1 / 13

Task O9 – Harmonise VMS

Task O9 – Harmonise VMS. Domain Operations Brian Harbord, Bristol, 26 January 2006. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS. Not a ‘first priority’ Task, but… Start mid ’06, initial thoughts today Background – including lessons learnt Proposed way forward Discussion all in 15 mins….

jariah
Download Presentation

Task O9 – Harmonise VMS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS Domain Operations Brian Harbord, Bristol, 26 January 2006

  2. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • Not a ‘first priority’ Task, but… • Start mid ’06, initial thoughts today • Background – including lessons learnt • Proposed way forward • Discussion all in 15 mins…. PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  3. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • Background…. • 1960s - VMS (graphics) on strategic routes – safety • 1980s – Text/graphics VMS – congestion - traffic management • Different countries, different approach, different language. PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  4. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • Late ’80s, research on visibility, legibility • Early ’90s, EC research - VAMOS, TROPIC, etc • Start of harmonisation of standards • EN 12966 – optical performance- visibility, legibility, etc. but not common usage PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  5. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • 2000 - WERDS/DERD - ‘FIVE’ Framework for Implementation of VMS in Europe • 3 basic ‘rules’ • Use Pictograms • Follow Vienna Convention • If text, use common format PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  6. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • 2000-2004 ‘VMS Platform’ • UK lead – £150k (€200k) per annum • Lots of work – few results • Why? • No clear objective/outcome, just deliverables • No programme/No end date!! • No control!!! PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  7. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • VMS Platform.. • Library of documents • Website – but few ‘hits’ • Several meetings – networking • No (very little) agreement/acceptance • Expanding ‘FIVE’ document – too much for Directors PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  8. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • 2004: CEDR-EB asked SGT to investigate what was hampering implementation of FIVE • Claude Caubet – 3 meetings - VMS action plan • No deliberate avoidance, but… PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  9. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • Task O9 – ‘Harmonise VMS’ • Take account of …. • Mare Nostrum (M-VMS Working Group) embraces FIVE and (may) fill in gaps • UN-ECE WP1 small working group of 4 countries revision of VC on road signs and signals • SOMS IN-SAFETY 6th FP develop new pictograms and structured rules PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  10. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • Task O9 – ‘Harmonise VMS’ • Work with national VMS implementations • Develop an updated FIVE, with simple, clear advice, including a handbook with good practice examples • Disseminate and promote results PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  11. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS • Proposed way Forward • PRINCE 2 – PID • Project Initiation Document • Outcomes • Responsibilities • Programme • Draft for next PG (end March in Copenhagen)for mid year start. PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  12. Task O9 – Harmonise VMS Discussion PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

  13. Gaps identified via VMS-action • New needed pictograms for dynamic situations (see FIVE list such as "bad visibility", COST 30 and symbols for new traffic management situations such as "temporary use of hard shoulder"), • Use of speed limits, and use of lane-control signs in terms of successive gantries, • Language independent symbols (+, =, ->, …) in text messages, • Some more clear rules specifying the text structure, • A focus on a clear distinction between immediate danger warning messages (close to the event) and informative ones (upstream). PG CSRU, Bristol meeting, January 2006

More Related