized Left Turn Assist) which is lead by Caltrans,
with support from the California PATH Program (Partners
for Advanced Transit and Highways) at the University of
California, Berkeley. This CICAS-SLTA segment aimed to address crashes caused by vehicles making left turns at signalized intersections where there is no protected leftturn signal [24].
It should be noted that two of the authors (Larson, Misener) were key managers and investigators for the CICASSLTA effort. Both performed similar roles in developing

3128

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

and implementing VII California, which focused on experimental deployment of RSE and OBE in California with the
expressed purpose to develop a V-to-X test bed, then conduct experimental investigations and demonstrations on a
host of VII transportation applications important to the San
Francisco Bay Area [15].
5.2. Other mobility applications
The mobility promise of being connected extends the
safety focus into considering corridor- or system-wide
knowledge and provision of roadside-to-vehicle. Arterial
trafc operations and signal control, as well as limited access road operations, would have individual and collective
vehicles as potential active participants. Vehicles may be
directed to slow down (and drivers could respond positively, as they would realize fuel economy) or speed up
to meet a series of green phases; those green phases could
in turn be actuated by connected vehicles. A straightforward example is transit signal priority, enabled by such
connectivity. These types of mobility applications are
lumped into an emergent USDOT cluster of programs described as dynamic mobility applications, and because
these applications depend on data, there is a companion
data capture and management effort.
Some of these other mobility applications under some
consideration are in the area of systems operations management. Connected vehicle data for all classications
and modes:
 when combined with vehicle counts, can provide corridor- or system-wide feedback to system operators on
signal timing or on-ramp merging, allowing for coordinated and adaptive optimization of signalization;
 may be combined with real time trafc speed data to
allow users to avoid areas of high trafc congestion by
taking alternate routes, alternate modes, or adjusting
trip schedule;
 can promote eco-driving by giving drivers better
information about trafc ahead and on arterials,
impending signal changes or advising them of travel
speeds that will minimize the number of extra start
and stop maneuvers they need to make at signalized
intersections. This can be particularly benecial for
heavy trucks on arterials, where the benets will
include not only fuel and emissions savings but also
noise reductions; and
 may provide better estimates of point-to-point travel
times based on real-time conditions through probe or
oating-car data.
There are, however, transit-specic applications. With
transit systems, connected vehicles data:
 can assist transit system operators by providing microscopic, comprehensive data on the real-time status of
transit vehicles. This allows for efcient and potentially
ubiquitous methods for automatic vehicle location;
 would provide dynamic information services based on
SPAT, which has the potential to signicantly increase
the predictability of estimating transit trip times; and

 may enable transit signal priority.

An additional set of applications aimed at commercial
vehicles include credentialing and security.
Indeed, connected-enabled mobility (and consequentially, environmental) applications vary in the richness of
information exchange required, with sources of information including remote trafc management centers and data
sources as well as the nearby vehicles and the trafc signal
controllers.
6. Vehicle-to-vehicle
6.1. Current state
There is at this time a very active and exciting VANET
community around the world [22]. In the United States
much of the applied transportation research and experiments is driven by the USDOT and very specically the
NHTSA and their CAMP partners. Because there are now
several DSRC WAVE suppliers, experiments aimed at determining channel congestion and methods of control and
over-the-air interoperability with multiple radio units are
in progress. While plans and results are not widely published, it is expected that power and rate control methods
at various experimental scales approaching 200 vehicles
will yield a plethora of interesting and relevant data and
understanding of how to address in the PHY and MAC
means to address this. Additionally, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has published a higher-level (message
set) standard which essentially provides a common data
exchange from vehicular serial buses so that all classes of
vehicles could talk to and listen in the same language
and execute safety services. This is the SAE J2735 (DSRC
Technical Committee) standard [25].
6.2. Challenges to V-to-V deployment: market penetration
conundrum and need for regulation
In recent years, it has become increasingly apparent
that the usage of DSRC is likely to be limited within the
realm of V-to-V safety related applications that require
stringent communication latency. Non-safety and content
based applications are likely to evolve over other wireless
technology such as 3G/4G and mobile WiMAX, for which
the deployments are either already in place or have began
for non-V-to-X commercial applications. A likely challenge
for enabling DSRC based V-to-X applications is the issue of
DSRC market penetration, regardless of the location. This is
because the success of the major V-to-V and V-to-I safety
applications such as Cooperative Collision Avoidance
(CCA) depends heavily on the percentage of vehicles on
the road that actually uses DSRC and participates in the
collaborative process. In certain situations, the performance of such applications also depends on the density
of the roadside DSRC equipment which can take part in
safety message forwarding. In the absence of regulatory/
governmental deployment mandates, this market penetration issue can potentially be a roadblock to the success of
V-to-X DSRC in the near future.

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

To bring out this issue, we present sample results highlighting the dependency of CCA application performance
on DSRC market penetration using results obtained from
an integrated transport-DSRC simulator [9]. The simulations were conducted assuming a highway platoon executing CCA over DSRC with varying degree of market
penetration.
6.2.1. Number of cars colliding
Fig. 4 indicates the effects of CCA on the number of colliding vehicles in trafc streams featuring a 1.0 s and an
aggressive 0.6 s inter-vehicle spacing. In both cases, the
scenario without the DSRC based CCA expectedly produces
the largest number of collisions. The number of collisions is
also higher for the scenario with the more aggressive 0.6 s
inter-vehicle spacing. When the DSRC based CCA application is activated, the number of collisions signicantly
drops in both scenarios. In both cases, the recommendation of a different approach speed also results in changes
in the number of vehicles colliding.
For the scenario considering a 0.6 s average spacing, the
least number of colliding vehicles is obtained with a CCA
recommended approach speed of 10 m/s (36 km/h). For
the scenarios with a 1.0 s average speed, the least number
of collisions is obtained for a recommended approach
speed of 7 m/s (25 km/h). The fact that the slowest recommended speed does not always result in the least number

(a)

3129

of collisions is explained by the variability of driver behavior. While an average spacing of 1.0 or 0.6 s is used, aggressive drivers may travel with shorter time gaps while less
aggressive drivers will favor a larger spacing. If an aggressive driver closely follows a vehicle initiating a sudden
harsh deceleration, its reaction time may then not allow
the aggressive driver to avoid a collision. Most of the collisions occurring a few seconds after the incident are the result of aggressive drivers following other vehicles too
closely when braking occurs. Stochastic variations in vehicle positions and driver aggressiveness effects explain why
a reduction in the recommended approach speed does not
necessarily result in a lower number of incidents.
6.2.2. Impact of DSRC market penetration level
Fig. 5 illustrates the impact on the number of colliding
vehicles of two partial DSRC deployments for the scenario
of Fig. 2, assuming an average 0.6 s inter-vehicle spacing
and incident DSRC warning messages recommending a
10 m/s approach speed sent only one wireless hop from
the generating vehicle. The graph on the left shows the results of ve simulation runs with different initial number
seeds considering an 80% deployment, while the graph
on the right considers a 50% deployment.
The simulation results suggest that the performance of
the CCA application could be signicantly impaired by
the presence of non-communicating (i.e. non-DSRC-

(b)

Fig. 4. Number of collided cars with vehicle spacing (a) 0.6 s (19.1 m) and (b) 1 s (32 m).

Fig. 5. Impacts of market penetration on vehicle collisions.

3130

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

equipped) vehicles within the trafc stream. While the

majority of simulations results in a number of collisions
that lies between the no-deployment and full deployment
scenarios, the stochastic variance of vehicle positioning
within the trafc stream is signicantly higher with the
50% than the 80% deployment scenario. This variance notably results on one simulation run producing more collisions than the scenario without CCA.
Fig. 6 explains the observed variable. The gure, which
shows snapshots from the simulator, illustrates the position of vehicles a few seconds after the incident has occurred in a scenario without CCA and a scenario with a
few vehicles with active DSRC and CCA. In the right frame,
the vehicles with active CCA are those with a ag tagged to
them. As can be observed, secondary accident chains typically involve a CCA vehicle at their head. In each case, an
aggressive driver was following the CCA vehicle very closely. As the CCA vehicles received the warning message
and started decelerating, the aggressive driver of the following non-CCA vehicle does not have enough time to respond to the deceleration and thus rear-ends the CCA
vehicle. This results in the immediate immobilization of
both vehicles and triggers a short chain of collisions.
Fig. 7 depicts the impacts of a wider range of DSRC
deployment level on the number of theoretically colliding
vehicles. The gure shows both the average number of collisions and a 90% condence range based on the variance of
ve simulation runs. As expected, higher DSRC deployment
levels generally reduce the number of collisions and the
variance of results. For very low DSRC deployments (e.g.
less than 20%), stochastic effects can create situations with
more collisions than a scenario without CCA. The variance

observed for the 0%, 5% and 100% deployment cases were

negligible.
The results illustrate an important observation that in
certain conditions low DSRC market penetration in fact
may worsen the collision situations compared to situations
when no DSRC is deployed. This means that the issue of
DSRC deployment will have to be planned very carefully
to ensure that a large percentage of vehicles should support DRSC-based safety applications from day one. This
further necessitates the need for regulatory mandates
without which the DSRC-based safety applications may
never be realized due to legal and other implications.
7. The short horizon
The near-term prognostication of connected vehicles in
North America is certainly a function of emerging technology, but the funding and institutional motivations are drivers. Consider the following initiatives:
7.1. USDOT roadmap
In recent months, the USDOT has revealed a fascinating
set of V-to-X roadmaps, or research plans, which outline a
comprehensive and empirically-based set of projects to
examine connected vehicles in eld settings. Safety is
clearly the priority, with V-to-V safety and perhaps some
V-to-I elements comprising the very rst large-scale connected vehicles eld tests, or the safety pilot. This pilot
is essentially divided into small-scale driver clinics to
understand the user experience, then into a large-scale

(a)
Safely
Stopped
Cars
Collided Cars

(b)

DSRC enabled cars cause

more accidents

Incident Cars
Fig. 6. Snapshot of collided cars (a) CCA disabled and (b) only few cars activate CCA.

Fig. 7. Number of collided cars with varying market penetration.

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

and perhaps 3000-vehicle test involving 64 functional

safety vehicles equipped with DSRC transceivers and
the remaining vehicles providing a here I am beacon.
The goal is to inform a NHTSA rulemaking by 2013 [4].
The rulemaking goal jibes with the analysis and hypothesis
of the preceding Section 6.2, that is, to promote safety at
sufcient scale may require some type of regulation.
Mobility and the environment is also captured within
this roadmap, as there are data capture and management
and dynamic mobility applications and emergent environmental components, none of which necessarily require
DSRC, as part of the V-to-X ve-year safety plan [4].
7.2. Institutional progress
7.2.1. AASHTO connected vehicles strategic plan
As AASHTO helped the state DOTs participating in the
IntelliDriveSM Program to work together as a coordinated
team, it became clear that there was no shared vision for
what this group, which represented what the roadway
infrastructure owners and operators, really wanted from
the program. Recognizing the importance of creating such
a shared vision, in early 2009 a workshop was convened to
create the foundation for an AASHTO Strategic Plan. This
plan was completed in May 2009, and it contains mission
and vision statements, strategic themes, and action plans.
One of the most important actions was to create a Deployment Plan that identies some of the possible approaches
to deploying the infrastructure portion of connected vehicles. This work was completed in late 2010, and a subsequent cost-benet analysis tool to further aid in
deployment was commissioned.
7.2.2. State DOT Pooled Fund Study
Another key action from the AASHTO Strategic Plan was
to establish a Pooled Fund Study, which is a mechanism
that allows state DOTs to pool their research funding in order to pursue research of mutual interest. This decision
gave the state DOTs access to funding resources to perform
research in areas that were not being addressed by the national program.
Virginia DOT agreed to lead the study, with participation from Arizona (through Maricopa County Transportation), California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Texas and
FHWA. Minnesota and Washington are in the process of
joining, as well. During the rst year of research, three projects were completed in the following connected vehicle
areas: signal timing optimization, intersection safety and
mobility, and pavement roughness measurement.
7.2.3. New Governors, new Directors
During the recent United States elections (November
2010), 37 of the 50 of the United States have selected
new heads of state, or Governors. Many of these elections
have resulted in new administrations, and that typically
means that new Directors/Secretaries of Transportation
are being appointed. If it is to be expected that progress
will be made in the deployment of any infrastructure components of a connected vehicle initiative during the next
four years, there must be a concerted effort to educate
these new executives on the benets of connected vehicles.

3131

With severely constrained resources, it will be a challenge

to convince them that such an investment is warranted. In
preparation for achieving this objective, additional work
will be needed to quantify the costs and benets of connected vehicles since they will rightfully ask about what
return they will get for the investment.
7.2.4. Outreach to regional and local transportation agencies
In addition to the states, it is critically important to
reach out to regional and local transportation agencies to
inform them about the connected vehicle program. This
outreach is particularly critical when one considers that
many state departments of transportation are only responsible for operating and maintaining a fraction of the roadways where connected vehicle equipment might be
deployed. California is one example, where the state DOT
(Caltrans) owns and operates the State Highway System
(Interstates, US Highways, and State Routes), which comprises only about 10% of the roadways in the state, and
about 12% of the signalized intersections. The vast majority
of the roads and intersections in the state are controlled by
the 58 counties and more than 500 cities, most of which
have their own trafc departments. The vast majority of
these agencies have never even heard of connected vehicles, yet they would need to offer access to their right-ofway, and more importantly, their signal controller cabinets, in order for the DSRC infrastructure to be deployed.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is Virginia, where
90% of the roads are owned and operated by Virginia
DOT, potentially making it easier to deploy new connected
vehicle infrastructure.. Most other states fall somewhere in
between these two examples, reinforcing the importance
of outreach.
7.3. Commercial forces
The North American deployment of the V-to-X applications is likely to go though a complex market-driven process in which all the above three technologies are to play
a role within their own niches. Cellular service providers
are expected to continue developing services using 3G/4G
and WiMAX technology in order to ensure their return
on the capital investment that are already being made for
non-V-to-X commercial services. Provisioning high bandwidth access (e.g. 10 Mbps) using existing 3G/4G and/or
WiMAX infrastructure can enable the cellular service providers to develop a rich array of content-based services.
Deployment of such services is expected to be shaped by
the providers based on the market need and business economics. For safety based services, however, DSRC is
deemed to be indispensable because of its ability to offer
low latency packet transport. Deployment of DSRC, which
is largely a non-revenue generating technology, will be
shaped by governmental regulations, mandate and usage
standards.
8. The long horizon
Clearly, the concept of V-to-X cooperative systems continues to gain acceptance, progressing from conceptual

3132

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

studies to eld trials. Given market penetration, perhaps as

a series of rulemakings or codes of practice, components of
V-to-X systems will be in place. We must be careful in realizing that in tandem the commercial sector and 3G, 4G and
down the road 5G communication links will also be in
place. This portends a revolution that is disruptive
change as the proliferation of wireless communications
has captured more than the attention and fancy of
researchers. Therefore, the concept of a wireless ecosystem, with DSRC as a safety and perhaps tolling linchpin,
may become manifest. While this may not exactly be the
future, the government-sponsored connected vehicles research program and a USDOT adoption may in fact pave
the way. Indeed, it is safety and DSRC, not sustainability
and traveler information that piques most of the USDOT
investment.
With V-to-X turned on, active safety, vehicle-to-vehicle
and vehicle-to-roadside communications could in principle
aid in intersection warning where conicting vehicles could
talk others or the intersection could transmit its sensed or
trafc signal phase information to vehicles. Aid in curve
overspeed could also be given where activation of stability
control or tire slip differential systems could indicate poor
road conditions for given vehicle states. With cooperative
active safety, vehicles could inform other vehicles or the
infrastructure, and the infrastructure could message vehicles wirelessly and/or direct to drivers via a roadside changeable message sign. Other applications include forward
collision warning, where instead of reliance on a fused system of Doppler radar and perhaps other sensors, DSRC could
transmit forward vehicle state to the following vehicles. This
information would include braking rates and braking capacity, resulting in a quicker, more reliable rear-end safety system. Yet another application is in highwayrail intersection
safety, where rail vehicles and road systems and crossing
trafc could communicate. Undoubtedly, many other cooperative safety applications can be determined with DSRC as
the principle enabling technology.
The authors contend that the idea of V-to-X is too compelling and too broad to be channeled into one particular
portion of the horizon. Vehicles, nowadays equipped with
several hundred sensors, plus the real possibility of GPS
becoming an additional and ubiquitous sensor, and a
means to send sensed information off the CAN bus to the
infrastructure (and also from the infrastructure to the
CAN bus) has manifold, revolutionary applications in ITS.
V-to-X connectivity will become the foundation to providing data that enables trafc and highway management to
include routing and trip choice for sustainability. Moreover, the connectivity will provide in-vehicle travel information, facilitate crash and incident response and
activate cooperative active safety warning systems. This
will, in time, pave the way for V-to-X enabled vehicular
control, but only after very signicant market penetration,
reliability and tight safety-of-life considerations.

9. Summary and conclusions

In this article we introduced V-to-X communications in
North America, bringing forth a historical perspective and

the ensuing present-day and future landscapes. The view

of the paper is resolutely optimistic, as deployment remains the goal throughout. From that perspective,
deployment may be considered a difcult to dene proposition since there are so many variants of V-to-X communication that could be attained. We deliberately discussed
the institutional history and legacy framework for cooperation, then described an analysis showing a provocative
conclusion that at low market penetration, V-to-V may in
fact be less safe than the status quo. The technical and
institutional argument, therefore, to start with V-to-V, include V-to-I as possible, then prove scalability and surrogate measures of safety with standards-based trials
provides a sensible path to deployment.
The future is difcult to predict, but this sensible foundation can serve as a basis for even more V-to-X connectivity discovery, with the chance of a revolution in
unprecedented delivery of applications over a broad span
of available V-to-X connectivity options.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge technical input
and feedback from Mahmoud Taghizade and Francios Dion
on the topic of DSRC market penetration and its impacts on
highway vehicle collision reduction.

References
[1] Genevieve Giuliano, Land use and travel patterns among the elderly,
in: Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings
Transportation an Aging Society: A Decade of Experience:
Transportation Res, Behtesda, MD, November 79, 1999.
[2] Susan A. Shaheen, Adam P. Cohen, J. Darius Roberts, Carsharing in
North America: market growth, current developments, and future
potential, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1986, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2006, pp. 116
124.
[3] Evelyn Bloomberg, Kimiko Shiki, Transportation assimilation:
immigrants, race and ethnicity, and mode choice, in: Proceedings
of the 86th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting,
Washington DC, January 2007.
[4] USDOT IntelliDriveSM Website. http://www.intellidriveusa.org/
(accessed 31.10.10).
[5] S. Biswas, R. Tatchikou, F. Dion, Vehicle-to-vehicle wireless
communication protocols for enhancing highway trafc safety,
IEEE Communications (January) (2006).
[6] IEEE 802.16 Backgrounder. IEEE. http://ieee802.org/16/pub/
backgrounder.html (accessed 28.10.10).
[7] North American Program Plan. IEEE. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/
scc32/ (accessed 28.10.10).
[8] Motorola MeshNetworks Homepage. http://www.motorola.com/
Business/US-EN/Business+Product+and+Services/Wireless+Broadband+
Networks/Mesh+Networks/ (accessed 28.10.10).
[9] M. Taghizadeh, F. Dion, S. Biswas, A generalized framework for
integrated vehicle trafc and wireless network simulation, in:
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Ad hoc and
Wireless Networks (ADHOCNOW 2010), Springer-Verlag, Edmonton,
Canada, 2010.
[10] Saving Lives Through Advanced Vehicle Safety Technology:
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Final Report. Publication No. FHWAJPO-05-057, December 2005.
[11] Vehicle Infrastructure Integration: All Architecture and Functional
Requirements, Version 1.1, FHWA, ITS Joint Program Ofce, July 20,
2005.
[12] Report: Number of cars in the US dropped by four million in 2009.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/04/report-number-of-cars-in-theu-s-dropped-by-four-million-in-20/ (accessed 31.10.10).

J.A. Misener et al. / Computer Networks 55 (2011) 31203133

[13] Booz Allen Hamilton, Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII)
Communications Analysis Version 3.0 McLean, VA, July 2006.
[14] Scott Andrews, Michael Cops, Vehicle Infrastructure Integration
Proof of Concept Technical Description, FHWA, ITS Joint Program
Ofce, May 19, 2009, FHWA-JPO-09-043.
[15] James A. Misener, Wireless-enabled safety services in California: VII
California, intersection safety and other emerging innovations, in:
Proceedings of SAE Convergence Transportation Electronics
Conference, Detroit, Michigan, October, 2008.
[16] Ryan Herrin, A. Hoeitnery, S.Z. Aminz, T.A. Nasr, A.A. Khalek, P.
Abeel, A. Bayen, Using mobile phones to forecast arterial trafc
through statistical learning, in: Proceedings 89th Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 1014,
2010.
[17] Christian Manasseh, James A. Misener, Raja Sengupta, Using
smartphones to enable situation awareness on highways, in:
Proceedings Intelligent Transportation Society of America 20th
Annual Meeting and Exposition, Houston, Texas, May 35,
2010.
[18] James A. Misener, Hsiao-Shen Jacob Tsao, Bongsob Song, Aaron
Steinfeld, The emergence of a cognitive car following driver model
with application to rear-end crashes with a stopped lead vehicle,
Transportation Research Record, No. 1724 (Human Performance:
Driver Behavior, Road Design, and Intelligent Transportation
Systems), 2000.
[19] Networked Traveler. http://www.networkedtraveler.org/ (accessed
31.10.10).
[20] SafeTrip-21. http://www.i95coalition.org/i95/Projects/ProjectDatabase/
tabid/120/agentType/View/PropertyID/317/Default.aspx (accessed
31.10.10).
[21] X. James Dong, Wenbing Zhang, Pravin Variaya, James A. Misener,
Millimeter-wave dedicated short-range communications (DSRC):
standard, application, and experiment study, in: Shao-Qiu Xiao,
Ming-Tuo Zhou, Yan Zhang (Eds.), Millimeter Wave Technology,
Taylor and Francis, New York, 2007. Chapter 8.
[22] James A. Misener, Susan Dickey, Joel VanderWerf, Raja Sengupta,
Vehicle-infrastructure cooperation, in: Stephan Olariu, Michele C.
Weigle (Eds.), Vehicular Networks from Theory to Practice, Taylor
and Francis, New York, 2009. Chapter 3.
[23] S.M. Kiger, V.L. Neale, M.A. Maile, R.J. Kiefer, F. Ahmed-Zaid, L.
Caminiti, J. Lundberg, P. Mudalige, C. Pall, Cooperative Intersection
Collision Avoidance System Limited to Stop Sign and Trafc Signal
Violations (CICAS-V) Task 13 Final Report: Preparation for Field
Operational Test, National Highway Trafc Safety Administration,
Washington, DC.
[24] James A. Misener, Left turns, green lights, crash avoidance and
wireless technologies: harnessing vehicle-infrastructure integration
for intersection users, in: Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Application of Advanced Technologies in
Transportation, Athens, Greece, May 2008.
[25] Fact Sheet SAE J2735. <http://www.standards.its.dot.gov/fact_sheet.
asp?f=71> (accessed 30.10.10).

3133

James A. Misener is Executive Advisor at Booz

Allen Hamilton, with focus on safety and connected vehicle applications. From 1995 - 2010,
he was with the California Partners for
Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH) at the
University of California at Berkeley, serving in
recent years as Executive Director. A recurring
theme in his work is networked vehicles and
infrastructure. Mr. Misener has led the vehicleinfrastructure integration deployment test bed
research activities in California. He also co-led
the SafeTrip-21 Networked Traveler project,
which addressed transportation applications using over-the-air connectivity
with smartphones. Mr. Misener holds BS and MS degrees from UCLA and USC.

Subir Biswas is an Associate Professor and the

director of the Networked Embedded and
Wireless Systems laboratory at the Michigan
State University. Subir received Ph.D. from
University of Cambridge and held various
research positions in NEC Research Institute,
Princeton, AT&T Laboratories, Cambridge, and
Tellium Optical Systems, NJ. He has published
over 115 peer-reviewed articles in the area of
network protocols, and a co-inventor of 6 US
patents. His research interests include the
broad area of wireless data networking, lowpower network protocols, and application-specic sensor networks. He is
a senior member of IEEE and a fellow of Cambridge Philosophical Society.

Greg Larson before joining Caltrans, he spent

eight years working for the United States Air
Force as a System Engineer for electronic warfare systems. He has worked for Caltrans for
almost 20 years, rst as a Research Engineer at
the Transportation Laboratory, then as a Senior
Electronics Engineer and an Engineering
Manager. Greg is currently assigned as the
Chief of the Ofce of Trafc Operations
Research in the Division of Research and
Innovation. He is responsible for managing and
overseeing the efforts of a professional technical staff performing research in the area of Intelligent Transportation
Systems, with the Division of Trafc Operations and various Districts as
their primary customers. He also serves as one of the AASHTO representatives on the national IntelliDrive Programs Technical Working Group.