For the best experience browsing on ITS Australia, we recommend using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari or Edge. The ITS website also runs on mobile web browsers.
You can download supported browsers using one of these links:
To check what browser version you are using, visit What Is My Browser.
Vehicles that are connected and automated, including driverless vehicles, provide opportunities for safer travel, lower costs, more transport choices, and less road congestion.
This panel discussion, featuring experts from both government and industry, will gather to drive forward the draft principles that have been proposed and explore the necessary steps to attain the advantages of connected transport and autonomous vehicles for the benefit of society.
Silje Troseth President ITS Australia / Vice President APAC & General Manager Australia / Q-Free Australia President ITS Australia / Vice President APAC & General Manager Australia / Q-Free Australia
Silje Troeth was elected President of the ITS Australia Board of Directors in November 2023.
Silje has been working in the ITS industry for 15 years both with the private sector and the public sector within project management, project delivery, sales and marketing. Silje has been with Q-Free Australia since 2004 and has held various positions within the company in Norway, Australia and the Asia Pacific region, most recently as General Manager and Senior Vice President for AMPEA (Asia Pacific Middle East and Africa).
Silje has been a director of ITS Australia since 2018, and in addition to serving as President, Silje also serves as Chair of the Marketing & Communications Committee, and sits on the Membership Committee. Silje holds a Bachelor degree from the University of Western Sydney and a Master’s degree from the University of Technology Sydney.
Dr Miranda Blogg Director (CDOP Transition), Safer Road Infrastructure, Engineering and Technology, Infrastructure Management & Delivery Division / Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Director (CDOP Transition), Safer Road Infrastructure, Engineering and Technology, Infrastructure Management & Delivery Division / Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads
Dr Miranda Blogg is the Director of the Cooperative and Automated Vehicle Initiative at the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. Miranda has worked for the department for the last 5 years, and prior to, she was a consultant working both in Australia and the United States. Miranda is a registered civil engineer with a PhD in traffic engineering, and has specialised in traffic engineering, transport planning and research for over 20 years.
Scott Benjamin Technical Director Intelligent Transport / WSP Technical Director Intelligent Transport / WSP
Scott has over 25 years’ experience across network operation, transport data and technology. His passion is helping governments and network managers effectively operationalise strategy and policy, to share knowledge, mentor and develop our industry.
Scott was based in the UK for 10 years, where he worked on UK and EU Euro-regional ITS projects. These projects included network management and pricing: shifting the dial on operational efficiency. Since moving back to Australia, Scott has worked and delivered projects across Australia with state and federal governments including driving transformation through C-ITS. He has been closely involved with development of AIMES and is part of the AIMES executive.
Scott co-leads global initiatives driving change in future mobility and drive to zero carbon for WSP. Scott is a chartered engineer and a fellow, past board member and State President of the AITPM.
Mario Filipovic Manager Intelligent Transport Systems and Advanced Vehicle Safety, Advanced Planning Division / Toyota Australia Manager Intelligent Transport Systems and Advanced Vehicle Safety, Advanced Planning Division / Toyota Australia
During his 30 years at Toyota Australia, Mario has worked in diverse areas such as Manufacturing, Product Development, Regulations & Certification, Accessories and headed up the Advanced Planning Group within the Product Planning Division. For the past 4 years Mario has overseen Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems activity through different trials across Australia.
Mario has a passion for introducing technologies that make vehicles safer, cleaner, and more efficient by exploiting the latest developments in computers, sensors and telecommunications, matched with Australian talent and expertise.
Richard Delplace Director Emerging Technologies / Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries Director Emerging Technologies / Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries
Richard is the Director Emerging Technologies at the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, the peak representative body for the manufacturers and importers of passenger vehicles, light commercial vehicles and motorcycles in Australia.
He is responsible for the coordination of the FCAI members and the development of the FCAI’s approach and policy response to new and future technologies in vehicle safety, autonomy, and environmental performance.
Richard is also a Director on the Boards of ITS Australia, the Australian Automotive Service and Repair Authority (AASRA), and the Mining and Automotive Skills Alliance (AUSMASA).
Ian McCarthy Managing Director / Aimsun Managing Director / Aimsun
I have the privilege of leading Aimsun in Australia and New Zealand. A leader in transport modelling, technology, and advanced analytics, Aimsun is reshaping how we move across the built environment in a more sustainable, safe and productive way. Our software helps thousands of international users model tomorrow's smart mobility networks today. Aimsun's Professional Services provide leading-edge prediction AI and simulation-based solutions. Move Brilliantly...
Silje Troseth: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back in the room for our last session for today. A final plenary for Roads Tolling Technology conference here. My name is Silje Troseth. I'm the general manager for Q-Free here in Australia and I'm also one of the co-chairs for the RTT 2023. So, it's my absolute pleasure to moderate this panel session today called Pathway Forward for Connected Transport in Australia.
So, with the draft release of the principles for C‐ITS in Australia by the federal government, this is a very timely topic and also a topic that have had great interest in the last couple of months and I think there's no better place than to bring this to life here at the ITS Australia RTT conference.
So, back in January, ITS Australia hosted a webinar and I'm sure many of you attended that. This webinar was around the draft principles and Mike Makin from the Office of Future Transport presented the principles to us. Over 200 people dialled in, which was a big, big commitment from a lot of people and it just goes to show the level of interest that there is in this space for national consistency for C‐ITS.
So, a little bit of background on the principles themselves. So, the Office of Future Transport is working with Austroads and the state and territory governments to develop these principles. They're also looking towards international harmonisation and international standards and also looking at the trials that are currently being conducted here in Australia in New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria.
So, I'm not sure if everyone attended the session earlier on, but there are six draft principles. So, I'll just run through them very quickly. Number one, national consistency. So, consistency is key cross border and around the country. We don't want to change a device when we cross the border from New South Wales to Queensland for example. Number two, the enabling environment and this is how to set up the enabling environment to really maximise the benefits for C‐ITS. Number three is cooperation. So, cooperation across all stakeholders for it to be a success.
Number four, harmonisation. So, this is a question over time. So, harmonising towards European standard, I think that's what we're talking about. Number five, the objectives for C‐ITS in Australia, which is really around safety, productivity, sustainability, and to reduce emissions. And the last one, number six, security, and privacy, which is an ever-increasing interesting topic.
So, today we have five panellists with us. I'm going to introduce one by one and going to come up to the lectern and talk for about five to seven minutes on their view on the six principles and then afterwards we'll open up for a Q&A. So, save your questions to the end, please. And there are some microphones at the back of the room.
So, our first speaker is Dr. Miranda Blogg. So, we've heard from Miranda earlier today. Miranda is the director of CAVI for TMR. She's worked for the department for five years and before that she was a consultant in Australia and also in the United States. So, Miranda is a civil engineer with a PhD in traffic engineering. So, welcome Miranda.
Miranda Blogg: Thank you. So, many of you would've heard my presentation this morning. So, I'd just like to recap that in terms of what it means from TMR and my understanding of the principles and what's next. So, we had essentially a programme of projects and pilots that were based around understanding the safety impacts, demonstrating the technology to the customer, understanding what government needs to do and understanding where industry is in the maturity of this technology and what industry has and needs to do in order to integrate those products into that ecosystem.
So, I think from one of the major pilot pieces, which was the C‐ITS pilot, the findings were pretty simple. The safety benefits are demonstrable. We're talking about 20% reduction in crashes for human drivers and it's also a building block towards automation as a redundant sensor in that scale as well.
The system performed well and was scalable. So, it's not a technology issue. It's doable. The standards are available out of European markets as they are in other markets and technology vendors are ready. So, those components can be integrated into the systems.
That's not to say there isn't more maturity and the use cases as they develop and evolve. We are talking about some simple day one use cases. They get more mature. It's not to suggest that the standards don't emerge and things have to, we have to keep up with the standards, we have to be backward compatible. So, you'd have to ask the question, why aren't we seeing this in the market in Australia already? We know it's in Japan, has been for a long time, a good decade in many vehicles there. Europe's only really just got some energy behind it with VW releasing almost a million vehicles across the European Union for specific European Union standards.
And so, why not in Australia? So, I think if I was to recap the issues, we do have this sort of triangle between our customer needs to want it, they need to know about it and want it. Industry needs to provide it and government needs to enable it and, in this case, in this early stage, we need to do more than enable it. We need to provide information to allow early use cases. You can't really rely on vehicle to vehicle when there's three other vehicles on the network. You have to actually arm the infrastructure to enable that user to get some early benefits.
So, you've got that triangle where everyone needs to move together. There is really no single benefactor. So, that is from an investment perspective, there isn't a Google who's just going to sweep through and pick it all up and do it for us. That's unfortunately not the case. So, it is coming back to a lot of people investing time and effort and financial investment into the ecosystem to make it happen.
So, in terms of our last project, our connected transport project, the real focus for the last 24 months has been what can we do nationally? How can we help those other states? What can we share from some of our IP that we've built as part of this project? So, not just states, how can we help industries move along? So, we talked a little bit about getting this seven vendors, where are you at now with your product? Could we develop a harmonised specification nationally to make that happen? And TMR recently also put in a request at the Austroads level to stand up a C‐ITS implementation task force for Australia and really get some energy behind deployment. So, that's my recap. Thank you.
Silje Troseth: Thank you. Excellent. Thanks, Miranda. Our next speaker is Scott Benjamin. So, Scott Benjamin is the technical director for ITS for WSP. He has worked across transport technology and ITS for over 25 years now both here in Australia and in the UK. He has focused on future mobility over the past five years and particularly interest in cabs. Welcome, Scott.
Scott Benjamin: Thanks, Silje. Thanks for the invite to be here today. I'm just figured it out. All good.
So, look, just a quick comment on the principles listed by the Commonwealth Government. And, look, as Mike had said earlier, I don't think you're going to see any strong disagreement with what's being said. It seems all very, very sensible and easy to approach. I think where it gets interesting is as we move into the next steps and think how do we do this, and I think we'll get into a bit of this discussion today.
I wanted to start by just picking up a couple of the key graphics that were outlined in the Commonwealth Government or the reports that WSP did for the Commonwealth Government back early part of last year. And firstly to consider that we need to be thinking user first and to be user centric about the way that we're looking at the problem.
So, if we look at users and societal needs and that sort of outer part of the egg on the diagram and then, as we go in, we consider more complex parts of the system and the things we need to be focused on, but really how do we achieve those outcomes we want for the user?
So, we can move on to a diagram like this, similar to what Miranda was saying, that triangle between industry, government, and the end user. And the interesting thing with this is, from a government perspective, you can't get the information directly to the end user without industry, and I'll touch on this point again in a minute. It's quite critical really for us to getting an outcome and part of the reason that we get stuck in this kind of a, what's been described as a chicken and egg type of problem with C‐ITS.
So, we moved on from that fairly simple view of the three parts, the user, the industry, and government and moved into this larger ecosystem. On the far right in the red box, you might find that hard to read and there's some captions at the bottom go and have a look at the WSP report there on the website. There's some more detail there. But really the far right there in that red box is the outcome. So, generally around safety, efficiency and, we'd say, sustainability really key outcome which has certainly gathered more focus in recent months and since change in the most recent federal election. Over on the left-hand side we look at the what and why. So, what is it we need to achieve and why do we do this? And then we consider our actors and actions in the middle in those black boxes.
So, you can see all components here that we need at a high level to get the outcomes we need. Again, the question is who acts first and how do we move forward together? So, there's some basics here that we won't run through today, but it's worth considering that for the five options, which are bundles of use cases that are day one and day 1.5 use cases that are well recognised certainly in Europe and in Australia, sort of bundles of these use cases that, for four of the five options, there's positive benefits and then at present values stack up to at option five, which is a hybrid option including some DSRC elements, short range comms elements, and the hybrid cellular solutions is up to $12 billion net present value over 10 years. So, it's a very positive thing to look at and consider these options. Where else can you get a 20% reduction in serious accidents and fatalities in Australia at the moment? How else do we go about this?
And probably the key point here is, and this graph again in the main report in deliverable four is considering the crimson elements on the bottom part of that graph or the costs is particularly the ongoing operating costs and we want to be thinking about who is going to pay for that and the fact that there's a significant ongoing operating cost. That's something we'll need to pick up on as this goes forward.
And finally, just looking at this as what's been, we refer to as a cone of uncertainty. We picked this up off CSRIO, I have to say, but the idea that you don't have to solve all of the problems and have a perfect system and a perfect platform. You move forward with a set of use cases and an understanding and something that gives you demonstrable benefits today and with significant certainty with things like standards that are going to be needed to give confidence to the vehicle manufacturers to move forward and then other things can fall into place as you go, but you need a vision and you need to outline that narrative as a beginning. So, with that, I'll hand over. Thank you.
Silje Troseth: Thanks, Scott. I like that vision. We got to start and then I'm not going to solve all the problems at once, but we have to start to see where we get.
Okay, our next speaker is Mario Filipovic and Mario is a product manager at the project manager office at Toyota in Australia. During his 30 years at Toyota Australia, Mario has worked in diverse areas such as manufacturing, product development, regulation, accessories, and advanced planning. For the past four years, Mario has overseen C‐ITS activity through different trials across Australia. Welcome, Mario.
Mario Filipovic: My name's Mario Filipovic. I'm from Toyota or I also work for Lexus Australia and I want to talk to you about our approach to C‐ITS. I'll speak about our trials, briefly about some of the activity happening in Japan and additionally I will talk about the key elements that we'll be progressing C‐ITS.
At Lexus, we have an ultimate goal. It's not just here in Australia but globally of zero casualties from traffic accidents. In July of 2017 we formed a new group to explore C‐ITS and on this slide are some of the approaches we considered to accomplish this ultimate goal and we needed to work out how ready the technology was and how it can be phased into ordinary vehicles. And the reason for covering this is that obviously we need to have an understanding of what's possible today and think about what's possible tomorrow.
And so, we set out to build C‐ITS technology and there's a picture of a car there into several vehicles. None of our choices necessarily worked out the first time, but that was the learning experience. The second point was to explore all the possible solutions. There's a lot of debate about competing technologies, particularly radio technologies. Rather than relying on the marketing from each of the technology proponents, it was superior for us to actually build it into a car and judge for ourselves. Likewise, we have worked with the three main vendors of onboard and roadside units to understand the individual capabilities and the nuances of the different equipment. Why vehicles need to be able to talk to each station in order to truly be cooperative. Ultimately the technology we develop has to be accepted by the end user, which is the point that Miranda made just before.
If they're not seeing any value in it, then they're going to switch it off. During our trial in Ipswich, which is part of the one that Miranda spoke of this morning, we had 90 of the people who drove our cars fill out a survey, a fairly detailed survey, and now we have a better understanding of what they like, what they dislike, what's annoying, etc. The performance of C‐ITS is a good indicator of readiness. Questions such as reliable communication range, latency, positional fidelity, timing of messages, etc needs to be understood and counter measured before we would even contemplate going to market.
In order for the vehicles to travel successfully across borders, common rules and standards are required. Data sources vary from state to state, mapping datums differ, and the different SCATS and streams and other units have varying degrees of integration. These are not insurmountable issues but we need to have a national consistency on these items.
Here are some of the three major projects we've undertaken to try to understand how we can meet our ultimate goal. The first project is the one we demonstrated in Ipswich, the Ipswich ICVP test bed. Basically Miranda explained 29 roadside units and 355 other connected vehicles. This was the perfect environment to not only test in real world conditions but an opportunity to do signal congestion testing to see how C‐ITS ECUs cope with being bombarded with many messages and that's fair to say they do struggle.
Not long after the Queensland DSRC project kicked off, Telstra and ourselves, the Victorian government and TAC undertook the first Australian trial of C-V2X technology. Eight companies were involved both here and overseas. Using early release hardware, six use cases were trialled in Melbourne and country Victoria and the countryside's really important because that's where the majority of fatalities are happening. Some of these applications were the first to be delivered using C-V2X technology anywhere in the world and it was the first time we had trialled virtual infrastructure, so this is not having a roadside unit.
In the third project in the picture we took a very different approach. This is the AIMES trial in Carlton, in Melbourne. We engaged with many companies under the banner of AIMES co-op rather than forming tedious agreements and we found that participation in AIMES was probably the easiest. So, please if you want to get involved in ITS, speak to Majid and the people at AIMES. We also created our own high-definition maps and these will not just be used for ITS, they'll be using for automated vehicles in future testing.
Here's some of the applications that we've tested throughout the three programmes. The communication with the trams and the ambulances was only recently completed and there were white papers and obviously very pleased to hear that Q-Free had actually won the ITS award for connected and automated vehicles in February.
Just to move things along, I might go to the next slide. The ITS consortia in Japan has rolled out 250,000 vehicles, which is what was mentioned by Miranda. 38% reduction in near miss events. So, this means that vehicles turning right, for example, oncoming vehicles that were obscured by trucks, vehicles where the person may not have seen a pedestrian. The way this worked was they compared vehicles that had C‐ITS in a C‐ITS equipped intersection and compared that with normal Toyota vehicles.
On the last slide is the topic at hand. These are the things that, from an OEM point of view, obviously we don't look at the complete picture as many of the people in the room do, but just from an OEM perspective, we think it's essential to protect the spectrum. We've seen what's happened in the US and we don't want that to happen here. Whilst we've got a preference of DSRC in the band, the prime thing that we need to protect is that that isn't given away to Wi-Fi or other uses.
Alignment with Europe. Around 90% of the Australian design rules that car makers have to abide by are aligned with Europe. And Europe already has a million vehicles on the road using the same technology that we are trialling here in Australia but in production. Consistency among states, the rollout of C‐ITS can be accelerated through first adopting the transmission of road and traffic hazard information in the form of V2N.
So, vehicle and network, stuff that's already used in the equipment that's built into our cars and be able to offer use cases such as fire, flood, emergency vehicles sooner rather than later. And also on a contextual navi screen so it's easier to understand.
Minimum data requirements is a real point for us. The customer will be paying quite a bit of money to have C‐ITS radio and other equipment in their vehicles. That's no good if you bought a car and you actually live in states that there is no information. So, we'd call on the government to make sure that everyone can benefit from the technology. If not V2V, V2I then definitely through the cellular V2N network such as through telematics.
I won't cover the others. Probably a key one is the next one, which is urban positioning solutions. These cars do struggle in city environments and we have testing we've done in Brisbane and there in Melbourne as well where there's actually inability to take to understand to the centimetre. So, most of our equipment is working to an accuracy of greater or less than five centimetres, but multi-pathing including of satellites and the rest has been a real problem from our side. Feel free to ask any questions. That's it. Thank you.
Silje Troseth: Thanks, Mario. It's great to get the OEM perspective. It's crucial for the success for C‐ITS in the future.
So, our next speaker is Richard Delplace. Richard is the director of emerging technologies for the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. So, Richard joined the FCAI back in January of this year. If those of you don't know FCAI, they're the peak body for manufacturers and importers for passenger vehicles, for light commercial vehicles and motorcycles here in Australia. Richard coordinates the members and the objectives of developing their collective policy response to new and future in-vehicle technologies, which is also a director of ITS Australia. So, please welcome Richard.
Richard Delplace: Thank you, Silje. So, first of all I'd like to say that we as an association of car manufacturers and importers in Australia, we welcome the renewed focus on the National Land Transport Technology Action Plan following what I think have been in the last few years, quite disrupted.
Speaking on their behalf, I can say that the vehicle manufacturers and importers are generally of the view that the draft C‐ITS principles provide a valuable framework to reinvigorate the effective collaboration between governments, automotive manufacturers, and other industry stakeholders towards C-ITS deployment. These principles also participate to reaffirming the interest of federal, state, and territory governments in C‐ITS. We also agree that close collaboration between government and industry is required to allow for at-scale deployment of C‐ITS over time and that government leadership and investment is needed to establish the necessary C‐ITS infrastructure on the roadside in century prior to OEMs making the investment in vehicle technology.
There are lots of technical developments occurring in parallel in our industry in electrification, obviously ADAS, advanced driver assistant systems or in-vehicle automation with different sort of timeframes for their deployment, of course. But it is clear that C‐ITS is the one technical area that relies the most on collaboration between public and private sectors.
OEM investment in C‐ITS will be informed by the proposed principles but will require clearly defined and committed national C-ITS action plan most likely backed by state and/or federal funding for the deployment of the necessary C‐ITS enabling infrastructure and most likely before most OEMs commit to integrating any new technology solutions into vehicles that are aimed at Australian import.
We also welcome the initiative towards more coordination between state agencies through the Austroads forum that is being created and it's great to see Queensland TMR and Miranda especially bringing their practical experience in C‐ITS from years of practical experience and investment in Queensland to drive the national coordination effort.
We look forward to supporting this group where we can, of course, in rallying as many OEMs as possible around the topic of C‐ITS. Obviously, we see here a number of challenges for the state road agencies, which I'm sure Austroads and Miranda are very well aware of, but just to name a few. First of all ensuring I think comparable levels of interest across the jurisdictions for C‐ITS Queensland has taken the lead in C‐ITS over the years. Of course, we've seen others like New South Wales and Victoria investing in trials as well, but are all the jurisdictions ready to step up and align their effort? That is a question there.
Secondly, formalising clear funding commitment as probably a signal towards OEMs and to enable or invite investment from OEMs in their vehicle technology. Of course, we've heard from Scott earlier, C‐ITS is somewhat of a chicken and egg problem, but considering the size of our automotive market, which is just 1.1% approximately from the overall global market, we believe that investment needs first to come from the public sector side into the C‐ITS enabling infrastructure.
Third challenge, entering coordinated deployment of C‐ITS infrastructure across the country in terms of pace, in terms of scale and in terms of scope. The consistency of the user experience is going to be at play here. And taking another angle to this inconsistency of C‐ITS service could lead to new safety risk and also perceived responsibility onto the OEMs if the C‐ITS enabling infrastructure is not available.
Finally, we support the direction of aligning with the European Union with directions in Europe being somewhat in a state of flux regarding their technology approach at the moment and considering, again, the size of the Australian market, there may or might be little we can do in the immediate future in terms of at-scale deployment in C‐ITS that would obtain the right level of support across all OEMs. I'm going to say not all vehicle manufacturers are necessarily as involved as Toyota and Lexus in Australia and that's probably a shame, but that's a reality that we have to deal with. We may need therefore to apply some patience until the technology path becomes clearer in Europe and we may discuss that further in the Q&A session. There may be actually ways to move forward, but I also understand from some of the papers that were distributed with the C-ITS principles that it may be also the case in the UK at the moment where they may be also waiting to some extent before progressing further the at scale deployment of C‐ITS. And with that, thank you very much.
Silje Troseth: Thank you, Richard.
Okay, our last and final speaker before we open up for Q&A is Ian McCarthy from Aimsun. Ian is the managing director for Aimsun and he has over 15 years experience across consulting, public sector and commercial transport operators, a background in developing strategic frameworks and standard in supporting investment in emerging technologies across Australia and New Zealand. This gives Ian a clear understanding of the emerging technology landscape, especially around cabs. Please welcome Ian.
Ian McCarthy: Thank you and good afternoon. I'd like to open by first stating our appreciation of the initiative taken by the Office of Future Transport and all the many contributors to the draft principles. Bringing these initiatives and principles to the table really helps to facilitate this conversation across the public industry and also the government sector. At Aimsun, for those who aren't aware, we're a company that exists majority in the digital realm and we have advanced analytical tools and simulation solutions which provide decision support to agencies and operators both in the realtime operations space but also in those kind of short, medium, and longer term planning horizons.
So, for us, the continued deployment of C‐ITS and greater connectivity will allow us to enhance our offering both with that greater availability and quality of data as an input, but also in giving us those operational levers that allow us to provide better decision support and advice to our customers.
So, the ITS principles or the C‐ITS principles, we think they're really a foundational and an effective leveraging tool to contribute to those safe, sustainable, equitable, and productive networks. But we do have some commentary which we've provided via submission and would like to table today for discussion. And one of the key aspects for us is really that word networks and transport networks.
We're pleased to see the principles reflect across C‐ITS that it's a multi-modal initiative. So, while a lot of the focus and obviously a lot of the investment will come towards vehicles and vehicles on the network, increasingly we're responding to clients across Australia and New Zealand who are looking at integrated transport solutions and the complexity of their networks means they need to manage effectively across all of those modes and we really appreciate the initiative taken to reflect that in the draft principles and we hope that becomes a key part of the discussion moving forward. We have a lot of experience in counting and data and there's definitely a leader towards what gets measured counts and C-ITS is a great mechanism in future to level the playing field across all of those modes.
It's also a fine balance to strike in making the principles informative and adaptive but also not making them overly complex. And we would still like to see a little bit more of an expansion of the principles and we know this is coming and particularly existing as we do in that digital realm. Our aspiration sits around the data side of things.
So, the principles outline that road network agencies will be able to collect and share data with the objective of supporting C‐ITS optimization across Australian jurisdictions. We'd really like to see an elevation of this statement to reflect the true power of C‐ITS and the data sources that come from it. So, rewording that to something more akin to collecting and sharing data with the objective of supporting agencies to realise their transport vision. So, it's not a self-fulfilling prophecy around C‐ITS, but it really helps us elevate the overall operations of the network.
We appreciate around this data solution, there is a lot of tricky ground to cover in terms of governance, security and privacy, but we would like to see coming out of this C‐ITS investment from industry and the private sector in particular that this appropriate governance is put in place around data ownership and in particular availability and how that's maintained to avoid some of the challenges experienced in the past with some of these potentially rich data sources. So, an example of that might be cellular data where the harmonisation and governance isn't necessarily in place about the appropriate use case for that and that makes it privacy-wise tricky to access data. It can make it prohibitively expensive. It can also reduce the consistency and how that data is treated across the industry and across the board, which makes it challenging for us to incorporate it as industry in our solutions.
In closing, we're really pleased to be here and facilitate any questions on our kind of digital solutions or where we see the industry being able to capitalise on the outputs from C-ITS where we're not necessarily a direct contributor to providing the infrastructure or the solutions at an OEM or a manufacturer basis, but a really invested stakeholder in the outcomes that we can achieve. Thank you.
Silje Troseth: Excellent. Thank you, Ian, and thanks everyone for your five-minute view.
So, we're opening up for questions now. So, just a little recap of where we were. So, the Office of Future Transport put out the consultation and they had 34 submissions and they will be announced and released after the market, but that hasn't happened yet, but you still see that there is a strong support from industry which is really, really good.
So, now I'd like to open for questions in the audience for our five speakers here. There's microphones at the back. I'll kick off and you guys can think about it.
So, I'll start with Richard. We've been discussing C‐ITS for a while, for about 10 years or so in Australia. From your point of view, what are some of the key barriers for large scale deployment in Australia?
Richard Delplace: Yes, thanks Silje. Well, first of all, I think I mentioned that in my introduction. I think there's a lot of changes and reforms at play or to come in the transport sector and I think a key challenge is especially in today's world with cost of living in everybody's mind, from an OEM perspective, there is the challenge of ensuring that vehicles remain affordable, of course. And as we add requirements in technology, we have the risk of, of course, impacting the affordability of vehicle.
No doubt, as you've heard from Mario from Toyota and Lexus point of view that most if not all car manufacturers are driving or in various initiatives towards safety of their vehicles and their passengers, but they want also to ensure, continue the affordability of their vehicle. That's a reality that we have to face. At the moment, there are lots of discussions around the electrification of our fleet and obviously that is at best keeping cost neutral but most likely driving prices up. So, as soon as you start adding technology on top, that makes the equation always more complex.
So, I think that's one challenge, not that we can necessarily do anything about it. We're not going to stop electrification tomorrow. That is number one priority of our industry, obviously, but that is a constraint that we have to deal with at the moment.
Silje Troseth: Yeah. Mario, from your point of view, are there any quick wins for deployment?
Mario Filipovic: I think the fact that cars already have, not all cars obviously, but cars have modems in there that are capable of informing of accidents, of SOS button presses and tracking when there's a stolen vehicle, those same gateways in the car can be linked up to the multimedia system and actually display the types of use cases that governments in particular are really interested in. If in New South Wales where you've got level crossings where there aren't any lights or boom gates, just basically signage, that sort of stuff can be communicated to a car. If you've got the technology, then the proximity of a train in that case can be communicated as well.
So, displaying something in the maps and multimedia system and V2N is simply cloud connectivity. So, being able to visualise that in the warnings is probably the simpler thing to do compared to putting in new radio, which is initially it's more expensive. There's probably less intersections and things that you can interact with. But using the cloud, then it's not just the solution for the inner city, it's across Australia where there's a cellular network, you actually get that benefit. And then it's worth the cost that's you paid for built into the price of the car.
Silje Troseth: And I think it's what Scott was talking about as well, it's step by step. It's a vision that we are working towards and you it take it bite size. I think we have a few questions. Want to start down there? Fiona?
Fiona: Thank you. Continuing on what you were just saying then, as you were talking, it struck me that potentially the benefits that are realised through C‐ITS, given there are costs associated with that. Do we need to better articulate those benefits to motivate those who need to act to actually act? If the benefits are there but we've got these barriers in cost, what needs to be done to overcome that.
Mario Filipovic: Directed to me? There's two elements of this. First of all, there has to be acceptance by government but also acceptance by the user. The user needs to be asking for these things and basically understanding what it is. The problem is that we've got, C‐ITS is a term that even if you type it into Google, it doesn't really come up with much. There's got to be a better way of talking about this and making it more, not just accessible but people realising what that actual benefit is. And it's not just individual car brands saying these are the things. There needs to be all round support and infrastructure has a role to play here because particularly on our conversations with certain tollway operators, et cetera, there's so many benefits that can happen and if we can incorporate that, I'm sure there'll be more than happy to be promoting that as a good feature and hopefully convincing people to adopt it more. But the technology and the naming is very obscure.
Scott Benjamin: Can I comment on that one as well?
Silje Troseth: Yes.
Scott Benjamin
Sorry. I know we're in a room full of a lot of engineers and technology-focused people, but when you're in your own organisations and back at work, speak to your policy and strategy people. If you've got road safety strategies and there's a one doc point saying something about connectivity in a 20-page document, we've got a lot to do as an industry I think to educate and help that wider understanding. I know that's not easy, but that's sort of the point we're at.
Silje Troseth
Thank you. Susan.
Susan Harris: Thanks, Silje. Susan Harris, ITS Australia. Stacy and I are happy to help out with the mics, so if you prefer to stay in your seat, just raise your hand and we'll help out with that. But I do have a question.
So, there was conversations earlier, a few people have referenced the kind of confusion in Europe at the moment and uncertainty about technology, that pathway that they might be headed down, but I'm confident there are things that we can still do here in Australia that are really valuable and just thought maybe it might be helpful if the panel can articulate some of those things that we should be working on at the moment.
Miranda Blogg: From a CRoads perspective, there's no confusion about the communication technology, but it is an effective lobbying tool and it certainly muddying the waters from a delegated act perspective, it's a lucrative bit of bandwidth and there are competing standards that want to use that bandwidth that differ from the current standards that are adopted through SeaRoads. So, it's a little bit of a communication war. It makes almost no difference to the outcome as we currently understand it in terms of those use cases provided to the customer. So, that's a bit of a pickle. I've always said we toe the line and if we follow Europe and Europe does meander down a path where they adopt other communication hardware, then we'll have to do the same. However they are really standing pretty firm. That is from a government perspective on the current technology. It's ready, it's deployed. VW has a million units. Anything that we change now has to be backward compatible, has to retain that service for those customers that have bought those vehicles.
I think it also, I guess maybe technology-wise folks already know this, but it's not those two competing communication technologies. They're not interoperable. It's not something you could just tomorrow go, "Well, I'll just put in a little bit more hardware and off we go." They actually interfere with each other. So, you would pretty much kill your business case from an effectiveness. However, in the future, you may move to day two, day three use cases and support that old technology but move on and have a sort of a path that actually is looking at new generation radio and other things that will inevitably appear in our future.
There is definitely other communication options that we are not even talking about yet. So, just like the 3G, 4G, 5G, everything moves forward and how you manage that transition given the really long scrappage rates we have of vehicles in Australia, too. So, I think that that's at least the European's perspective and maybe communication folks in the room want to disagree. I'm happy to debate that.
Silje Troseth: It's an invitation.
Mario Filipovic: For us, it is an irritation because you've got one technology where there's a million vehicles in production and another technology where there's zero vehicles in production, but there's still a debate.
Richard Delplace: Since we had Mario, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that there's also some movements in the US, in China, these are important markets for different brands as well and therefore for individual or vehicle manufacturers, it creates different changes as well. And saying that your organisation will also be facing potentially different requirements in different countries as well.
Mario Filipovic: Yeah, that's right.
Richard Delplace: So, you'd be adapting to the regulatory demand of a specific market.
Mario Filipovic: That's right. But any vehicle, and we don't have any vehicles that use that technology would still have to meet ADR and therefore because they're primarily designed for those other markets, it would be really expensive and difficult to try and get those vehicles.
Miranda Blogg: And if I can just jump in, if you look at the US's experience, they didn't add this communication technology, they killed the old one. It's not a case of we're all going to work together, it is just that one successfully lobbied to take over the initiative. And so they're back to square one even though they have a moratorium on that bit of bandwidth since 1999. So, that's a bit of a step backwards from a hardware perspective and their rollout. But let's face it, the standards all apply because that's mostly data protocols, those use case specifications, those things are all still relevant. The security credential systems, there are still the bulk of that initiative still in place. It's just the hardware that you kind of got to redo.
Scott Benjamin: And they've lost bandwidth.
Miranda Blogg: And they do. They're slowly eating away their bandwidth, which we are trying to protect here.
Silje Troseth: Maybe they need a consistent national approach as well. If we look at the benefits kind of beyond the road user, I guess for vulnerable road users, perhaps.
Scott Benjamin: Yeah. Happy to comment on that. So, look, Mario spoke about AIMES earlier and we've also speak to Majid and Nema I'm sure is still in the room and in the workshops tomorrow. But look, the focus there is with AIMES is responsible road users and has been a significant focus in consideration with CAVI and other trials in Australia, I think it's really good to see the car-to-car consortium and a recent release in actually just earlier this month, day two use cases. No pedestrians and no cyclists but I'm sure this is a work in progress and consideration, but particularly a focus on motorcyclists and that's a big step forward and that's a positive in terms of vulnerable road users discussion on cyclists and pedestrians, a really vexed and challenging one. Do you expect a pedestrian to be equipped? You're going to carry a phone around and it's going to do what? And that opens up a massive issues in terms of that interface with the human and making sure you get the right outcomes. And Miranda touched this morning on some of those considerations that CAVI had in terms of vulnerable road users.
So, a lot more to be done, but good to see at least this progress being made by car to car and it's important people keep pushing this point. It should be for benefits for all road users and not just the vehicle operators or occupants.
Silje Troseth: Yeah. Good points. Got one more? Yep.
Susan Harris: Another question just we talked earlier about Japan having had this technology rolled out for some 10 years. Thought it might be interesting just to revisit some of the benefits that have been delivered in Japan over that time.
Mario Filipovic: Yeah, I mentioned the 38% reduction in near misses at intersections. In addition to that, the emergency, I'm not sure the Japanese designation for the emergency association there, but they've been doing trials of equipped ambulances with the technology and they've published the paper saying that it's 7.7% quicker attendance to accidents. And that's not by changing the lights, but that's obviously something that can be done with ITS. So, they're the main things. It's 250,000 vehicles where people have selected the technology. There are some vehicles where it comes standard fit and I'm not sure of the latest figures, but it was nine cities in Japan that had all the connected intersections. Obviously, Tokyo is the main one. If you go to Tokyo and you get a demonstration, it's an intersection near the main station.
Silje Troseth: Any other questions in the room? There was a lot of questions during the webinar in January. No? All good? Still thinking? Oh, here we go. Chris.
Chris Meyer: Oh, hi. It's Chris Meyer from Q-Free. I guess a question to everyone ... Okay. I just, I'm interested in your insight into the next five to 10 years for cooperative ITS and to set the tone for that question, I'm a big backer of co-operative ITS, but to play the devil's advocate, I guess it was probably about 10 years ago when we started talking about driverless vehicles and the generation of people who wouldn't need to have a driver's licence would probably already born. Since that time, I've now got a six year old and she sits on my lap and drives the car with me. So, I'm pretty sure we missed that one.
But now that we've got these draft principles and, well, the other point is Q-Free's been in the cooperative ITS area for a long time. In 2016, we worked in Melbourne and we instrumented the whole of Clarendon Street with the intersection controllers for the Melbourne ITS World Congress and that was amazing. We got the buses with the delegates from the World Congress driving down to Albert Park and we brought the signal information into that bus using cooperative ITS.
That was in 2016 and that's been a long time ago, nearly 10 years. So, we've finally got these draft principles, some traction from the federal government. What does the next five to 10 years look like?
Silje Troseth: Okay. Who wants to start?
Mario Filipovic: Silje?
Silje Troseth: I'm not on the spot here, Mario. It's you.
Mario Filipovic: I think I spoke about segregating the cloud ITS from the vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure. It's pretty clear and my first ITS venture was October 2001 here in Sydney after, it was a month after September 11th. And I went back to our management and said, "Here's the next big thing." Not just ITS but driverless cars, because that's what everyone hypes up at the conferences. We had 2G phone networks. We basically had computers that were probably that big that are this big now.
To me, the segregating, and you mentioned it as well, Scott, to start being adding the elements and when you saw that list from myself of whatever it was, number of use cases, many of those are delivered by cloud and that can be done now. And what we actually need is enough of the vehicles to have that technology and have a measurable difference and then be able to argue on data that this is what we should be doing, not just in the cloud space, but any other spaces.
The reason the V2V is going to be important for us is not because there's going to be lots of cars on the road, but why is it that in Australia we can't do cooperative lane change? Why is it that we don't have cooperative adaptive speed control when they've been doing that in Japan since 2014? These things will come, there'll be manufacturers who want to lead in this particular area that that will happen.
But I think the other driver that's going to be important for us is that there's obviously driverless cars right now, but the proper driverless cars are going to need C-ITS. Having an automated vehicle with a camera system, LiDAR doesn't matter, that basically has the same field of view for a human is no safer. You've got to be able to see around corners, you've got to be able to know that light's going to change before it changes. All those things will make an automated vehicle a little closer to that nirvana of a crashless car.
So, the more immediate step for manufacturers, and I can't talk on behalf of others, will be the incorporation of some of the messages that hopefully governments can provide to keep their road workers safe, to keep pedestrians safe and also make sure that we don't have 40,000 hospitalizations, which is what happens every year in Australia.
Ian McCarthy: If I might speak to it in terms of what I would like us to see in the next five years, hopefully a lot sooner, is also a broader acceptance around transport agencies and operators about the benefits of C‐ITS and what that will bring. We work in a space where we often focus on 10, 20, 30 year horizons in infrastructure planning. And when we cast forward and simulate those situations for many of the agencies around Australia and on many projects, the anticipated benefits of C-ITS are not always or are very commonly not an assumption in the background kind of traffic assumptions that we take forward into those projects, which can obviously influence the need to have those projects or in a 20, 30 year horizon to define the scale and the scope of those projects.
So, I'm hopeful as well that outside of this kind of closed network of people who really understand C‐ITS, the visibility of pilots and permanent deployments means that the benefits start to filter through into just the baseline thinking across agencies more broadly than just the ITS space.
Miranda Blogg: So, Chris, don't you think it's interesting that we've got the most senior commitment to automated vehicle regulation updates by 2026, but we don't really have, other than draft principles, anything in C‐ITS that's totally deployable today?
Chris Meyer: I think it's scary, not interesting.
Miranda Blogg: It's interesting. So, we know that automation, automated vehicles, that it's a fair way off still. Maybe level three, you're seeing some sites of them in some places in Europe like Germany and some bold states in the United States allowing sort of the hands-off eyes-on at least level two plus perhaps we could call it. But that's progressing even though that level four vehicle is still out of sight, really, in terms of the Cruises and the Waymos of the world, Tesla being down at the bottom of the bunch in my mind. But I think in terms of how governments may assist, we certainly need to come up with an action plan of some kind at least in the next five years. I always think the core of C‐ITS and more broadly in our space in traffic engineering and transport is really about a digital twin.
And I'm not talking 3D point cloud, I'm talking about simple information about knowing where our assets are and what the conditions of those assets are and in real time. So, you have semi and fully dynamic information available and really building government's capability in that space. Machine learning, using all our video analytics and getting a level of quality in that data set that can then potentially build towards, as we talk about the cloud and cloud services, like a national access point that you see in Europe. So, it's not just C‐ITS standards, it's DATEX and other things that are at play there depending on the degree to which information is dynamic. So, I think there's a fair amount we could do there across the states to share in capability and tools to try and get our data at an even playing field like national data sets that manufacturers can trust and use.
There are obviously in the protocols quality measures, so you can say whether you think in real time information is not quality versus high quality. So, that's important for a manufacturer to understand. I think they're the building blocks. TMR is committed to trying to hold up as much as we can in the interim through our pilot services, which we still have public and regional users, including the team, which is a technical team that has a lot of capability to help a tier zero credential system similar to what Europe has that folks like yourself can then test against and help Australian government understand where maybe we're not meeting standards and we need to improve, providing test services and so on that enable that.
But yeah, I think building towards that end of five years is really a plan. Maybe an IA-type submission where we can actually do similar things to the Managed Motorways policy for Australia where we collectively estates receive funds to roll out Managed Motorways in those timeframes. So, that's a bit of effort to get there, but it seems reasonable and in line potentially with the ANCAP view, both in Europe and Australia and when we might see and start testing the protocols for C-ITS in vehicles as manufacturers, hopefully.
Silje Troseth: Anyone else?
Scott Benjamin: Yeah, it's hard to follow Miranda. That's awesome. I think, I guess back to the simple points from the front end of that is it's having a strategic narrative and actually being able to bring such a wider group of people along with that discussion. So, Miranda's being, and some of the people in your team like Jeff McDonald, how many years in this space? It's this wealth of knowledge that doesn't exist in the same way in any other state.
So, there's been this interaction in Queensland, I think, that's been really healthy and we need to see those interactions internally in New South Wales government, Victorian government, all state governments and working together on this. And great to hear the announcements in terms of Austroads. I think that's a good step forward. But setting some of these things out at quite a strategic level as a narrative and really trying to set a roadmap. Something like what you've described Miranda there in terms of IA submission, how is that going to flow and to see those demonstrable benefits so you can see that big tick the box in terms of safety, efficiency, sustainability and bring everyone along on that journey. A lot to be done in the interim and under the hood, but it's a good start.
Silje Troseth: Okay. Well, thank you. I guess everyone seems very supportive of the principles. Can we talk a little bit about the risks if we don't achieve the principles? Ian, is this something you want to touch upon around the data collection side of things?
Ian McCarthy: I mean, there's a direct risk if we don't achieve this, that we don't achieve any of the benefits obviously from C‐ITS across the network. From our industry perspective and looking at data, a lot of the tools we're putting in place with agencies and governments now are, the long term aspiration for those solutions is to have a level of input across Australia from data streams associated with C‐ITS and connected vehicles and achieving the end state of the investment that's already been committed to those is not entirely reliant on achieving that data set. But it really becomes a more streamlined proposition for us and for a lot of other providers in industry who have not banked on this, but invested heavily in a understanding that this data set will come.
And when we talk about other jurisdictions around the world who are far more progressed in this space than us. We can see the upside to having these streams coming online and more recently coming online, particularly in Europe or the Middle East, where we've got a high penetration of these connected vehicles. So, the risk is really that Australia doesn't realise the benefits of some of the investments they've made and some of the aspirations they've set out for broader network outcomes because we're missing a key data stream.
Silje Troseth: Thank you. Just a question from Miranda, in terms of TMR, how are you working with other state governments to achieve the goals of C-ITS?
Miranda Blogg: So, obviously I've talked about a couple of projects. We were participants on the national business case development, the WSP and federal government led. We have stood up our cloud service for Lexus and Toyota and in support of the AIMES projects. So, that's where you're able to get some of the cloud-based data in terms of maps for the traffic lights, speed information. And we also feed in VicRoads traffic service, which is what you'll see in their customer traffic apps. And then we convert that to machine friendly information and that Lexus test vehicles pick up in the topics.
So, we've done that really for every state now as well. So, we're hoping to share equipment that we have from our pilot and enable folks to really explore with their senior leaders and policy makers what it is and is not. So, we'll be doing that exercise and, as I said, just holding up the service and this credential services is key to trying to make sure that when other folks are ready, other jurisdictions are ready that they can come and have a chat and we can share as much as possible.
The roadside specification is something where we are trying to draft up something for others to consider, where you may be integrating a really complex environments like your traffic lights with your traffic controllers. So, working with, say, for example, the SCATS team over here, though, they want a different solution. So, we'll have to arm wrestle that one out, but I really, really want to make sure that's as streamlined as possible. So, when vendors do provide products, it can be a national product and what that means is that then you don't have to go through multiple conformance tests, not just for the sake of C‐ITS and onboarding it onto a credential system, but that you know it can be used anywhere so you don't have all these little test teams across the country. We could potentially nationalise that conformance and that testing, make it really simple for people to onboard product. So, stuff like that we're hoping helps out nationally.
Silje Troseth: Yeah, definitely. Any ... Yep.
Stacey: Yeah. We talked a lot about customer acceptance and sort of willingness to pay. Miranda, you had a really great media response to the CAVI project. It can be very rare and unusual. Is there a benefit in more collectivising the potential benefits for customers? I've just been reading and watching this sort of conspiracy theorist push back against the very benign planning concept of 15-minute cities. I can't imagine what would happen when they find out about SIM cards in cars tracking them. So, getting ahead of that before the pushback comes.
Miranda Blogg: Yeah, we got great feedback as part of the pilot. When we first asked people, do you want to keep the equipment because we're going to leave this deployed? I think 90% said, "Yes, I would like to keep the equipment." The pickle was we had to uninstall it and then reissue it as a more flexible device. So, if they didn't want to use it anymore, they could simply, because it was essentially connected to the battery and so that they couldn't touch or interact with it or take it out and it would ruin our data sources. So, it took us almost six, eight months to get it back to them and by the time we got it back to them, we depleted our pool. But that is the nature of interacting with folks. If you could have just left it there, they probably would've kept using it.
But some of the comments that came back, and it's fair to say these are mean results that I reported this morning in the fourth of four surveys. There were some people, very small group who just hated it and that is going to be the case. But in terms of the means, you're talking seven to nine out of 10 for each of the use cases is pretty high. So, you've also got some people who just loved it. But there were a couple of comments and feedback when they took it out. Somebody said it was like losing a friend. They were really, really sad. "Can I please get it back?" And there were those comments saying literally, "That warning saved my life."
Now, the problem with safety applications, of course, you don't need it until you need it. And generally you don't need it. It's those rare conditions where you're just not focused or you just didn't see something. So, it's nice to over the 12 months significant sample size to see that.
And so, we were able to have participants who were willing to do media post pilot. We also as focus groups, I was really interested to know if they understood because in the pilot you've got them to sign agreements saying we're going to collect all your data and we're going to analyse everything. But don't worry, rest assured the difference when you consider deployment is what people do and don't understand about how it works. We talk about privacy and the sentiments were generally, "No. Government needs to be involved. I don't trust industry." Whereas industry is always concerned that we are going to share data with government and then we bypass our customer service agreements, which means we are protecting the data and we're not sharing it.
Simple things like we have the pseudonyms and they change all the time like an IP address. So, you can't track people through the network. You can do that potentially better with Bluetooth today than you could with this credential system. Tomorrow, that is part of the point of it. You can also have a third party manage the national broker, say, for example, so when a vehicle registers, they register for tiles, but they could also register for all the tiles around them simultaneously. So, you've talking about 500 sort of metre radius of potential knowledge. Telstra already knows stuff like that.
So, if you had a Telstra or a similar broker doing the broker service, then that is the same, I guess the customer's already providing that type of information today. What government sees is actually very little. We just need specific information like, say, a person has a crash or has generated hard braking. That specific event is shared for a traffic management centre. We're not interested in the fact that you stopped at undesirable locations on your way from work. That's not of interest to us. So, it's about just providing better operational services back to the community. So, it is a two-way street and I think the feedback which people generally understood that I was surprised that their comment was, "No, we're more concerned with industry's use of our data." So, just to take.
Silje Troseth: Thank you, Miranda. Last one, Susan, or wrap up? Yeah. Perfect. Thank you so much. Thanks for your questions.
Look, I have a last question for you all. Chris kind of took it. I was going to ask about what does the future look like, but if you give me one word each, what does the future look like? One word each?
Miranda Blogg: Busy.
Richard Delplace: Yeah. Cooperative. Yeah.
Mario Filipovic: How far ahead? Automated.
Silje Troseth: Automated.
Mario Filipovic: Mm-hmm.
Richard Delplace: Maybe aspirational. I would say you be critics in the sense that you want technology to be somewhat under the hood transparent and feeding data for many purposes. So, maybe you be critics would be that word.
Silje Troseth: Okay. Yeah.
Ian McCarthy: And hopefully sooner rather than later. Sound good?
Silje Troseth: Yeah. That's more data.
Ian McCarthy: Say again?
Silje Troseth: My word is connected. Thank you. Thank you so much. Can we please join me in thanking the panellists? Thanks for sharing your insights with us all on this important principles. We've got 59 seconds to go. So, I just want to thank everyone for sticking around to the late afternoon. Thanks for being here today and I look forward to seeing you nice and early tomorrow. But before you go, welcome reception here at the Hilton at Zeta Bar on level four from 6:30 till 8:30 sponsored by Transurban. And we start nice and early tomorrow 8:00 AM. Come and have your coffee and then we'll see you tomorrow for some more session. Thank you all and I'll see you soon.
Exploring how data can create more efficient, sustainable, and intelligent transportation systems.
Read moreA recap of the ITS Australia Roads, Tolling & Technology 2023 conference in Sydney
Read moreMachine learning is an absolute game changer - a focus on new technologies across road operations
Read moreMembership of ITS Australia offers a range of benefits
