CCAM at Scale: Why Infrastructure Matters

Europe is preparing for the next generation of large-scale demonstrations of Connected, Cooperative and Automated Mobility (CCAM). That is both necessary and timely. After years of successful research, the challenge is no longer simply to put more automated vehicles on European roads, but to demonstrate how automated mobility can work safely and reliably across the diverse road environments in which those vehicles will actually operate.

But as we move from research projects to demonstrations at scale, there is a risk that we ask the wrong question.

The challenge is not simply how to put more automated vehicles on European roads. It is how to make automated mobility work safely, reliably and economically across the extraordinarily diverse road environments in which those vehicles will actually operate.

For much of the past decade, the debate around automated driving has periodically been reduced to a choice between two competing visions: increasingly capable vehicles able to understand virtually any environment through onboard technology, or increasingly sophisticated infrastructure supporting those vehicles from the roadside.

Experience suggests that this is a false choice.

Research undertaken through European CCAM projects which the International Road Federation participates, increasingly points towards a hybrid model. Vehicle capabilities will continue to advance rapidly. But targeted improvements to Physical, Digital and Communication Infrastructure (PDI) can make those capabilities safer, more reliable and deployable across a wider range of operating conditions.

This should have important consequences for the way Europe designs its next generation of large-scale demonstrations.

From vehicle demonstrations to system demonstrations

It goes without saying that automated vehicles do not operate in a vacuum. They operate on roads. Those roads contain markings, signs, junctions, work zones and traffic signals. They increasingly also contain digital representations of those assets, dynamic traffic information, roadside sensing, positioning services and communications infrastructure. Each of these components can influence what an automated vehicle can reliably perceive, anticipate and ultimately do.

Recent European pilots have conclusively demonstrated that infrastructure-based sensing can improve detection where vehicle perception encounters predictable limitations: an obscured vulnerable road user, a merging vehicle beyond the immediate field of view, workers inside a temporary work zone or an approaching emergency vehicle.

Combining infrastructure and onboard perception can allow an automated vehicle to anticipate an event earlier. Reliable digital information can warn vehicles about hazards they cannot yet see. Infrastructure-supported positioning can provide resilience where GNSS performance deteriorates. Accurate information about temporary road configurations can prevent the physical and digital road from telling the vehicle two different stories.

CCAM infrastructure at scale does not have to mean infrastructure everywhere

Europe has 27 Member States, hundreds of road authorities and operators, widely differing investment cycles and enormous variation in the quality and digital maturity of its networks. The automotive technology cycle inevitably moves faster.

But this does not mean that infrastructure choices can be deferred until automated vehicles are ready.

Nor does it mean that Europe needs to equip every kilometre of road with expensive roadside technology. A much more pragmatic pathway is available to us.

Start with the foundations. High-quality and machine-readable markings and signs, reliable digital road information and consistent representation of changes to the road environment are investments which benefit conventional road users as much as automated vehicles. They are, in that sense, no-regret investments.

Then target additional digital and communication capabilities where they provide demonstrable value: complex intersections, vulnerable road-user conflict points, work zones, tunnels, strategic freight routes or locations where infrastructure-based perception can compensate for known visibility limitations.

Only where demand, safety benefits and economic justification warrant it should Europe progress towards more extensively enabled corridors and automated mobility zones.

The question therefore isn’t how quickly can we upgrade every road in Europe? It is: where does infrastructure support materially improve the safety, reliability or deployability of automated mobility and what is the minimum level of support required to achieve it.

Deployment is part of competitiveness

Europe’s automotive industry faces formidable global competition. Supporting innovation in automated driving, AI and vehicle technology is therefore an entirely legitimate strategic priority. But competitiveness cannot be measured only by the sophistication of the vehicle. It must eventually be measured by our ability to deploy the technology.

A vehicle capable of highly automated operation under carefully defined conditions is one achievement. A mobility system capable of supporting that vehicle reliably across cities, motorways, temporary work zones, different road operators and national borders is another.

Europe needs both.

Previous CCAM programmes have already shown that moving from successful pilots to scalable deployment depends on interoperability, common operational procedures, predictable digital information and coordination across infrastructure and vehicle systems.

A large-scale demonstration that primarily scales the number of vehicles without simultaneously testing the conditions necessary for their deployment risks answering yesterday’s question at tomorrow’s scale.

Putting the road back into the CCAM roadshow

The next phase of European CCAM research represents an opportunity to move beyond proving individual technologies towards demonstrating a deployable European mobility system.

Doing so does not require delaying automotive innovation while Europe waits for its infrastructure to catch up. It requires recognising that vehicle readiness and infrastructure readiness are interdependent and developing them accordingly.

Our projects have given us increasingly sophisticated tools to classify infrastructure support, assess road readiness, understand Operational Design Domains and prioritise investment. They have also demonstrated infrastructure-supported functions under real-world conditions.

The logical next step is to test those relationships at scale, alongside the vehicles they are intended to support.

Europe should certainly continue investing in better automated vehicles.  But if our objective is large-scale automated mobility, we also need to understand the roads on which they will drive.

That is what the next generation of CCAM demonstrations should demonstrate.

international road federation IRF