Annual Report 2008 of the Advisory Group for Transportec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/advisory-groups/transport-2008-report… · The first written report by the TAG was delivered in

1

Second Report

by the Transport Advisory Group

on the Development of the 7th Framework Programme

in the Thematic Area of Transport (including Aeronautics)

Brussels, December 2008

Transport Advisory Group Annual Report 2008

2


3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 4

2. Membership ............................................................................................ 4

3. Method of Work ...................................................................................... 5

4. Structure and Continuity of the Framework Programme ............................... 6

5. Observations and Advice .......................................................................... 7

5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7

5.2. General comments on the work programmes ................................................................... 7

5.3. Horizontal Activities (TPT) .......................................................................................... 11

5.4. Sustainable Surface Transport ........................................................................................ 13

5.5. Aeronautics and Air Transport ....................................................................................... 18

5.6. Looking beyond 2010..................................................................................................... 20

5.7. International cooperation................................................................................................ 22

6. Expected activities for the Transport Advisory Group in 2009 ..................... 23

6.1. Outline of the 2009 activities ......................................................................................... 23

6.2. Evaluation of calls in 2007 and 2008 ............................................................................. 24

6.3. Contributing to the midterm review ............................................................................... 24

6.4. Provisional plan of meetings in 2009 and date of third report ....................................... 24

Annex 1.................................................................................................... 27

Transport Advisory Group (TAG) members during reporting period ...................................... 27

Annex 2.................................................................................................... 29

Issues for opinion of TAG for WP10 ........................................................................................ 29


4

1. Introduction

The present Transport Advisory Group (TAG) was established in 2006 to provide “consistent

and consolidated” advice to the Commission services which are responsible for developing

the “Transport (including Aeronautics)” Theme of the “Cooperation” Specific part of the the

7th

Framework Programme (7FP) within the structure as defined and approved by the

Parliament and the Council for the duration of the programme.

Advice should be provided on strategy, relevant objectives and scientific and technological

priorities, and the topics on which proposals are to be invited. The Advisory Group is

required to submit a written input to the Commission on a yearly basis, which will be used in

the preparation of the annual work programme.

The first written report by the TAG was delivered in July 2007 and advised on priorities for

the annual work programme (WP) for 2008 and the contents of the calls implementing this

WP. This second annual report covers the TAG’s cooperation with the Commission since

the first report, addressing the next phase of the implementation of the 7FP.

The perspective for the work of the TAG and for the advice provided during meetings and

consolidated in the report has been that no new projects would be funded before 2010, but the

first calls for proposals for that year are planned to be published in mid-2009.

2. Membership

It is fundamental to the understanding of the work of the Group that members are appointed

and participate in the Group in their individual capacity. The research fields covered by the

Group are broad, and while members specifically commit themselves to provide advice in

their relevant fields of expertise they are also expected to discuss “horizontal” research issues

to the best of their ability and in the best interest of the research community.

Members are recruited from university research, other public and private research

organizations, industry, consulting organizations and public administrations with research

responsibilities. The first membership was recycled as of 1 September 2008. Four new

members were appointed to replace members who had left the group, while the appointment

was renewed for the rest of the Group. A list of current members is attached as Annex I.

The chairmanship of the Group changed in March 2008, when Niko Wijnolst left the Group

in order to accept new professional assignments and was replaced by Prof. George

Giannopoulos, head of the National Institute of Transport of Greece.

The Group has appointed four of its members to act along with the Chair as a Steering

Committee that cooperates with the Commission services in planning and structuring the

meetings and discussing operational as well as some strategic issues in the context of

facilitating and optimizing the function of the Group and its advise. The current members of


5

the Steering Committee are: Mr. Jorgen Christensen, Ms. Francesca Sanna-Randacio, Mr.

Andrew McNaughton, and Mr. Dieter Schmitt. Mr. Christensen serves also as rapporteur for

the TAG.

3. Method of Work

The work of the TAG is based on three annual meetings. After the delivery in July 2007 of

the written advice for WP 2008 the TAG held its third 2007- meeting on 18 December 2007.

The three meetings in 2008 were held on 6 March, 3-4 July and 6-7 November.

The December 2007 meeting focused firstly on the response to the calls for the 2007 Work

Programme and the result of the evaluation of the proposals. The Group then received

information about the 2008 Work Programme, which was due to be published a few days

later. Both topics were discussed with a view to how the advisory role of the TAG could be

facilitated and discharged to the satisfaction of both the TAG and the Commission services.

The TAG was given a preview of the 2009 Work Programme and the Chairman presented his

thoughts about more effective use of the TAG meetings.

In the March 2008 meeting the TAG received extensive briefings about the expected research

issues of the work programme under planning. It was clear by then that there would not be a

2009 WP and that the next WP would be implemented on funding becoming available in

2010 after publication and first calls in mid-2009. Following-up on the previous meeting’s

deliberations the TAG discussed and agreed on a reorientation of its method of work. Past

experience had been that the time available for discussion and consolidation of the TAG’s

advice to the Commission had been insufficient. Future meetings should assign issues to be

discussed in subgroups followed by presentation and discussion by the entire TAG of the

outcomes of these subgroup discussions. The subgrouping would follow the main structure of

the transport theme: Aeronautics and Air Transport (AAT), Sustainable Surface Transport

(SST), and Horizontal Activities (HA).

Following the March meeting Commission services prepared a consolidated list of “Issues

for opinion of TAG for WP10” (attached as Annex II) which was circulated in advance of the

July 2008 meeting of TAG, and members were asked to indicate to which subgroup they

would prefer to be assigned.

The July 2008 meeting included briefings by the Commission services on “EU Climate

policy and EU Transport research “, “JTI Clean Sky Status “ and “JTI Hydrogen and fuel

cells”. Most of the time of the two days of the July 2008 meeting was spent on discussing,

first in the subgroups, then in plenum, the reactions and responses of the TAG to the “issues

paper” prepared by the Commission. Many members had in advance announced their

subgroup of preference, and discussions concentrated on the WP 2010 issues, postponing the

discussion of issues for WP 2011 and beyond to the next meeting. The new working method

was rated an improvement although the absence of many members made it less effective than

it otherwise might have been.


6

Following the July 2008 meeting the answers collected to the issues paper were consolidated

and circulated to members in preparation for the 3rd

and last meeting. of the year.

In the November 2008 meeting the TAG continued discussing its opinions and response on

the “issues paper”, reviewing and adjusting the results of the July meeting and responding to

the issues for WP 2011, 2012, 2013 and beyond. In the course of this meeting Commission

Services also gave briefings about “Results of FP7 Calls”, an “Update on WP2010”,

“Maritime communication”, “Information on ERA/ERANET” and on “INCO (international

cooperation) strategy”.

4. Structure and Continuity of the Framework Programme

The role of the TAG must respect the inherent permanence of the structure and funding of the

7th

framework programme (2007-2013) and of the specific programme for research in the

Transport theme on which the TAG is mandated to advise the relevant Commission services.

FP7 as adopted and approved by Parliament and Council in 2006 has a total budget of € 50.5

billion through its 8 years’ duration, including € 32.4 billion for research cooperation in 10

distinct thematic areas. Transport (including Aeronautics) is one such theme with a funding of

€ 4,2 billion.

The transport theme has three subthemes: Air Transport and Aeronautics, Sustainable

Surface Transport and Galileo, for each of which the FP7 Specific Programme has laid down

a number of activities which again are subdivided into areas for the research. This

establishes the year-to-year permanence and continuity of the programme, within which the

Commission must establish annual programmes of work. They consist essentially of calls for

proposals for research on specified topics, which over the years form a logical sequel

intended to fill the needs for knowledge that can contribute to the strategic development of

European transport.

Advising the Commission services, i.e. the relevant units of DG TREN and DG RES, on how

best to tackle the challenge of developing the annual work programmes is the basic role of the

TAG. Suggesting priorities and sequencing the activation of research within and between the

research areas, identifying new research needs within areas, recommending practices for

dissemination of research results and responding to the Commission’s needs for opinions on

their planning for the work programme is the limited, but useful role of the TAG. The field in

which the TAG can operate is bounded on one side by predefined politically approved

activities and their equally predefined areas for research and on the other hand by the final

selection of specific topics for research as specified in the annual work programme.


7

5. Observations and Advice

5.1. Introduction

This section of the report contains the TAG’s responses and recommendations on issues

relating to the Work Programme for the FP7 Transport Theme in 2010 and later. They build

on discussions within the TAG on the questions posed by the Commission’s staff who are

responsible for the Work Programme, and on deliberations on the many presentations by the

Commission staff of the content of specific activities and research areas under active

consideration for the WP.

5.2. General comments on the work programmes

Coherence, redundancies and reader friendliness

The structure of the WP is logical and coherent, but also abstract and complex and not very

friendly to the many end users (i.e. researchers) who do not read the full text beyond their

section of interest. Easy improvements of the readability could be obtained by

Including the topics’ levels in the consolidated tables

Informing on the budget available for each area and the expected number of projects

foreseen to be funded per area

Making it clear to readers why areas reappear from year to year although most are not

included in the calls of the year in question.

Summarizing the topics of the WP in a final integrated table, where the DG responsible

for each topic is identified in a separate column.

Indicating more clearly the topics that can be addressed in cooperation with other

programmes (e.g. Intelligent Energy Europe)

Redundancy and overlaps in the Work Programmes is a concern. Therefore:

More clarity is needed on activities under funding schemes “Coordination and Support

Action - Coordinating” and “Coordination and Support Action - Supporting”, as they

may refer to similar questions.

Avoiding the abuse of jargon which results in wording that appears in several Topic

descriptions and creates overlapping of project proposals - and eventually of research, if

funded - for these Topics.

Relegate detailed Topic description to one or more separate annexes, leaving only the

brief 2-3 lines Topic characterizations in the main text under the relevant areas and

abbreviate texts of areas which are void of Topics


8

Dissemination and public awareness

Impacts depend on implementations of research results. The Transport Research Knowledge

Centre (TRKC) is intended to play an important role for the dissemination of the results of

FP research, but it is not sufficient and needs to be improved further. Its main shortcomings

include:

Little information reaches a wider non-scientific public.

It is hardly known by many of those, i.e. the end users (practitioners and professionals), who

should benefit most from knowing about the research results.

Researchers preparing proposals and looking for results of previous research will in many

cases search in vain, as summaries of previous projects are very short (less than one page

per project) while in many cases the final reports of the projects are simply missing.

The Commission is generally not informed about any progress after finalization of a

project. Such information is, however, needed to avoid later repeats and as a base for new

programme layouts.

In some sectors like in aeronautics, the TRKC is not an issue, as the end users - i.e. the

aeronautics companies - are directly involved in the projects. In others, typically public

sectors, the gap between research and practice tends to widen when results become available

and practical testing should be considered.

Broad public awareness of the FP and its results is an important aim for the Commission and

is seen by the TAG as having at least four objectives:

- to raise the awareness of the general public of the improvements to transport services that

become available through the results of research supported by the Commission;

- to guide and advise decision and policy makers on the implementation potentials of new

research;

- to motivate young engineers and researchers as well as those still in the schools by

making them aware of future professional possibilities; and

- to improve the transparency of on-going research for the Universities, where the

involvement with and use of such research work is fundamental for an “optimized future

European education system”.

To serve these objectives some simple actions could be implemented:

FP projects could be obliged - by their contract

to prepare specific materials for TRKC, such as

- a 5 - 10 page executive summary for the whole project;


9

- suggestions on follow-up to the project and description of “future research needs”,

which could serve as an input for identifying Topics in future Work Programs;

- recommendations for implementation - particularly on policy-oriented research,

which could help to bridge the gap between research and policy making;

- short description of related research projects funded under other programs, which

could have been identified during the research;

to communicate their results through national organizations

to communicate their results to target organizations

There may be a need for a portal/data base where results could be lodged and the web page of

completed research projects accessed as in a public library. If necessary, access could be

restricted to those with a real interest. Best practice should be to ensure projects are structured

so as to address both generic and product specific issues separately to facilitate dissemination.

The suggestion is for a Support Action to facilitate this, possibly in one of the research

centers or a scientific society.

Also worthy of consideration, though more demanding, in order to achieve a better

dissemination and use of the results of the research are actions such as:

a. Requiring from policy oriented projects that they offer websites and presentations which

are comprehensible by the general public and the media, and in order to achieve this, to

perform surveys and obtain opinions from the public;

b. Offering articles to widespread sector publications, e.g. automobile club periodicals and

the free magazines published for rail and air transport passengers

c. Offering presentations of most significant results of completed projects in special sessions

of recurring international transport conferences

d. A “knowledge pool” – i.e. a web based database providing information for training

purposes – could be formed by projects based on the experience and work results of the

programme.

e. Including in future calls some topics on the preparation of publicity, training and focused

demo materials designed to reach different target groups such as

local, national and European politicians

driving schools and local/regional advisory citizens’ initiatives;

infrastructure and traffic system operators;

students attending Master and PhD courses and young researchers

f. Research projects with strong university involvement should have a requirement for such

an “outreach” activity. These could be aligned with similar National awareness and

developmental activities.

g. To stimulate young researchers to develop their interest and address new ideas, the

Transport Community should be asked to develop a list of topics suitable for submission

to the IDEAS Programme.


10

Finally, to accommodate the perceived needs of the Commission for better ex post evaluation

of the use and impact of the results the TAG has the following specific proposals:

Structure the information that is due to the EU so as to be useful for statistical use.

Include a contractual obligation for a late follow-up review to be delivered at some agreed

time after project closure.

Introduce, if possible (!), a new impact monitoring system beyond the existing project

monitoring done by the Commission’s project officers

Expected Impacts and policy objectives

The specification of “Expected impacts” is important for proper ex-post evaluation of

research projects and in the case of the typical FP projects there are two sides to this:

the requirements as formulated in the WP and

the claims made in the proposals.

Both need to be defined in measurable terms. In terms of the work programme this should be

provided by the stakeholders in each area

In the WP, the “expected impacts” as described at the area level seem quite sufficient, but it

must be ascertained that the objectives in the topics specifications support these expectations.

Project proposals will generally aim to fulfill topic specifications and take for granted that

this will satisfy the area level expected impacts. This often results in their descriptions of

expected impacts to be promotional and too general and therefore difficult to use for ex-post

analysis. Applicants should be encouraged to identify more concrete, modest impacts, and

evaluators should value those proposals which make an effort to adequately describe them

and judge them.

Post project achievements should be described in terms of meeting these impact targets.

At present the expected impact is almost exclusively seen as potential improvements of a

service, a technology or the market impact of a product. Additional consequences, like the

use of European test facilities, motivation and use of young researchers are not included as

main impacts and the latter may even be considered a liability. For universities a relevant

success criterion might well be the number of supervised and successfully completed PhD

dissertations linked to EU projects.

Expected impacts of Commission funded RTD must to a large extent reflect and support the

Commission’s long term policy proposals as communicated In White and Green Papers.

Ideally, these papers should identify the contribution that the policy area in question

(transport, energy, environment and education/training) should expect from RTD. That would

make it easier to identify topics for research that address these expectations and needs in

future work programmes.

To compensate for the lack of such identified demands WPs should mention all relevant

policy objectives for transport and related policy areas such as energy, environment and

regional development. A concise and separate chapter on this perspective for the WP could

also reduce the need for such references in subordinate activity-level texts in the WP.


11

Projects accepted for funding by FP7 should take these objectives into consideration and

include in their implementation plans specific actions that will aim to meet one or more of

these objectives.

In Air transport these policy-derived needs for research are clearly defined through the

ACARE SRAs and therefore included in the Work Programme. The question may be whether

they are adequately understood by the evaluators. The challenge may be to ensure that the

guidelines keep up with evolving policy

5.3. Horizontal Activities (TPT)

Defining “horizontal” activities

The Transport theme, on which TAG is advising the Commission services charged with

developing the research programme, has three subthemes: Aeronautics and Air Transport,

Sustainable Surface Transport and GALILEO, and most of the work programme consists of

RTD activities directed at one of these subthemes with research topics defined within the

formal structure of activities and subordinated areas of research as described in chapter 4

above. However, this structure cannot contain all the strategic research needs within the

subthemes and a number of topics, must be defined as “cross-cutting” activities.

In a similar manner, - and sometimes difficult to distinguish from the “cross-cutting”

activities- , a not insignificant number of important problems in need of RTD within the

strategic priorities of the formal specific programme are common to or involving in

interactive ways more than one mode of transport and/or subtheme. They are addressed in

the family of projects which are called “horizontal”.

However, horizontal activities can be difficult to specify at the topic level. This may be part

of the reason why some calls do not attract proposals at all or do not attract proposals which

obtain approval. When the definition of a topic does not convey precisely enough the

objective of the call, the resulting proposals may easily miss the mark. Expert assistance to

define the topic might help. It might also help to establish closer links with the FP7

cooperation theme on Socio-Economic Sciences and the Humanities.

Categories of “horizontal” topics

The horizontal activities seem well suited for projects where enhanced collaboration with the

national and regional level could beneficial for all transport modes.

To be considered in particular are topics with focus on demonstration activities,

including questions concerning door-to door personal mobility (e.g. a follow-up to

CIVITAS reaching more cities and paying more attention to local specificities) and total

chain facilitation for freight transport. The incremental development of a European

intermodal public transport system (increasingly linking the main metropolitan areas at

the national and EU level) could be another excellent realm for such collaboration.


12

Topics with a strong cross-border dimension could also be considered (research in line

with INTEREG activities). Topics here could include security issues, freight logistics, and

exchange of best practices on passenger transport as well as the development of tools for

better quantification, assessment and transfer of the socio-economic impacts of best

practices across countries and across modes. It must be kept in mind that the

implementation process is an important dimension of “success stories”.

Standardization issues – particularly in the realm of security- could probably gain the

interest of many national programs (this could include the pending question of

harmonizing security levels among transport modes according to objective and coherent

security criteria at the urban and interurban levels). The same applies to the areas of

connectivity and interoperability of transport systems.

Collaboration of EU and national programs could also aim at better dissemination of research

results within countries, and result in increasing public awareness.

Research in support of transport policy which is missing from the “ordinary” single

subtheme/ single mode of transport programmes could be considered for horizontal activities:

Energy and the environment (energy efficiency, further clarifying actual performance of

different transport modes under different operating conditions).

Training of developers, stakeholders and users.

Implementation of research results in TPT (non-technological) areas.

Improved transport demand management (with a focus on soft measures) and

personalization/customization of transport services

Other more specific topics, which could be considered, are:

Applications for intermodal and cross-border transport of dangerous goods and high-

value goods.

Monitoring and routing of goods.

Accessibility of the transport system (TEN-T, major terminals and nodes, ports…).

New production concepts towards personalized cars and transportation systems.

Interfacing with SST and AA and with other thematic areas

Many of the above topics and topic groups could be addressed within AAT or SST

subthemes for financing purposes, but the WP should be structured so that most non-

technological cross-cutting activities, such as

- Human factors

- Simulation and modeling

- Training

- Business modeling and exploitation and

- Socio-economics and transport policy

become included within the horizontal activities, to make it more user-friendly.


13

As financing/management would not change, a summary table at the end of WP2010 should

clarify the administrative dependence of the topics.

TAG suggests that future programmes for the Transport theme exploit possibilities for

defining horizontal activities jointly with other themes in the Cooperation and other FP7

Programmes, e.g.:

Area 7.1.1.2 “Greening of Air Transport Operations” with Environment

Area 7.1.5.1 “Aircraft Security” and Area 7.1.5.2 “Operational Security” with Security

Area 7.2.1.3 “Socio-Economic Issues” with Socio-Economics

Area 7.2.3.4 “Clean Urban Transport” with Environment and Energy

The People Programme could address some research needs on training priorities and methods

identified in transport. Aspects of dissemination and public awareness with events such as

“research at nights”, held annually, might also be addressed.

Topics for 2010 WP

The TAG suggests that for TPT more frequent use should be made of the “Collaborative

Project scheme rather than “Coordination and Support Action”. As the budget for TPT is low,

the number of topics should be reduced in order to enable the implementation of this shift.

Many of the above research areas might be adopted on WP2010. In addition the TAG finds

that socio-economic research has been poorly addressed under the horizontal activities in

WP2007 and WP2008 and recommends that this is rectified in WP2010. Topic examples are:

Differences in traveler behavior across European countries and regions.

Mobility needs of special groups (elderly, illiterates, e-illiterates, disabled…), aiming at

creating more inclusive transport systems.

Financing of inclusive transport services (subsidies…).

Incentives and policies for gathering and maintaining transportation content and services

for particular user groups, for which the market does not suffice.

Impact of European environmental policy on the global competitiveness of the EU

transport industry (manufacturers and all the related services)

Impact of transport innovation on the global competitiveness of major EU industrial

sectors, including a preliminary evaluation of the actual impact of travel costs and

performance on the global competitiveness of those industry sectors.

5.4. Sustainable Surface Transport


14

For the subtheme “Sustainable Surface Transport” the Commission services requested TAG

to provide advice in particular regarding the challenges, the emphasis and the focus foreseen

for the next work programme, based on the briefings and presentations given to the TAG.

These issues were discussed in-depth in the SST subgroup of the TAG, and the outcome,

which was made available to the Commission staff after being approved by the TAG plenum,

is summarized below.

Challenges and emphasis

Key problems in selecting the challenges derive from the importance of maintaining balances:

Balancing the aims of research on one topic against their consequences for other areas

Balancing a focus on one transport mode (co-modality) against solutions also involving other

modes (inter-modality)

Balancing the needs of solutions that are green and safe and smart against single solutions that

often impact other goals negatively.

Examples

Cargo transport needs achieved by train at night interfere with aims of environment

improvements (noise)

Increased speed of transport requires more energy and counteracts energy saving aims

A central distribution terminal (smart solution) increases traffic in the surrounding area

(negative environmental impact)

Solutions to these problems of balance may be:

to direct research efforts to improve links between transport modes

to insist on a detailed consideration of limitations and constrains in any transport

application (beyond what is required today)

to ask larger areas to be covered in one application, to include interaction and avoid

fragmentation into contradicting insular solutions

to require research to come up with solution paths, do not foresee and propose them in the

texts of the call.

to request “optimized integration” (green, safe and smart) in any one transport application

Regarding emphasis in the 2010 WP the group is of the opinion that:

the emphasis of the programme should be altered, and specifically that

the concept “Green” should be defined

To implement this emphasis the WP should include:

- (again) research on multimodal transport

- (again) research on transport corridors

- research on cargo issues

- topics that have green/smart/safe results in one solution


15

- studies on careful transport planning, which put smoothness (no waiting times) and fuel

savings (moderate speeds) before speed. (Just-in-time delivery can be done by good

planning without fuel-intensive top speed at the last moment).

- Research on proper calculation of CO2 emissions as base for reliable and comparable CO2

footprint estimations

The SST section of the work programme can be improved and become more attractive to the

research community by understanding and respecting the needs

to balance top-down versus bottom-up topic definitions, and

to introduce more flexibility while maintaining objectives.

Notes:

Larger initiatives (level 2 topics) have to be top-down

In the IDEAS-Programme of FP7 researchers can quite freely suggest a topic, i.e. bottom up

The long-standing COST Programme (Cooperation in Science and Technology) supported by the

European Commission is bottom-up

It is the opinion of the TAG that SST projects in WP2010 should preferably be level 1, i.e.

bottom-up with no specification in the topic description of an expected approach to the

research tasks. It is at the same time important that the topic descriptions clearly

communicate why this research is needed, i.e. which are the voids in current knowledge that

proposals must aim to fill.

It is also of importance that all projects are required to analyze the market needs and direct

their efforts to serve these needs. It might prove useful to reduce the size of the projects to a

maximum of € 3.0 mill., as this would provide for projects which are smaller, faster moving

and easier to manage.

Attracting newcomers and new partnerships

Writing a proposal according to current requirements is a demanding task:

Project proposals are difficult to write, especially for SME’s or newcomers

Note:

This often leads to the use of professional “proposal writers” who have to be funded and drain

money from the project applicants’ own available funding

The goal to attract newcomers may be served by:

Shortening the amount of pages to write

Requiring that some “new” partner (who has not yet participated in Framework projects)

is always included. However, this may lead to inviting partners to primarily serve as

window-dressing.

Requiring that a partner from a “new” EU member state is always included. However,

this may also lead to the adoption of window-dressing partners.


16

Note:

The European commission does not specify SME members or “new” countries” per programme,

but tries to achieve a certain overall level of such participants

On the suggested Topics for the 2010 WP

For the SST subtheme next work programme the TAG discussions have focused on three

major areas:

a. Electrification of Road Transport.

b. Ecological Innovations in Waterborne Transport, and

c. Freight Transportation by Rail

The observations and advice on these areas are summarized below.

Electrification of Road Transport

There is an urgency for reducing CO2-emission in urban areas; among other means by the

rapid introduction of electric cars which have also a range extending beyond the urban zone.

This requires research (by way of priority) on:

low-cost, long-life batteries of high energy density and power, far beyond what is on the

market today

logistics of replenishing and recharging batteries from renewable energy sources at

service points and on users’ private premises.

superior engine management, e.g. tapping motor heat, reducing motor losses, reducing

aerodynamic and tire rolling resistance

The co-existence of an internal combustion engine (ICE) with the electric motor in future

electrified cars requires research on:

downsizing opportunities for all components in the power train

alternative on-board energy generation (e.g. by solar cells)

With progress being achieved on electrification of passenger and light commercial vehicles

similar research on medium-to-heavy goods vehicle should be given high priority.

In addition, exploratory research is needed on:

the potential of using external electric energy supplied e.g. by overhead wired, i.e. the

well-known trolley principle, which could become an important innovation of future

green corridors.

robustness and capacity of supply grid systems to cater for bi-directional routing of

electric energy for a large and variable number of units over extended networks

Very high torque forces may occur with heavy electrical vehicles which may require research

on


17

effective torque management systems for the protection of vehicle components, and

design of pavements for roads and streets which are threatened with rapid destruction

from the interaction with vehicles of this type.

Ecological Innovations in Waterborne Transport

The waterborne industry is under a strong pressure to reduce CO2-emissions and seek

innovations to regain competitive advantages. Research is needed on

improvements to the management of on-board energy, including:

o re-use of hot exhaust

o reduction of engine losses

o the hydrodynamics of the hull

o autonomous on-board sources of energy from power sails and solar cells

methods to reduce air pollution from use fuel oil in ports and on their approaches, to

include use of suitable on-board energy sources e.g. natural gas

The above topic areas will also apply to vessels for coastal and inland waterway shipping for

which the ICE under some operating conditions is an undesirable power source while power

from energy based on fuel cells is a realistic and desirable alternative.

The costs of meeting environmental regulations including noise standards drive the business

of ship repair, maintenance and recycling abroad to countries with low wages. Thus, research

is also needed on:

environmentally and economically sustainable methods with a low demand for labor for

the industries undertaking repair, maintenance and recycling of maritime vessels.

Intrusive species are increasingly transferred in waste and ballast water on global maritime

transports, partially as a result of climate change. Research in this area might be undertaken

through joint calls with DG ENV and might include:

existing and foreseeable requirements for treatment of waste and ballast water, and

projections of consequences of the intrusion of foreign species if further action is not

taken.

Freight Transportation by Rail

Despite the obvious need for massive research-based development this topic area seems of

little appeal to European transport researchers if one judges from the number and kind of

proposals submitted in the relevant Topics in previous calls. The Group has noted with

concern that there was no proposal at all on the topic of “next generation freight train” which

was opened in the latest call. Commercial, social and political issues, including national

regulations, all contribute generally to slowing down the implementation of potential

inventions in this field although positive examples do exist. The rail freight market is still


18

very fragmented and compartmentalized and risk-aversive. For reasons of cost, old rolling

stock is repaired rather than replaced. But getting capacity on rail lines in competition with

high speed and high frequency passenger trains will require freight trains with similar speed

and stopping capabilities, which amounts to asking for entirely new technologies.

WP2010 should aim for research to enhance the performance of freight trains so that it is

comparable to that of passenger trains. Three priority topics are proposed:

I. Design criteria for higher performing freight trains, capable of making effective use of

the space available on the rail network, i.e. ensuring smooth inter-operability with fast

passenger trains and without limiting the overall network response time.

II. Specifications for intelligent freight units and wagons in rail transport, which may

allow significant improvements in the logistics; and

III. Train or ship based logistics schemas and networks to enhance the availability and

reliability of the services.

A fourth topic seems needed which would address well the objectives of this and the previous

area (i.e. “innovations for waterborne transport”) and thus be common to both:

IV. Building effective interfaces and eco sensitive logistics networks between rail or sea

modes and other modes.

This element of the WP2010 will aim to link properly with current research as well as the

intended future research on intermodality planned for 2011.

5.5. Aeronautics and Air Transport

Much of the discussion by TAG on the 2010 issues for the Aeronautics and Air Transport

subtheme was addressing the question about where to place the emphasis among the six

Activities (Greening, Time Efficiency, Customer Satisfaction, Cost Efficiency, Protection

and Pioneering), how to distribute Areas an Topics on Level 1 and Level 2, and which

funding maxima to assign to the two levels.

Usage and shares of “Level 1” and “Level 2” topics

The results of the first two calls seem to imply that WP2010 should give high priority to the

Activities on Greening, Cost Efficiency, and Pioneering/Disruptive Technologies, while the

Activities on Time Efficiency, Customer Satisfaction and Safety, and Protection may be

given a lower priority (maintain WP topics not yet sufficiently covered in previous Calls).

The maximum size of Level 1 projects may be maintained at € 6 million, but WP2010 might

in addition indicate how many projects will be accommodated within specified funding

bands, e.g. X up to € 2 mill. and Y up to € 6 mill. In the first call only 10 % of the proposals

were below € 2 mill. If the desired distribution on sizes was announced it might be possible to


19

get more proposals in the desired size ranges and thus better opportunities for optimizing the

use of the total available funding.

To give opportunities for the development of new technologies there is a need for a larger

number of Level 1 projects, and the current funding level seems too low to meet the actual

needs and opportunities. Finding the optimum is difficult, since it is at the same time

important to avoid the funding being spread too thinly over too many projects, which will

reduce the overall efficiency of the AAT programme.

Guidelines might also be useful for obtaining a reasonable number of partners in the smaller

projects – e.g. in the pioneering projects – which will prevent diluting the funding at the level

of the individual project.

Level 2 projects, which integrate multidisciplinary knowledge and technologies typically

from Level 1 size projects from within or outside FP7, must be clearly defined and well

specified. Each call should have budget to allow 4 – 5 such projects of up to € 60 mill. each.

There is an indicative flow with time from Level 1 through Level 2 to Level 3 projects and

the direct synergy/complementarity should therefore not be an issue. In any call or

programme there will be similar themes pursued by technologies with different maturity and

readiness levels. The issue which needs to be addressed relates to the possible gaps in the

development and integration of new technology to be used in next generation major

initiatives.

In the context of the “Clean Sky” JTI, the need for Level 1 and Level 2 projects must still be

signaled. Their current balance is 50-50. In the overall AAT programme, and if new funds

can be accessed, the possibility of increasing the proportion of Level 1 projects should be

considered.

Roles of networks

As currently structured, Networks of Excellence are not well suited to Aeronautics.

To allow “Networks of Excellence” to evolve, Thematic Networks should be reintroduced as an

instrument to allow cooperation to grow and - where relevant - develop into more durable fully

integrated Networks of Excellence. The current legal requirements up front are a barrier.

For example, there is a university network for aircraft design, “European Workshops on Aircraft

Design Education” (EWADE), which in its current form is concentrating on educational matters in

aircraft design. This network could be encouraged to develop to cope with NACRE (“New Aircraft

Concepts Research”) type research activities, not always led by industry. Eventually there may be the

basis for a Network of Excellence in this area.

These networks should be fully open to the ideas of the proposers and so a bottom up approach is

recommended. A maximum size of €5m is suggested.

The use of “coordination and support actions”

The Group is of the opinion that the CSA funding scheme may be used throughout the

Activities of the programme without preference for topics of any special orientation: social


20

economy, policy or technology. A reasonable balance between the three pillars should be

maintained. Guidance on particular issues arising from needs identified in achieving the goals

of the fundamental Strategic Research Agenda could be included in the relevant work

programmes.

5.6. Looking beyond 2010

New research activities

The air transport “out of the box” exercise was useful in getting a wider appreciation of future

research needs and should be extended across all areas of transport.

In the wider transport context topics such as integrated co-modal solutions for

commercial/industrial logistics, green zones, management of dedicated transport corridors,

monitoring and tracking of dangerous/sensitive goods, manufacturing technologies and

processes for future transport vehicles and simulation for design, development, training and

impact analysis of new transportation systems should be addressed.

Specifically for the Aeronautics and Air Transport Subtheme the research areas of the

Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) and its addendum not addressed so far must be considered

and included as far as possible.

In their discussions TAG members also proposed the following more specific Topic fields:

Research on methodology and systems for training, considering the evolution of

technologies

Sustainability: The comprehensive evaluation of different transport modes (for Pax and

Cargo) including analyses of the impact of each mode on

- primary energy consumption

- environmental impact (emissions like CO2, ..and noise patterns)

- land used

Develop vision of integrated transport for passengers and freight

Integrated door to door passenger concept (incl.on demand)

Use a bottom-up approach to stimulate more revolutionary ideas on pioneering topics

like:

- zero emission transport

- zero noise transport

Transport logistics research should target:

- Intelligent vehicles and vehicle infrastructure for freight tracking and tracing,

- Enabling algorithms/ models for planning and logistics, which are available for a

broad field of users, beyond confidential systems used by large fright companies

- City logistics and distribution centers


21

e - business for “freight advisors”

Develop means (portal, databases, ..)for better visibility/accessibility of dissemination of

existing transport research results.

Taking advantage of new technologies to optimize and standardize transport data

collection among transport modes, develop common guidelines for data collection with

the following dimensions:

- More data collection efficiency

- Data reliability

- Comparability

- Legal framework for collecting data

Accelerating the change

It is the responsibility of industry to push for implementation, and JTI “Clean Sky” is a good

example of how to bridge the gap between research and implementation by maturing

technologies at Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) 5 and 6. For research projects with a

high TRL number (TRL 5 and 6) in order to stimulate the implementation these projects must

be accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis.

There is a need to push research to further exploit and investigate the relationship and

interconnection of air transport to rail and other modes of Transport.

The gaps between research and implementation should be explained/illustrated/quantified by

concrete figures – that could be a study by itself. This will help to model future scenarios and

counteract roadblock obstructing progress.

Pilot projects (TRL 7) may bridge the gap to research. End users should be involved in those

pilot projects. A “mini” Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) may assemble sufficient critical

mass to implement a new technology.

Research areas and topics of importance to SST as well as AAT

Based on the knowledge of TAG members of the state-of-the art research in both the private

and public sectors, it is proposed that the following “cross-over” topics will be of interest to

all transport modes and might be suitable for adoption on the work programmes beyond

2010:

Energy use-optimization on transport pathways of lowest energy, “green corridors”

Demand management based on studies of travel behavior.

Systems that limit administrative work (safety documentation, custom formalities,

import/export papers) and minimize the time needed for such documentation

Transfer project ideas that have proved successful on the “air mode” to the “train mode”

Passenger interfaces between air and train/vehicle for greener and more comfortable

solutions


22

Research is also needed to achieve an understanding of the true carbon and energy footprint

of different transport forms, so as to be able to inform policy on the most appropriate form or

combination of forms of transport for different purposes.

5.7. International cooperation

If used properly, International Cooperation could result in more research and money

becoming available. In general there could be cooperation with different countries on specific

topics. It is felt that in aeronautics controlled cooperation on an a la carte basis is appropriate.

Areas relating to operations and interoperability and understanding environmental impacts

e.g. noise and emissions, need to be solved on a Global basis and so should be addressed by

wide international collaboration, and developed countries thus far not considered as ICPC

(International Cooperation Partner Countries) such as USA, Canada, Australia, should be

allowed to participate in such areas, as well as in other area where there is huge potential for

a balanced cross-fertilization, such as:

- Training.

- Research management.

- Dissemination and management of the process of exploitation of results.

In areas affecting international competitiveness and technological leadership any

international collaboration should be carefully selected and the list of countries not generally

eligible as international cooperation partners (ICPC) should include China (specifically Hong

Kong), Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

Thus, generally speaking, international cooperation must be addressed more concretely and

specifically in WP2010.

The SICA (Specific International Cooperation Action) instrument should be more present,

and the possibility of international cooperation should be more specifically embedded within

a larger number of topics.

One suggestion could be to create a specific - clearly identifiable - section of the WP for all

international cooperation Topics. This section will address the issues that are of true

“international” interest, and their nature and complexity would require a wider international

joining of (research) forces. Examples of Topics here, would be

the impacts of globalization on transport networks and services,

the impacts of transport on climate change and measures to alleviate them,

the impacts on international transport activity from the global economic downturn,

best practice on issues such as congestion, safety.

However, this should not prevent the inclusion of some international cooperation elements in

selected topics, provided they are clearly identified. Also, there are specific topics on INCO

which cover the initial needs for exchanging experience on specific areas as well as

transferring knowledge to developing countries.


23

Furthermore, more clarity is needed on the countries which are eligible to participate through

international cooperation, and this must be done in each Topic. Also it is strongly suggested

to reconsider the almost complete exclusion of certain (well advanced in terms of research)

countries such as for example the USA. Their participation, as it is currently the case for

other INCO countries, would add to the quality of the results, provide European researchers

important two-way know-how transfer and bring long term network benefits. For this

approach, it is recommended to consider positively the results and recommendations of a two

year study by the Working Group on EU / US Transport Research Collaboration that was set

up by the US/TRB and ECTRI.

6. Expected activities for the Transport Advisory Group in 2009

6.1. Outline of the 2009 activities

The Group has planned three meetings 2009.

Within these meetings (and through interaction via its web based workspace) the Transport

Advisory Group is expected to continue with its basic work focus i.e. to provide concerted

recommendations and comments concerning the content of the Work Programme for FP7

calls in 2010, and 2011, and take note of recent evaluation results of various proposals.

A second major focus will be the discussion and formulation of positions regarding the

content and procedures for the planned 7th

FP mid-term review. This review is of primary

importance and relevance to the work of the Group as it is expected to have a serious impact

on the content of future calls and the Group should therefore be involved in this process from

its early stages.

Last but not least, it is also expected that during 2009, the Group and the Commission will

finalise discussions with a view of taking decisions for extending the scope and content of the

work of the TAG in 2010 and beyond. This will involve including in the Group’s agenda a

number of additional issues that are critically linked to the Group’s main focus and activity

regarding the content of FP7 research.

These additional issues may be outlined as follows:

Ways and means of for handling and promoting the R&D element of the European

Economic Recovery Plan put forward by the Commission on November 26th, 2008

(COM(2008) 800).

Further promoting International Cooperation in a number of “primary targets” of global

concern - common “problems”. Indicatively such “target” areas for International

Cooperation would be: Energy / Climate Change and Transport, congestion, effects of

globalization issues, etc.

Addressing issues of (FP7) governance and management. This involves having the Group

discuss and comment on the problems, gaps, barriers and challenges which are


24

encountered from the negotiation of projects to their handling and supervision by the

Commission services through their period of work. The aim will be to come up with

recommendations that will make these processes more expedient and efficient for the

benefit of all parties involved.

Furthering the Commission’s objective to implement the European Research Area (ERA).

This issue becomes of particular interest and importance following the recent approval by

the European Ministers of Science Council of the European Research Area (ERA) Vision

2020 document on 2 December 2008.

6.2. Evaluation of calls in 2007 and 2008

This work will consist of having the Group comment on the results, procedures followed, and

associated actions for the 2007, and 2008 FP7 calls in the field of Transport. It will be based

on details and statistical information to be provided by the Commission’s services, and will

focus on elements such as:

Coverage of all areas of the relevant initial work programmes

Gaps that exist (areas not covered)

Priorities and challenges that emerge for the subsequent calls.

It follows that the recommendations and new ideas for future calls that will emerge from this

procedure will be incorporated in the Group’s overall recommendations and proposals for

WP 2010, 2011, and beyond, and will also be incorporated in the Group’s Annual Report

2009.

6.3. Contributing to the midterm review

As mentioned already in 6.1 above, the TAG intends to discuss and make recommendations

for the FP7 mid-term review. These recommendations will be based on a detailed

presentation and data to be provided by the Commission Services, and will involve

discussion, among others, of the following issues:

Scope and extent of the changes necessary.

Major new areas to be brought in the WP2011 and beyond.

Procedural recommendations (concerning the procedures to be followed for the review).

6.4. Provisional plan of meetings in 2009 and date of third report

The Meetings of the TAG for 2009 have been planned for:

19 March, 4 June and 5-6 October.

The Annual Report of the Group for 2009 will be submitted on 31 December 2009.


25


26


27

Annex 1

Transport Advisory Group (TAG) members during reporting period

Fred ABBINK (National Aerospace Laboratory)

Angel APARICIO (CEDEX)

Andreas CONSTANTINOU (Cyprian Ministry of Communications and Works)

Jørgen CHRISTENSEN (Danish Road Directorate/RTR Facilitation)

Etienne DEVISCH (Hutchinson Europe)

Françoise DUCHÉZEAU (RATP)

George GIANNOPOULOS (Hellenic Institute of Transport) Chairman from 6-3-

2008

Jim LAWLER (Enterprise Ireland)

Annette LECHTENBÖHMER (Goodyear SA)

Andraz LEGAT (Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute)

Siv LETH (Bombardier)

Libor LOCHMAN (CER)

Guenter MARTIS (IATA)

Andrew MCNAUGHTON (Network Rail)

Giancarlo MICHELLONE (AREA Science Park Trieste)

Tatiana MOLKOVA (University of Pardubice)

Ana NORONHA (Ciência Viva)

Ric PARKER (Rolls-Royce)

Vytautas PAULAUSKAS (Klaipeda University)

Aisling REYNOLDS-FEIGHAN (University College Dublin)

Claude ROSSIGNOL (SCNF, retired)

Francesca SANNA-RANDACCIO (Università Degli Studi di Roma 'La Sapienza')

Dieter SCHMITT (Airbus S.A.S.)

Romana SLIWA (Technical University of Rzeszow)

Karin SVENSSON (Volvo)

Katalin TÁNCZOS (Budapest University of Technology and Economics)

Kirsi TIKKA (ABS Europe Ltd)

Ulrich WEIDMANN ( ETH Zürich, Inst. f. Traffic Planning and Systems)

Niko WIJNOLST (Dutch Network Maritime) Chairman until 6-3-2008

Yoram ZVIRIN (Technion – Israel Institute of Technology)

Members who have departed from TAG during the reporting period

Members who have joined TAG during the reporting period


28


29

Annex 2

Issues for opinion of TAG for WP10

(Submitted to the TAG by the Commission Services)

1. Focus 2010

General

1. Is the Work Programme structured around coherent lines and reader friendly?

2. Are there areas and ways to avoid redundancies and overlaps?

3. How can we make the best out of research results? Is Transport Research Knowledge

Center (TRKC) enough for supporting a dissemination policy?

4. Public awareness of transport research outcomes and research policy priorities may need

improvements. What is the view on how to tackle this issue? Are there specific actions

which could be of interest to address young researchers? How could skills development

and training be enhanced to foster cross-modal transport research skills on top of certainly

necessary "specialisms"?

5. Are the expected impacts clear enough to allow for an accurate evaluation of the

Framework Programme objectives, annual Work Programme outcomes or project

proposals submitted? Are there ways to do better?

6. Should there be a more specific emphasis in line with some recent Commission policy

objectives regarding environmental issues (CO² emissions, energy efficiency…) or co-

modality (especially for freight transport)?

7. What are the opportunities to be taken in the mid-term review?

Horizontal Activities (TPT-RTD)

8. Based on their knowledge of transport research and transport research policy priorities in

their own country, which are the areas where enhanced collaboration with the national

and regional level (all coordination mechanisms included, i.e. ranging from Networks of

Excellence and ERA-Net Coordination Actions to joint research priorities/programming)

could be beneficial for all transport modes?

9. Should the horizontal activities section of the WP cover policy-oriented topics of interest

to all modes of transport to provide an overall and consistent input to strategy definition

of EU-funded RTD to the transport system? Could the TAG identify and motivate

specific "hot spots" where research in support of policy-making is missing (considering

issues of IPR, export controls on security-relevant technologies, competitiveness aspects

of the European industry …)?

10. Based on the coverage of topics in WP07 and WP08 and the time lag needed to gather

first outcomes of those projects, how could the socio-economic research strand of the call

be designed? Where would the TAG see gaps or emerging transport research and

transport research policy needs?


30

11. Streamlining of the Work Programme: how could AAT and SST cross-cutting activities

be streamlined with the content of the Horizontal activities chapter to enhance

consistency?

12. What are the specific transport research and transport research policy areas where the

TAG would see opportunities for working closer with other running Themes in

Cooperation and FP7 Programmes (People, Capacities, Ideas …)?

13. Does the TAG consider that international cooperation is appropriately covered in WP08?

14. What could be the most relevant research areas and research policy priorities for New

Member States (EU12)? And for Associated Countries to FP7?

Sustainable Surface Transport

15. Regarding the principles of adding value to research at European level, do you agree with

the challenges, emphasis and focus foreseen?

16. Concerning the implementation of research at the European level:

16.1. What about bottom-up and top-down research?

16.2. How to attract newcomers and new partnerships?

16.3. How to ensure wider impacts?

16.4. How to improve balances?

Aeronautics and Air Transport

17. What Level 1 Areas/Topics have to be removed and which Level 1 Areas/Topics under

the 6 Activities (Greening, Time Efficiency, Customer Satisfaction, Cost Efficiency,

Protection, and Pioneering) have to be emphasized in order to more focus the WP? What

should be the maximum size of Level 1 projects?

18. Is the approach of defining the Level 2 Topics as “projects” with precise description of

objectives, scope and expected outcome appropriate? How many and which Level 2

Topics are needed in WP2010? What should be the maximum size of the Level 2

projects?

19. How should be the distribution of the Call budget between Level 1 and Level 2?

20. Which should be the approach in order to ensure synergy/complementarities between

Level 1, Level 2 and “Clean Sky”?

21. Should activities for “Structuring European Aeronautics Research” through Networks of

Excellence be included? How should the topics in the WP be defined, top-down (i.e.

prescribed) or bottom-up (i.e. fully open to proposers ideas)? What should be the

maximum size of the projects?

22. Should topics definied under Activities to “Support the Implementation of the

Aeronautics and Air Transport sub-theme” through Coordination and Support Actions by

preference be technical/socio-economic/policy oriented?

23. Should International Co-operation be focused on specific countries and topics, including

co-ordinated calls with the countries concerned, or should InCo rather identify broad

topics of global interest where international co-operation could bring benefits to Europe?

Or do we need both approaches?


31

2. Focus 2011, 2012, 2013 and beyond

24. What research activities do we need now for the future transport policy?

25. Concerning the implementation of research at the European level, how, to stimulate and

accelerate the change, new models, breakthroughs (technologies, concepts, models)?

26. Based on their knowledge of state-of-the-art research in both the public and private

sectors, what would be cross-over topics of interest to all transport modes? Specific

attention could be dedicated to problems related to increased energy costs for all modes,

decoupling (White Paper, before mid-term review), the reduction of transport demand

(i.e. SET plan), lead markets …

27. Could the TAG identify mutually interesting cross-cutting research areas across air

transport and surface transport modes research and communities with the aim of

maximising the impact of research funding on innovation (CARS21, climate issues...)?

Documents

Annual Report 2008 of the Advisory Group for Transportec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/advisory-groups/transport-2008-report… · The first written report by the TAG was delivered in